President Trump refused to give MSNBC’s reporter a question during yesterday’s press session with Benjamin Netanyahu, so MSNBC’s Peter Alexander complained on the air later that the conservative journalists the President did call on didn’t ask “real questions” like he would have. Of course, if anyone can find a single instance of Obama-bootlick MSNBC ever asking critical questions of President Obama, please pass it along. MSNBC’s coverage of Trump’s presidency began with dead-eyed Rachel Maddow intoning to her Angry Left audience that no, the election returns weren’t a nightmare, they were real. On Inauguration Day, Maddow compared Trump’s election to “Hitler’s rise.” Chris Matthews called the new President’s inaugural address “Hitlerian,” and compared his family to the Romanovs. Nice.
The tone hasn’t softened. Yesterday, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” announced that Kellyanne Conway was banned from the show. Conway is an embarrassing and untrustworthy shill, but similar conduct did not provoke any news organization from banning,say, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose penchant for Jumbos in defense of the Obama administration should have guraranteed employment with Ringling Bros.
CNN reporters were similarly indignant. “In the last three news conferences, Wolf, all of the questions to the American news media have been handled by conservative press, and I think, Wolf, there’s no other way to describe it but the fix is in,” said Jim Accosta. What he means is the mainstream media’s fix is being foiled, but never mind, Jim, stick to the battle plan. His network ran a report about a pure rumor that the President had used the services of a prostitutes during a trip to Moscow. Actions have consequences.
Over at ABC, Matthew Dowd made the legally incompetent argument that by not calling on the news organizations that have declared war on his Presidency, embraced fake news and Big Lies, Trump is “shutting down” the First Amendment. ABC permitting outright false and misleading claims like that from its pundits is reason enough to stick it in the “junk journalism” pile. ABC, CNN, MSNBC and the rest are as free as birds to continue broadcasting their slanted coverage designed to bolster the Left’s efforts to frighten and anger the public and undermine the elected President. But no Bill of Rights provision requires the government to support the myth that biased journalists are trustworthy.
The media’s coverage of the Flynn resignation was a disgrace for the mainstream media, a true orgy of bias and Trump paranoia. MSNBC’s Hardball guests Tim Weiner and Malcolm Nance equated the speculated ties between the Trump administration/campaign and Russia to “the most politically charged counterintelligence investigation since the Soviets stole the secret of the atomic bomb.”Nance opined,
“I think that this scandal is unique in all of American history. This would be the equivalent of the British, you know, running Abraham Lincoln or actually funding Jefferson Davis to take over the United States. This is — there has never been anything like this!”
Chris Matthews just nodded along. Even though this was an opinion (from guests he recruited to give it), a responsible host has an obligation to say, “I’m sorry, but that is a ridiculous and unfair comparison.” Matthews, back when he infuriated Democrats by occasionally being non-partisan, used to throw guests off his show for such fact-free slander.
NBC’s Chuck Todd, however, was in agreement with Chris’s guests. He compared General Flynn telling the Russian ambassador not to overreact to Obama’s sanctions to Iran-Contra. One of the New York Times stable of full-time Republican-bashers, Thomas Friedman, went even farther, if you can believe it: “We have never taken seriously from the very beginning Russia hacked our election,” he said on “Morning Joe” Tuesday. “That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event.”
MSNBC is a safe place for journalists to vent their bias and display its lobotomizing results. Pearl Harbor!
Meanwhile, in the World of Reason, blogger Ann Althouse, maintaining the objective observer’s distance, her specialty, posted the screen shot from the Washington Post website you see on the left (I would say, from my objective observer’s distance, that the Times is even worse), and writes,
Do you care? I see so many anti-Trump headlines. I feel as though I’ve already seen them all….What bothers me about the resistance — what deafens me to the protest — is that I actually believe in democracy. And I see a party that won an election and is now in power attempting to govern. I’m inclined to respect that, not resist it. The protests and resistance say: We don’t believe in democracy. How can you participate effectively in democracy while continually screaming that you don’t accept the results of an election?
Does anyone support Trump simply because he won the election?
(Somebody please tell Ann about Ethics Alarms.)
