Today’s post is all politics — not particularly vitriolic, but political. Turn back if you can’t take any more commentary, howsoever sane.
Two Kamala Harris mysteries
There are for me two Kamala Harris mysteries. The first is why she didn’t give Republicans and conservatives any serious reassurance in terms of policy. I suppose I mean anything at all on cultural issues. She was a California progressive and was part of an administration that frequently bowed to progressives; in a special way it was on her to show to potential supporters some alignment of sympathies. There are many possible examples, but here are six words suburban mothers would have been satisfied to hear: No boys on the girls team. They’re with Ms. Harris on abortion and other issues, but they’ve got seventh-grade girls coming up on the swimming and running teams and they don’t want boys competing with their daughters or in the locker room. Because boys and girls aren’t the same and aren’t built the same. So find a new and humane arrangement. The answer to questions on this is not “I’ll follow the law,” it is, “Believe me, I think we get too extreme sometimes and I’ll push against this.”
The other speaks of something that confuses me as I look at Ms. Harris as a public figure. She slew Donald Trump in debate, live, in front of 67 million people. It was just her, the untried candidate, on a stage with Man Mountain Dean, and she betrayed no fear or tremor. This is someone who can take pressure! Who can think on her feet! If she could do that, why couldn’t she sit down and give an honest, forthright interview, or field questions thoughtfully in a way that coheres, in a live town hall? Why couldn’t she let people in on her real thinking? I don’t recall a single interview she did that didn’t seem full of doubletalk and evasion. When that’s what you give people they assume you’re hiding something. It makes them think, “Maybe stick with the devil I know.”
She veered from simplicity and struggled to answer simple questions. If asked, “Do you like to walk on the street on a sunny day?” She could not say, “Yes, I do.” Instead, she’d answer it in a way she thought a smart person would answer it, full of odd roundabouts and clauses.
“Do you like to walk on the street on a sunny day?”
“I will say that within the general context of weather, and added to that the strolling ability, whether to choose to or not, and reflecting the reality of precipitation, that such strolls, and I’ve always made this clear, are quite possible.”
Peggy Noonan (unlocked).
This is a beautiful, reassuring column, which I’ve unlocked for you.
(I was pleased to see that Peggy Noonan has not voted for either major-party POTUS candidate since 2012. Neither have I.)
So: two elderly men with broken brains walk into a media circus …
It feels right and just that this election will end with Americans arguing over what two elderly men with broken brains actually meant to say while rambling semi-lucidly about their political enemies.
Two days after Joe Biden supposedly described Donald Trump’s supporters as “garbage” (I think he did), Trump supposedly suggested executing Liz Cheney. I think he didn’t …
“Trump Fantasizes About Shooting Female Rival in the Face” is how the Daily Beast characterized his comments. The Washington Post, a bit more precisely, claimed “Trump suggests ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should have guns ‘trained on her face’.” Some outlets understood him to mean that Cheney should face a firing squad.
…
I don’t think Trump was threatening her with death. It would be useful to the cause of defeating him for me to say insincerely that he was, as a final nudge to civic-minded conservatives to vote for Kamala Harris on Tuesday. But only propagandists prioritize what’s useful over what’s true.
Trump wasn’t calling for a firing squad, he was resurrecting ye olde “chickenhawk” smear of the Iraq War era. Many doves at the time insisted that war supporters were hypocrites unless they were willing to enlist themselves—and that logic is tailor-made for an audience that would turn out for an event hosted by isolationist (and amateur demonologist) Tucker Carlson ….
For what it’s worth, I think Catoggio is exactly right about what each of the two elderly men with broken brains actually meant to say — and that what Trump said was easily one of the more benign things he’s said in his mostly-malign campaign.
It’s worth noting because our mainstream media are full of propagandists prioritizing what’s useful over what’s true. I’ve seen several of them misrepresenting Trump’s jibe at hawkish Liz Cheney.
I am so ready for this election to be over, but if Trump wins, I don’t know that I’ll be able to endure press twisting his words for four years. Aren’t his words generally bad enough without twisting to rile the inattentive?
The Domestic Front of the 2024 Election
Sundry “conservatives” (including one I overwhelmingly admire, but who temporarily lost it) have their knickers in a knot over a pro-Harris ad reminding women that their ballot is secret if they want it to be. Damon Linker singles out Charlie Kirk and one other:
As [Jesse] Watters put it, speaking about his wife: “If I found out Emma was going to the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair. That violates the sanctity of our marriage. What else is she keeping from me? What is she lying about?”
So let me get this straight: A Democratic-aligned group made an ad implying women married to conservative men are like subjects living in a totalitarian dictatorship who should use the privacy of the voting booth to express their true political preferences and convictions—and the response of conservative men isn’t to laugh at or lightly mock the ludicrous insinuation but to confirm that they think of their wives as vassals who owe them deference when it comes to their voting decisions?
Is this what “Biblical headship” has come to mean in MAGAworld?
We wuz played!
The electoral benefits of encouraging the “anti-” more than the “pro-” are obvious. Anger stirs people and gets them involved. It is often easier to gin up contempt than enthusiasm. If that riles supporters of the other party, so be it. Motivating your own voters to turn out is easier than persuading the other lot to switch sides. Hatred also creates useful elbow room for policy. Because it makes voters care about party-political outcomes more than anything else, they are sometimes willing to support plans that cut against their interests merely for the satisfaction of seeing their enemies suffer.
But a magic potion for elections can be a poison for democracy—and America is a good example of a place that is suffering its ill effects. Before this year’s election campaign, Americans were asked by the Pew Research Centre, a polling organisation, for a word that describes their country’s politics; 79% of them used terms like “divided” or “corrupt”. Only 2% had something good to say. Roughly 90% of them were exhausted and angry; less than half were hopeful. It is hard to see how the contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump has done anything to cheer them up. Speaking to Pew this month, four-fifths of respondents said it had not made them proud of America.
Polities cannot sustain such cynicism without suffering grave harm. According to polling last year, almost two-thirds of Americans have little or no confidence in their political system. A bit less than a third have no confidence in either party. If politics is not working, then angry people are more likely to resort to violence, as they did against police officers after the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and against elected politicians in the storming of the Capitol six months later. A survey by the University of Chicago in January found that 12% of Democrats, 15% of independents and 19% of Republicans agree that the “use of force is justified to ensure members of Congress and other government officials do the right thing.” (Source: economist.com)
Via John Ellis
High-T and Pro-T
JD Vance … said that studies “connect testosterone levels in young men with conservative politics” during a three-hour episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” that was released on Thursday.
At last, a scientific explanation of why this septegenarian conservative can’t connect to Donald Trump’s brand of “conservatism” (which objectively isn’t conservative in any traditional sense, but seems to attract many who I once thought were conservative).
Be it remembered
I tend to forget that one of my subsidiary reasons for opposing Donald Trump is his personal abuse of the legal system through preposterous lawsuits and, by reputation, cheating his creditors by promising a prolonged legal fights if they try to get what he agreed to pay instead of the cut-rate he’s now offering.
I suffer more from the humiliations inflicted by my country than from those inflicted on her.
Simone Weil, from a letter to Georges Bernanos.
I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real.
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 