<sub id="58Dk"><i id="58Dk"></i></sub>
          <dfn id="58Dk"></dfn>
              <b id="58Dk"></b>
              <th id="58Dk"></th>

              <output id="58Dk"></output>

              <thead id="58Dk"></thead>

                My dogs normally aren’t into politics but sometimes enough is enough.

                Share
                 

                What if we reversed this typical bromide and asked if there was any plausible reason they shouldn’t? Can anybody really identify any actual iron-clad principles that are applied evenly to people both inside and outside the movement that Trump has run afoul of? (Or just in general…) We could do Bill Clinton vs. David Vitter again but the more recent case is that evangelicals can’t quit an obvious pedophile despite their signature issue being about the safety and dignity of children (from their point of view). It may well cost them the senate next year but I guess that’s the price of not having to eat crow at the behest of your lessers.

                After a point, continuing to ask the question says more about liberals than anything else, like that they need to find some reason behind this because if it’s merely unthinking tribal attachment then maybe we can’t just discourse ourselves out of this.

                Share
                Lev filed this under:  

                I take it he has a book out, which I’m not going to read. But I was thinking about this dude the other day. I’ve read bits and pieces of American Psycho (enough to know that it’s a smartly made piece of nastiness but no classic) as well as the entirety of The Rules Of Attraction and Lunar Park. On the former I think the movie was better than the book because the movie cuts out most of the fat and actually seems to know who the characters are, and gives each one a third dimension that the book doesn’t. The latter is perfectly fine but a few years ago I read a similar book by a man around the same age who went to the same college but which was maybe 50 times better: How Soon Is Never? by the late Marc Spitz. Both books are semi-fictionalized novels that combine details from the life of the author with fictional plots but Spitz’s book about a damaged grown man trying desperately to bring about a reunion of the band The Smiths was surprisingly moving and totally absorbing. But that was because it was about real things: how childhood pain and disappointment lives on with us, the ways in which we delude ourselves that we can make it magically go away, and the ways in which we can ultimately learn to live with it. It’s a good book and you should read it.

                Ellis’s book is largely about the same stuff but it’s much less impactful. Partly this is because the conceit of his being menaced by the characters he created doesn’t ever really fit with the style he’s chosen for the book, but mainly it’s because Ellis basically is Patrick Bateman minus the murdering. He observes people from the outside but doesn’t really get them, and it’s not much different when he turns the lens on himself. I don’t actually feel as though I know Ellis any better after reading Lunar Park than I did before, and the personal revelations there felt more performative than anything else (admittedly I read this a decade ago so take with a grain of etc.). The book was interesting as an exercise but the emotional truth of Spitz’s book is just not there. He’s able to write reasonably well about sociopaths and spoiled nihilistic teenagers but writing honestly about normal people and plain old emotion is beyond him. Admittedly his missing the point of human behavior is done with a very pretty prose style! But that’s all he’s got.

                Also, he does seem like the type who would seek out negative blog entries so Bret, please feel free to trash us on social media if you do. We can always use the clicks!

                Also this movie is very good:

                Share
                { 1 comment }
                Lev filed this under:  

                I have this theory that the longer a person lives under a reality, the harder it is to convince them that it isn’t normal. So it’s not all that hard to convince someone who’s 25 that things are changing fundamentally, significantly harder with someone who’s 45, even harder for a 65 year old, etc. So something like the collapse of Communism would be harder for a nation that had it for 70 years (the USSR) than one that had it for 45 (East Germany). Pretty common sense idea I think, particularly if you’ve made the mistake of trying to talk to a Baby Boomer about why “just getting out there and working hard” isn’t the golden ticket that it used to be in an era of automation-related job losses, private equity stripping of companies, ridiculous college debt, etc. It just doesn’t penetrate. It’s partially just the “damn lazy kids” phenomenon that affects all generations but largely it’s that these folks formed a baseline belief about what’s possible in America during a fluke bout of mega success and that’s just how they think it still is. They think they’re delivering tough love but really you’re dealing with an entire generation of spoiled brats who largely have no fucking clue how it is for anybody else, so there’s really no point in talking to them about it after a point if they won’t listen.

                It’s basically the same with Biden, Pelosi, Hoyer and the others. To live for seven and a half decades in which there is no significant threat to the republic is the sort of thing that sets a powerful baseline, and now that we actually have one they simply can’t believe it. They don’t understand people who are FREAKED THE FUCK OUT because they fundamentally believe that this is just a blip and the greater danger is in alienating Trump-Obama voters that might return in 2020 by overreaching. There’s no empathy there for their own supporters and that’s why what they’re saying and doing doesn’t connect. Greg Sargent:

                Right now, it remains unclear whether Democrats are prepared to adopt the Total War footing that the moment increasingly calls for. Democrats are still debating how aggressively to combat Trump’s ongoing treatment of House oversight efforts as fundamentally illegitimate, say, by holding uncooperative officials in contempt. With Trump gambling that Democrats will prove too squeamish to pull the impeachment trigger, neutering themselves, it’s hard to have confidence that his bet will prove to be a wrong one.

                At some point soon, Biden — and other Democrats — will have to confront the impeachment question head-on. If they blink, they will have to explain how they plan to proceed against what they themselves keep describing as a profound threat to the country and the rule of law.