The mainstream news media has allied itself with “the resistance,” the un-American, anti-democracy, petulant and dangerous post-election strategy of the Democratic Party to assuage the anger of its hard-left base, which should really be angry at the Democratic Party. After eight years of spinning, defending, fawning and looking the other way for Barack Obama, after giving him the equivalent of The King’s Pass, journalists now feel that this President has a duty to assist them when they have all but announced the mission of destroying him. From the King’s Pass, it wants to transition to The Bum’s Rush, and pretend that this isn’t a double standard. That takes astounding arrogance and stupidity, but as we have been noting frequently of late, bias makes you stupid.
Let me explicate my “Good” in the headline. Of course it’s not good that the Trump administration will be facilitating the likes of the New York Post, the Washington Times and (yechhh) Breitbart as they question Trump with the same biased deference that Obama received from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN. Maybe, however, this turn of events will finally wake up responsible journalists, editors and leaders in the field–if there are any—that the ideological division of the news media that the mainstream media created with its refusal to be objective is disastrous.
It doesn’t serve truth, democracy, or the public interest. Nonetheless, if the mainstream news media wants respect, it has to start being respectable. If it wants to be trusted, it has to be trustworthy. It isn’t. It hasn’t been for decades, and there were no consequences at all. Neither is the conservative news media, but it won’t be fair and balanced until the other side is. Something has to make the Fourth Estate reform, and obviously guaranteeing it privileges that it abuses regularly won’t work.
______________________________
Pointer: Grabien
Ethics Alarms 
Let’s be patient with the MSM, they’ve been on vacation for 8 years and they’ve got a lot of pent up energy from not working that they are trying to burn in a matter of weeks.
Amusingly, what doesn’t get mentioned is how closed and un-transparent the Obama administration was in regards to the release of newsworthy information. But that’s part of the MSM being on an 8 year hiatus…
“Let’s be patient with the MSM, they’ve been on vacation for 8 years…”
I have a different impression of what the Left’s propcasters (I will never call them “MSM”) have been doing for the past 8 years. My impression is that they have been honing their chosen expertise – namely, their expertise of propaganda broadcasting (hence my term for them, “propcasters”). They have been doing that honing work with “extreme diligence” – including the most intimate possible collusion with the regime in power that they, the Left’s propcasters, feel most comfortable with.
Now, with a genuine enemy (Trump) for the Left’s enemies of the state to attack, the Left’s propcasters are shifting gears to go on the offensive. They were the king-preservers, as long as Obama was in power. They failed, in their efforts to be queen-makers for Hlary. (Reminder: there are no “li”es in that woman, Hlary Cnton – backward or forward; that is Big Lie Number 1 which all Left-lovers, indeed all subjects of the state, are expected to swallow.) Now, the propcasters of the Left are the king-killers, as is their duty which they see for themselves. These times, with Trump at the helm and in the arena, present an extraordinary opportunity for the Left to hone its tearing-down, instead of its propping-up, propcasting expertise. Revolutionaries LOVE a good cause!
This culture of propcasting in this was-country is forever. It is set, established, irreversible. It will not change, except in the direction of more honed propcasting expertise. The future is totalitarianism, established and sustained by the Left – just do as the Left’s propcasters say. We must all love Big Sistah. Or else. Stronger Together. The Better Way Forward.
What do we do?
“What do we do?” It depends on who “we” are.
Really, I mean that, and do not mean in the least to be smart-aleck. “We” who are the intended targets of the propcaster class must guard against our own confirmation bias, and must remain diligent about avoiding the propcasters’ bait. Which is to say in part, we must resist becoming ignorant by refusing to depend on propcasters (who we can be assured will strive to make and keep us ignorant just they way they like us) to “inform” us.
“We” who are the intended exploit-ees of the wannabe totalitarians (and their tools) will have to do more, much more, than just be accurately informed. Much of that doing will have to be much more than voting. A large part of that doing will have to be exerting forces – forcefully, literally – that thwart the “toties” (or “alternative T Partyists”) so that only more democratic institutions, and the good and constructive will of The People, will succeed.
