I’m not convinced that the dems are capable of soul searching, even if they lose both houses. I don’t see them budging one inch from their hyperbolic accusations that paint the right as deplorables and possible domestic terrorists. The amount of hate may be insurmountable.
"If Democrats lose both houses of Congress, they will be forced to do some soul-searching."
I only wish this were true. Both parties have seemingly lost the ability to self reflect and soul search. The Democrats should have had a deeply introspective moment after Trump was elected in 2016. They should have been asking themselves what issues and people they were they so out of touch with that Trump's election would have even remotely been possible. Humbled, they would have listened, adjusted and given Trump a fair chance. None of this happened. From November 9, 2016 on, the Democrats did everything within their power and beyond to illegitimize and nullify Trump's presidency. They had done nothing wrong; only Trump voters had in voting for Trump and other Republicans. They would offer no quarter in giving Trump a modicum of acknowledgement for any positive policy or outcome. Accepting election results means giving the victor a fair trial at governing. None was given to Trump whatsoever, and I believe that this escalated the intransigence on the Republican side as well. I would love to see a debate or news article where, before speaking anything positive about your political party, a politician had to acknowledge one issue or area that their party does not excel in and also concede an issue where the other party may have a point. It has gotten beyond ridiculous that saying or acknowledging you have anything in common with anyone in another party is verboten. Most recently, the House progressives' retraction of the idea of even possibly negotiating with Russia on anything because a Republican may think it's a good idea as well.
Every 100 years or so, a sort irrational belief in the ability of technocrats and bureaucrats to engineer utopia becomes in vogue. They generally get in power and then leave behind a trail of destruction and misery.
These people cannot be reasoned with. They can only be endured until their failures get so large the media can't cover for them any more.
This reminds me of the exchange this week between Chuck Todd and John Sununu: Todd: Election deniers! Sununu: You guys are living in a bubble. That's not people are thinking and talking about. Todd: But But Election deniers! Sununu: Inflation and economy. Todd: But But But ELECTION DENIERS! Sununu: You're not listening to what people are saying. You aren't relevant.
That's today's media - think how I want you to think and shut up.
Another excellent piece. I don't think the Dems will ever soul-search, though, and the harmless lefties they've sucked in (like my 80 year old mom who is not on Twitter but buys what NPR spouts like it's the Bible) will just be left twisting in the wind with absolutely no idea what happened or why.
The choice anyone or party has in politics in a democracy is to talk about:
A) the issues facing the voters or
B) insulting the other side such as calling them racist, white supremecist, xenophobic, violent extremist, deplorables who are hell-bent on destroying our democracy.
The Dems have dropped A) long ago and survive entirely on B). They will lose, but don’t expect change until their narrative is exposed as intellectually and morally bankrupt. With major media outlets like MSNBC and CNN, that realization is impossible because everyone working there has staked their jobs, If not their career, to advancing B) and ignoring A).
This cannot be said enough. I do not understand the Max Boots, et al, of the world. I'm not blind. When something happens to or in the vicinity of a Republican, and the person who is doing it is clearly crazy (and by definition they almost always are) I'm not blaming Democrats for their rhetoric (which is often contemptible)--I'm blaming the crazy person who did it.
When Republicans engage in overly violent or martial rhetoric, it makes me a little queasy, and I wish they wouldn't, but I'm not going to pretend they are unique or are singularly worse than the Democrats (or even some independents who wish bad things on both parties). But any pundit (especially those who pretend to have the wisdom of having been on "both sides") who cannot see how both parties do, and always have (and did when it was the Whigs squaring off against the Federalists) use hard and biting rhetoric that suggests a call to action, sometimes a "by any means necessary" action ... either they are hopelessly ignorant, behaving as members of a cult, or are not acting in good faith.
That said I wish the Republicans would reply universally: "You might not like what I said or the way I said it, but look: if we were in charge in these areas and our policies were in place, nothing would have happened because this guy would have been in jail already." Because that's the point. Policing language or pointing fingers with maximum moral rectitude is not the point. The point is having policies and procedures and the necessary resources in place so that the streets aren't overburdened with mentally ill or violent people who would take a questionable turn of phrase by a politician as an invitation to commit violence, and then act on that.
I do not understand people who read these kinds of connect-the-dots criticisms, while poo-poohing all the easily connected dots on the other side, and conclude the problem is all one group of BAD PEOPLE who MUST BE STOPPED (no inciting rhetoric implied there, right?) and can draw no larger conclusion about the present human condition in our country, or the current limitation of present day crime policies.
"On the Right, they’re trying to point out that the media ignores acts of violence against Conservatives like Bret Kavanaugh, Lee Zeldin, or Steve Scalise. And where is the lie? We know they ignored those threats. "
Ignored isn't exactly what happens. It's a matter of which narrative the event gets shoehorned into in the media.