                It’s hard to escape the sense that Biden believes the next election will itself be enough — that is, that conventional politics is sufficient, and that the strength of our values reasserting themselves will right the nation. This appears to be the reigning belief of many leading Democrats confronting Trump as well.

                One hopes they are right. But what if they aren’t?

                It’s not all the olds, obviously, since that young rascal Elizabeth Warren supports impeachment. But for the rest I’m really not confident at all in how this turns out. In their bones they believe that everything is going to return to that glorious state of homeostasis that they’ve known all their lives, and frankly I’m not sure what to do about it. I feel like Martin Sheen from Apocalypse Now when he talks about how all these boys want to do is to go home but I’ve been back already and it doesn’t exist anymore. It happens right before this:

                Share
                Lev filed this under:  

                I’ll double down on the economic ideas that failed to create broadly shared prosperity as well as the worst, most dead-end political strategies of the Obama Administration, but on the bright side I may die and give the Oval Office to whatever woman and/or person of color I pick as veep. Also I’m not Trump. Vote for me!

                I will of course vote for him over Trump but if he gets the nomination it will be because Democrats once again let themselves get told what they need to do. He offers nothing new. And the idea that his personal relationships with Republicans will let him succeed where the more charismatic/sophisticated/articulate Obama failed would be a joke if he didn’t firmly believe it.

                Share
                Lev filed this under: ,  

                It’s about rapidly unraveling faith that the system can hold any elite accountable. It’s about the fear that if Trump doesn’t have to pay for what he’s done then he’ll keep pushing the envelope and do more bad stuff. It’s about fear for the continuation of the republic.

                You can speak to these things without being in favor of impeachment but elite Democrats aren’t doing it. It’s almost as though having a bunch of people in charge of the Democratic Party happened to live through the longest stretch of stability and prosperity in US history can’t adjust to a different situation eight decades in.

                In conclusion, Biden 2020!

                Share
                Lev filed this under:  

                This is a propos of nothing, but I sometimes just forget that John Bolton is the National Security Adviser. I admit there are a lot of things to be just flummoxed about nowadays but it’s amazing the extent to which Trump finds people who were too bad/stupid/evil even for prior Republican administrations and just put them in there (and yes I do know that Bolton was Bush’s UN Ambassador for a while, but that was because Bush didn’t care about the UN and let Cheney put one of his toadies in there for a little while, before the 2006 midterms came and Bolton was dropped with extreme prejudice).

                I know it’s partially trolling the libs but the NSA isn’t a hugely public-facing position, and putting a hard-liner in there is going to determine the direction of foreign policy to a huge degree. I get having Rudy 9/11 troll liberals and work them into a lather, to an extent. But Bolton? It’s almost as though Trump has absolutely no ability to judge ability or character. Guess you gotta have it if you’re going to judge it.

                Share
                Lev filed this under:  

                Pete Buttigieg likes to style himself as Mr. Midwest but goddamn if this?isn’t the fifteenth freshest take from March of 2016. It’s almost as though he’s part of our glorious new perfect aristocracy and doesn’t actually have any specific or personal observations to make about what’s going on in the Rust Belt than anybody else!?Because, of course, not all of the Midwest is rotted out factories. I know this because I’ve been there a lot. Some parts of it are doing real well! Other parts are not doing well at all. Just like…California! I wrote about going to Fresno before, and it is a terrifying town, and one where I did worry about my safety in a way I never did in Wisconsin or Cleveland or Southwest Pennsylvania. And it’s a mere three hour drive from the Bay Area! Mayor Pete can’t seem to put in any personally observed details in his take on the working class though, and I’ll tell you why: because he doesn’t have any.

                But there is a point to this. Buttigieg is putting this view out there as part of his quest to win the elite white guy primary, which he’s doing an excellent job at. Brooks! Sully! Axelrod! And it will no doubt keep on growing. He’s succeeding exactly where Howard “Am I Still Running?” Schultz failed. Needless to say, implicitly blaming working class white voters for Trump is the natural choice for higher status white people who don’t want to admit that it was their friends (or themselves)?wot won it. Not that I’m blaming Buttigieg for it personally, but the evidence is pretty strong that Trump did better among working class people of all races and ethnicities than Romney did, not just white people in Michigan. Fact: Hillary Clinton did worse among union voters than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1980. This has a lot of factors behind it but not a small one is that virtually all Democrats have, over the past few decades, completely forgotten how to talk about class. In most recent elections this wasn’t much of a detriment—it’s not as though Mitt “47%” Romney knew how to use it as a wedge against Democrats—but when up against an opponent who did know how to talk about it…yeah, it didn’t turn out so great. If you want to fix that you probably want to find somebody who can speak well about class, and there are some out there. Mayor Pete is not one of them.

                Buttigieg is certainly not a favorite of mine. I’ll still vote for him if he’s the nominee (which I’m guessing he will be…for veep). But damn, if anybody thinks that this guy knows uniquely how to unlock the working-class white voter in the Midwest, you’re just fooling yourselves. Pundit speak instead of empirical detail, the basic worldview of the ruling class, a lot of talk but no real record at all…just don’t be surprised at how it turns out.

                Share
                Lev filed this under: ,