That’s about as kindly, gently, directly, hopefully, and succinctly as I can reply here. If I was more explicit and frank, Jack would have to ban me.
What, no mention of Dan Rather saying the Flynn/Russia issue was bigger than Watergate?
No way man. This discovery is bigger than when mankind discovered he had opposable thumbs.
I mean, if we want to calibrate our settings at Zimmerman Telegram =10 and XYZ Affair = 15; this entire Flynn lied to Pence about a probably benign discussion with a Russian ambassador has got to rate somewhere around 275…?
Right?
Or am I underestimating…?
I believe that I read recently that CNN reported record high profits for their brand for the calendar year 2016. Considering that CNN got… not all… but almost all of their presidential campaign news for the entire year WRONG, why would they want to change? Reporting wrong-headed news (sometimes known as fake news), apparently pays off in bottom line profits.
I speculate that for much of the news media, it is now more focused bottom line profit and the ability to sell advertisement time than it is on delivering accurate, useful and balanced news.
While CNN is not alone on this, I believe that they know that they are pandering to a relatively small but loyal fraction of the total market, and are fully aware that this faction is angry, unethical and vindictive and yearns for the constant negative reporting on the Trump administration. CNN at this point may have painted itself into a corner… keep pandering to their loyal and fanatically anti-Trump viewers or go broke.
Sorry about picking on CNN… but…
Years ago news broadcasts were money losers but were designed to capture the prime time audience for their money making programs. Before we had remotes you had to get up to change the channel so you picked your favorite nightly news and settled in.
So in my opinion the downfall of the news is because we got remote control once we no longer had to get off our butts to get information we no longer had to expend energy to interpret it either.
I just went to have a look at the Althouse blog Jack. The comments section is a madhouse of hurt liberals and hard headed conservatives. The poor woman has actually had to defend her point of allowing the president a moment to govern the country ahha.
I also think, it will be impossible for these news media companies to return to an unbiased state. That would require firing all there staff and relying on actual good reporting and research over click-baity goodness.
Their staff
In the World of Reason, Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador should properly be considered no story at all. Obama’s so-called sanctions were nothing but petty annoyances to the Russians. Their purpose was not to change Russian policy and behavior, but to embarrass and undermine Trump by giving added credence to the false “the Russians hacked the election” narrative, and to create a pretense for attacking Trump again on the inevitable future date when he would have to reverse the sanctions. Everyone in the world who cared about the sanctions was talking about them on the day that Flynn and the ambassador had their conversation. The ambassador and his staff doubtless talked about them with dozens if not hundreds of Americans, including many, many Washington insiders of both parties. Under the circumstances, there is almost nothing that Flynn could have said that would have been inappropriate, unless he had been instructed not to say it, and there is nothing whatsoever that he could have said that would have violated the dead-letter, unconstitutional Logan Act, spawn of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
More broadly, the same is true of all of the hysterical reports that “Trump associates” had “contacts” with “Russian sources” during the campaign. Of course, they did; that should go without saying. Trump associates also doubtless had contacts with British sources, French sources, German sources, Israeli sources, Saudi sources, etc. Well-connected people know lots of other well-connected people and talk to them frequently. That’s how they remain well-connected and well-informed. Many Washington insiders of both parties, senior military officers, intelligence operatives, international investors, international businessmen, journalists and many other people speak frequently to foreign sources, including Russians. Even in my own relatively anodyne profession, I know a few people — none of them involved in the Trump campaign — who had “contacts” with “Russian sources” last year, and I imagine they often talked about US-Russian relations, among other topics.
It’s a symptom of the amateurism of Trump and his people that they have been unable to articulate these simple, straightforward truths, It’s a symptom of the perfidy of the intelligence services that they’ve been wiretapping and leaking information about private conversations for their own secret political and bureaucratic objectives. It’s a symptom of the willful destructiveness of senior Democratic officials in Washington that they have been pretending that these contacts, which they know to be entirely commonplace, are outrageously improper. And as you say, it’s a symptom of the corruption of the press that their reporting of these contacts as impeachable crimes has been even more hysterical than the most poisonous narrative that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi would dare to spin.
