We are not a serious country because, as a democracy, we do not have serious voters. Autocracies like China and Russia have many disadvantages compared to us, but in the present historical moment, they are nowhere near as stupid as we are. One trembles for the future.
Some Observations from the DNC
I don’t spend alot of time following political conventions, but I did catch some of the DNC this week and some things stuck with me.
First, what happened to the protests?
They were expecting massive protests with 100,000 people coming to town. “Make it Great like ’68!” Chicago prepared for the impending riotpocalypse with boarded-up buildings and a scheme that left the United Center, with its perimeter fencing and ID requirements, better defended than either our border or electoral system.
It sounded about right given the pro-Hamas heat over the past ten months. So what happened?
Monday’s protest at Union Park? Organizers were expecting 30,000 to 40,000 and maybe got 10% of that number. There were pictures of hundreds of unused protest signs littering the park grass (only Tea Parties clean up after themselves).
Tuesday? Even fewer protesters marched on the Israeli consulate and when they became violent the police squashed it with 55 arrests made. However even that in reality was a bit anti-climactic. Wednesday? 2,000. Thursday? The last and biggest night of the DNC? About the same.
So again, what happened? Few protesters and those who showed up were from the fringe Trotskyite microsects. I know it was midweek but couldn’t they get some buses down from Dearborn? I mean even the WNBA draws better than this.
The scuttlebutt is that since the Spring protest encampments, the Dems have been desperate to avoid similar optics for the DNC and have been making calls to that effect. I’m guessing somebody (finally) picked up the phone on the other side and the parties cut a deal for a nice, quiet convention. So what was in the deal? I think we have to wait until the day after the election to find out.
Second, don’t ever doubt the power of the corporate media.
There’s a lot of schadenfreude on the Right about both the cratering level of public trust in the media and its declining business model, but that misses the point. The power of the media is in that it sets the Overton window for can and cannot be discussed and inserting and withdrawing issues from public discussion. You may not believe what they say, but good luck in getting opposing views to be aired
Over the past two months, the media has gone from Biden’s Praetorian Guard, to pushing him to leave the race, to calling for a mini-primary, to then just appointing Kamala (who for the past 3 ½ years no one thought was a viable presidential candidate). All of those about-faces were done with a precision that would have made a parade ground gunnery sergeant proud.
The Democrats have (so far) pulled a minor miracle in jettisoning Biden, avoiding a party collapse in finding a successor, and leaving the DNC roughly tied with Trump. They never could have pulled this off without having the media act as their PR auxiliary. Can the Democrats and the media keep this whole phantasm going until November? I doubt it but I’m impressed (and horrified) by what they have accomplished so far.
I have a question. How does the actual coordination with the media happen? What’s the 2024 equivalent of JournoList? Is it Zoom, Slack channel, volcano lair?
Third, the arrogance of the Obamas.
The Democrats are still Obama’s party and he makes no bones about it. The tradition used to be that immediately upon leaving office, the departing president would then leave town. The now ex-president left his successor’s inaugural and proceeded directly to Union Station and took the next train. Now of course they get a final ride on Air Force One. Not Barry, he just moved a few miles up the street to the Kalorama neighborhood and continued to pull strings. That’s arrogance.
It’s also arrogant for his wife to get up and make a speech at the DNC stating that she was taught by her parents to be “…suspicious of those who took more than they needed.” Of course, her family owns four mansions and is worth nearly $100 million, all based on leveraging their time in politics. I’m surprised she didn’t quote in her speech a famous community organizer who once said “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
Btw… she looked fabulous in that $3,000 pantsuit. Wonder how long that $3,000 would feed a family of four. I couldn’t find a word in the media about the stunning hypocrisy; however, I did find a lot of stories praising her fashion sense.
Fourth, I have a real sense of dread.
Just watching the video from the DNC and feeling the vibes, and all that joy I smell hysteria and desperation. Desperate people do desperate things, desperate people with power do catastrophic things.
Janice Fiamengo on Kamala Harris
From Yes, Kamala Harris Slept with a Powerful Man for Political Advancement:
Such is a common mode of operation for ambitious young women looking to jump the queue to career gain and influence. It deserves to be seen as the feminine side of sexual harassment and as an equally toxic, if more insidious, form of sexual discrimination.
It is almost inconceivable that Harris would have been appointed to the two board positions on her own merits. She moved ahead of better qualified and more worthy candidates, male and female, because she was involved with Brown. It’s also likely that her successful bid to become district attorney of San Francisco was in large part due to Brown’s influence in the city.
Unlike in instances of sexual harassment, there is not usually a complainant in cases of sexual exploitation. It is possible that both Harris and Brown look back on their affair with satisfaction.
But that doesn’t mean that their conduct was victimless. It was an abuse of power, and it should concern those who value merit and common fairness. Less attractive and more scrupulous people, those with integrity who might have earned the positions Harris bagged, never had a chance to compete for them on anything like a level playing field.
Furthermore, the incidents speak to Harris’s ruthlessness, lack of genuine ability, and moral corruptibility. Unlike in the case of Trump, whose “grab them by the pussy” comment never indicated sexual assault of women (quite the opposite—he was making the point that an extraordinary number of women are willingly bedazzled by powerful men), Harris spent years choosing to trade her body for political profit.
If men are to be harshly condemned for exploiting their power for sexual access—supposedly because it hurts all women and warps public culture—then why are women held guiltless when they exploit their sexual power for political and other access? Do their actions not also corrupt public culture, breeding favoritism, resentment, mistrust, apathy, and rancor?
She’s got a point.
Fair Play
“The Saxon is not like us Normans, His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealings,” my son, leave the Saxon alone.
Rudyard Kipling
If there is one concept thought to be more quintessentially English over any other, I think it must be the concept of fair play. Fair dealings, as Kipling put it. That one party should be treated as any other, held to the same standard of conduct, and afforded the same penalties or rewards for the same acts, regardless of economic standing, religious beliefs or racial background. A lot of this concept of “fair dealings” carried over into the American cultural mainstream as well; honored as a concept and an ideal to be striven for. I’d guess that a lot of that general support among Americans generally for the civil rights movement was based on the dawning realization among most of us that Jim Crow laws restricting black Americans were not fair at all.
Differences Between Left and Right Political Viewpoints
A friend of mine writes with the following thoughts, which I’ve edited for readability:
This election is highlighting a lot of the distinction between the way people on the Left and people on the Right think and feel. For the people on the Right, this election is about whether there will be a world war, whether the economy will be ruined, whether the southern border will be secured, what material steps need to be taken so that bad things will be prevented and some positive things happen. It’s about policy being implemented and government power being used in positive ways and not being used in damaging ways.
The Left is much more about personality and feelings. Identifying with Harris because she’s black and a woman, and feeling that she in some ambiguous but nonetheless important way represents some vague ideal that people care about. I have a friend whose daughter is voting for Harris, and he asked her why, and she said: Because she’s black and a woman and she’s not Trump; I don’t need to know what her policy views are.
It’s a completely different way of looking at the world. Frankly, it’s female, and I don’t like it, and it’s destructive if it’s given political power. The idea of this type of female mindset operating a system where people are arrested or people with guns show up at the door is terrifying. Such a system would be based on arbitrary female sentiments, and gestures of submission, rather than some agreed-on set of rules.