1. Acts of violence against progressives get pushed into the "violent right wing rhetoric caused this" narrative.
2. Acts of violence against conservatives get pushed into the "this shows the need for more gun control" narrative.
The coverage half life is far shorter for acts against conservatives though.
The tantrums have begun. I love Musk telling them $20/month to have their blue check. I once had the misfortune of being around a screenwriter who was throwing a tantrum because he could not get a blue check. He went out to his circle to find anyone and everyone who could get him higher up in Twitter to get his blue check. What cracks me up is they are mad about potentially having to pay for their "I'm special" badge and then will have to deal with "normies" having one too if they can pay the monthly nut for it.
It's a brilliant move by Musk. It's stripping the elitist "I'm important" status symbol away from people and allowing everyone the "privilege".
While his tweeting about conspiracy theories on the Pelosi thing was kind of dumb, hopefully he takes a bit more time before rushing to judgment -- I think what you wrote here is about that -- how people rush to judgment to be "first" on Twitter to shape conversations to their political arguments and that is what we need less of.
I've seen a lot of "I'm gonna take my ball and go home" folks on Twitter lately which in contrast to a lunatic like Reiner who believes he's on the front line on Normandy beach behind his keyboard is both sad and hilarious. And I love Rob Reiner's work. LOVE. But this character he's playing on the algorithm is just sad to witness.
I'm glad Musk owns it. I hope he annoys the crap out of his detractors. I'm completely fine if Twitter turns into Myspace and becomes irrelevant. If the lesson we're about to learn is "less social media is better for our lives and sanity" then Elon Musk deserves a Nobel Prize for buying that echo chamber. Twitter has destroyed so much in the past years. It deserves what it has coming to it. And so do all the other outlets like Facebook and Tik Tok. A reckoning for those apps that have destroyed our ability to get along, to laugh and to live our lives off screen is a long time coming.
Very important piece, Sasha. Like usual. Those of us that have risk in our lives do not use Twitter much; unfortunately the app is used to transmit information from within other links so we have accounts. The majority of the Twitter faithful are people who have little risk and the economic policies of the Marxists haven't hurt them at all. $2--->$6 gas doesn't affect them at all. Milk, butter, and eggs doubling in price matters not. The have no risk except to offend each other which is pretty pathetic.
Please highlight the idiocy of Max Boot all day, every day :-D
I’m not convinced that the dems are capable of soul searching, even if they lose both houses. I don’t see them budging one inch from their hyperbolic accusations that paint the right as deplorables and possible domestic terrorists. The amount of hate may be insurmountable.
"If Democrats lose both houses of Congress, they will be forced to do some soul-searching."
I only wish this were true. Both parties have seemingly lost the ability to self reflect and soul search. The Democrats should have had a deeply introspective moment after Trump was elected in 2016. They should have been asking themselves what issues and people they were they so out of touch with that Trump's election would have even remotely been possible. Humbled, they would have listened, adjusted and given Trump a fair chance. None of this happened. From November 9, 2016 on, the Democrats did everything within their power and beyond to illegitimize and nullify Trump's presidency. They had done nothing wrong; only Trump voters had in voting for Trump and other Republicans. They would offer no quarter in giving Trump a modicum of acknowledgement for any positive policy or outcome. Accepting election results means giving the victor a fair trial at governing. None was given to Trump whatsoever, and I believe that this escalated the intransigence on the Republican side as well. I would love to see a debate or news article where, before speaking anything positive about your political party, a politician had to acknowledge one issue or area that their party does not excel in and also concede an issue where the other party may have a point. It has gotten beyond ridiculous that saying or acknowledging you have anything in common with anyone in another party is verboten. Most recently, the House progressives' retraction of the idea of even possibly negotiating with Russia on anything because a Republican may think it's a good idea as well.
Can Elon Musk Save the Democrats from themselves?
No.
Every 100 years or so, a sort irrational belief in the ability of technocrats and bureaucrats to engineer utopia becomes in vogue. They generally get in power and then leave behind a trail of destruction and misery.
These people cannot be reasoned with. They can only be endured until their failures get so large the media can't cover for them any more.
Because it never gets stale:
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell, 1984
This reminds me of the exchange this week between Chuck Todd and John Sununu: Todd: Election deniers! Sununu: You guys are living in a bubble. That's not people are thinking and talking about. Todd: But But Election deniers! Sununu: Inflation and economy. Todd: But But But ELECTION DENIERS! Sununu: You're not listening to what people are saying. You aren't relevant.
That's today's media - think how I want you to think and shut up.
Another excellent piece. I don't think the Dems will ever soul-search, though, and the harmless lefties they've sucked in (like my 80 year old mom who is not on Twitter but buys what NPR spouts like it's the Bible) will just be left twisting in the wind with absolutely no idea what happened or why.
Sasha, you nailed it!
The choice anyone or party has in politics in a democracy is to talk about:
A) the issues facing the voters or
B) insulting the other side such as calling them racist, white supremecist, xenophobic, violent extremist, deplorables who are hell-bent on destroying our democracy.