Nice work, Greg.
Good and clear exposition: very helpful, and very true.
Well stated. Good job.
jvb
PS: I saw Rachel Maddow having conniption this week, declaring that the Russians actually meddled in our election, conspiring with Trump, Flynn, the Republicans, and a whole host of others to turn/sway the election in Trump’s favor. It was wonderful to watch.
jvb
I’m trying to remember the last major news story that wasn’t about Trump…. I wonder if that’s the goal. Make everything else irrelevant and then the only thing that is relevant is himself.
The media shouldn’t be waging this war this way. Trumps got them on blast 24/7. What was the last “excessive force” or “black lives matter” story? I mean, I know I can go find something outrageous anytime I want…just head over to policemisconduct.net – but everything at the main news sources is trump, trump, trump, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Anything else that’s reported is related back to trump or flies off the site into obscurity.
Or is that just my perception? It’s hard to know what’s real anymore.
The 24-hour laundromat near my house has a TV that is tuned permanently to CNN. I asked the attendant behind the front desk if it didn’t get on her nerves sometimes. She came near to weeping, telling me that her life has become a nightmare where she is forced to spend all day listening to people shout about Donald Trump, and the owner won’t let her change the channel or wear headphones to drown it out.
I never realized how close to the surface total insanity was in the population.
Uggh, that is cruel and unusual punishment, I don’t care what the current political state is. I understand that a permanent station night simplify management, but there has to be a different one that won’t cause employee breakdowns.
Maybe the Prez is deliberately instigating them and wearing them out. I lean liberal, but I’ve been sick of the Chicken Littles since Nov 10th. There are still checks and balances within the system and they have no understanding or faith in that system now that the wheel of fortune has turned. Some of his policies interest me, so I’d like to see what can be done. Other, like consumer and working class protections worry me. Sadly I think the presidential honeymoon has been gone for many years…
There’s a reason so many TVs in businesses are tuned into HGTV.
Stipulated: Bias in the media is an issue. MSNBC has a clear left-wing bias. Bias among *talking heads* and *opinion writers* in the left-wing media is becoming, in some quarters, increasingly hysterical. This is all true. But it is also true that there is good, solid, investigative reporting being done from traditional media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. I find it worrying that so many people on this thread appear to be more worked up about the media than they do about the President’s increasingly erratic leadership. I am watching his press conference right now and it is . . . extremely alarming. He appears, by turns, lethargic and listless; wrathful and incoherent; diffuse and unfocused; obsessed with trivia and personal slights. He’s *in charge* of the executive branch of the government and he seems mentally unhinged.*
*Cue the chorus of respondents saying I have no credentials to diagnose mental illness. I’m not diagnosing him. I am just saying that he *seems* like a lunatic. Whether he actually is or is not is immaterial to the point that just *seeming* this way is an incredibly worrying attribute in someone whose judgement we rely on to run the country.
That’s because this thread is not about his leadership. There was one about that a few days back. That’s where this and everything following the above sentence properly belongs. Trump’s infirmities as you perceive them are irrelevant to this thread.
Addressing the part previous to this, which happens to be relevant to the topic, you’re right — some of the reporting is solid. Speaking only for myself, the problem is that so many headlines, as Jack illustrates above via Althouse, are viciously inimical to Trump. I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve read with anti-Trump headlines that actually had decent (I’ll put up with a little bias as long as the facts are all correct, and included) reporting.
Unfortunately, the editors creating those headlines are sabotaging their own reporters’ work. I have reached the point where many stories, probably good ones, will never be read by me because the headline is so off-putting and blatantly agenda-driven that I won’t even give the reporting a chance.
Which brings us to the real problem, which is essentially scandal fatigue. When everything somebody does is scandalous, nothing is. That’s how Clinton was able to remain in office after the Lewinski revelations. The constant drumbeat of bimbo eruption scandals prior to his election had numbed the electorate to the subject. When Lewinski broke out, the constant drumbeat of Republican outrage and breathless media scandal-mongering further numbed them until they got to the point of indifference. Even the ultimate revelation that Clinton had unapologetically perjured himself was unable to turn the public against him.