The Dems have dropped A) long ago and survive entirely on B). They will lose, but don’t expect change until their narrative is exposed as intellectually and morally bankrupt. With major media outlets like MSNBC and CNN, that realization is impossible because everyone working there has staked their jobs, If not their career, to advancing B) and ignoring A).
Damn Sasha. You keep hitting home runs.
This cannot be said enough. I do not understand the Max Boots, et al, of the world. I'm not blind. When something happens to or in the vicinity of a Republican, and the person who is doing it is clearly crazy (and by definition they almost always are) I'm not blaming Democrats for their rhetoric (which is often contemptible)--I'm blaming the crazy person who did it.
When Republicans engage in overly violent or martial rhetoric, it makes me a little queasy, and I wish they wouldn't, but I'm not going to pretend they are unique or are singularly worse than the Democrats (or even some independents who wish bad things on both parties). But any pundit (especially those who pretend to have the wisdom of having been on "both sides") who cannot see how both parties do, and always have (and did when it was the Whigs squaring off against the Federalists) use hard and biting rhetoric that suggests a call to action, sometimes a "by any means necessary" action ... either they are hopelessly ignorant, behaving as members of a cult, or are not acting in good faith.
That said I wish the Republicans would reply universally: "You might not like what I said or the way I said it, but look: if we were in charge in these areas and our policies were in place, nothing would have happened because this guy would have been in jail already." Because that's the point. Policing language or pointing fingers with maximum moral rectitude is not the point. The point is having policies and procedures and the necessary resources in place so that the streets aren't overburdened with mentally ill or violent people who would take a questionable turn of phrase by a politician as an invitation to commit violence, and then act on that.
I do not understand people who read these kinds of connect-the-dots criticisms, while poo-poohing all the easily connected dots on the other side, and conclude the problem is all one group of BAD PEOPLE who MUST BE STOPPED (no inciting rhetoric implied there, right?) and can draw no larger conclusion about the present human condition in our country, or the current limitation of present day crime policies.
"On the Right, they’re trying to point out that the media ignores acts of violence against Conservatives like Bret Kavanaugh, Lee Zeldin, or Steve Scalise. And where is the lie? We know they ignored those threats. "
Ignored isn't exactly what happens. It's a matter of which narrative the event gets shoehorned into in the media.
1. Acts of violence against progressives get pushed into the "violent right wing rhetoric caused this" narrative.
2. Acts of violence against conservatives get pushed into the "this shows the need for more gun control" narrative.
The coverage half life is far shorter for acts against conservatives though.
The tantrums have begun. I love Musk telling them $20/month to have their blue check. I once had the misfortune of being around a screenwriter who was throwing a tantrum because he could not get a blue check. He went out to his circle to find anyone and everyone who could get him higher up in Twitter to get his blue check. What cracks me up is they are mad about potentially having to pay for their "I'm special" badge and then will have to deal with "normies" having one too if they can pay the monthly nut for it.
It's a brilliant move by Musk. It's stripping the elitist "I'm important" status symbol away from people and allowing everyone the "privilege".
While his tweeting about conspiracy theories on the Pelosi thing was kind of dumb, hopefully he takes a bit more time before rushing to judgment -- I think what you wrote here is about that -- how people rush to judgment to be "first" on Twitter to shape conversations to their political arguments and that is what we need less of.
I've seen a lot of "I'm gonna take my ball and go home" folks on Twitter lately which in contrast to a lunatic like Reiner who believes he's on the front line on Normandy beach behind his keyboard is both sad and hilarious. And I love Rob Reiner's work. LOVE. But this character he's playing on the algorithm is just sad to witness.
I'm glad Musk owns it. I hope he annoys the crap out of his detractors. I'm completely fine if Twitter turns into Myspace and becomes irrelevant. If the lesson we're about to learn is "less social media is better for our lives and sanity" then Elon Musk deserves a Nobel Prize for buying that echo chamber. Twitter has destroyed so much in the past years. It deserves what it has coming to it. And so do all the other outlets like Facebook and Tik Tok. A reckoning for those apps that have destroyed our ability to get along, to laugh and to live our lives off screen is a long time coming.
Thanks for your writing, Sasha
Fantastic work! Your words resonate across America.
Very important piece, Sasha. Like usual. Those of us that have risk in our lives do not use Twitter much; unfortunately the app is used to transmit information from within other links so we have accounts. The majority of the Twitter faithful are people who have little risk and the economic policies of the Marxists haven't hurt them at all. $2--->$6 gas doesn't affect them at all. Milk, butter, and eggs doubling in price matters not. The have no risk except to offend each other which is pretty pathetic.
Please highlight the idiocy of Max Boot all day, every day :-D
The Music you choose never disappoints! Thank you! 🎶🎸🎵
Take Patti Smith's words out of your mouth. She doesn't agree with any of your lies.