The media is destroying itself, and in the process, the only real bastion against Trump should he really go nuts. Worse, its constant drumbeat of shiny-object Trump-hate will ultimately inoculate him against real serious problems should they arise. That’s what this is about. What we should all be concerned about is a potential inability to get through to people if Trump really does do something dangerous, or commit a high crime.
The media is destroying itself, and in the process, the only real bastion against Trump should he really go nuts. Worse, its constant drumbeat of shiny-object Trump-hate will ultimately inoculate him against real serious problems should they arise.
Again, I don’t see evidence of this. His approval rating is falling, not rising. The protests against him are getting results. Rather than inoculating Trump against criticism, I think the early resistance has hobbled his presidency.
Really?
Yes, really, and I’m not sure what that link is supposed to prove. Rasmussen is typically an outlier when it comes to polls of this nature, and has a longstanding right-wing bias.
Well, it’s supposed to demonstrate that your comment was incorrect. You generalized the polls indicating his support is eroding, and while some polls do, others don’t. Characterizing polls that don’t fit their conclusions as an outlier is exactly what partisans do when they want to shoot the messenger.
But none of this has anything to do with the topic. You said you didn’t see any evidence of the media destroying its own credibility despite the evidence of your lying eyes. Fine, I’m certainly not going to try to convince you — a puddle of molten carbon would be at least as willing as you are to consider the argument with even a modicum of objectivity. Your comment about Rasmussen simply reinforces that.
Well, it’s supposed to demonstrate that your comment was incorrect.
And it doesn’t, for the reasons I’ve already explained.
You generalized the polls indicating his support is eroding, and while some polls do, others don’t.
What “others?” You’ve given one.
Characterizing polls that don’t fit their conclusions as an outlier is exactly what partisans do when they want to shoot the messenger.
It’s also what people who are familiar with different polling organizations, their methods and their biases do. Rasmussen is typically an outlier. That’s a fact, and acknowledging a fact doesn’t make me a partisan, nor does your ignorance of that fact make your argument in any way superior to mine.
You know Jack called you on this earlier. Solidly. Yet here you are drumming this out like it’s new.
You know, usually people’s approval falls based on their own conduct. So I’d submit that’s the primary reason Trump’s approval is dropping. Now, the hysteric out of control toddler tantrums the Leftwing Media throws is the conduct causing the media’s approval to plummet.
You are finding causation where there is none.
However, your commentary IS revelatory. I want everyone here to notice that Chris is completely fine with ends justifies the means. He is content that every single knee jerk mis-reporting, every single dishonest mis-construction of events, every single disproportionate flame out is A-OK as long as it seemingly causes not only Trump’s approval to plummet, but also renders non-existant any possibility of leadership or a learning curve from the President.
Despicable.
I love how on this blog you’re hard on the arguments, but stay away from the insults and name calling.
You all give me hope that intelligent voices are speaking, eyes are watching, and when a big crisis hits and wisdom is needed, there will be voices to calm the people.
You’re already doing that as are other wise voices.
This is the only blog I’ve found where I get so excited to read the comments as much as the articles. This is a reflection of your greatness, Jack. You’re collecting some great people here who aren’t sheep.
I think, When the entitled, dependent left sees it can’t even trust its own party, really sees it… that the government can’t protect and provide for their every whine, and when they see the fear and hate in its full display, they’re gonna need to hear some clear voices Letting them know it’s gonna be ok.
Tex:
You know, usually people’s approval falls based on their own conduct. So I’d submit that’s the primary reason Trump’s approval is dropping. Now, the hysteric out of control toddler tantrums the Leftwing Media throws is the conduct causing the media’s approval to plummet.
You are finding causation where there is none.
I suppose it’s possible that the massive protests and negative media coverage have nothing to do with Trump’s falling approval ratings, or the very public and humiliating failures he’s been suffering over the past few weeks, but I don’t find that likely.
Anyway, the initial claim was that the media, and by extension, the Left, were actually *helping* Trump by inoculating him from legitimate criticism. Even if the media and the Left are not the causes of his current troubles, the fact that he is still losing support does not lend credence to that claim.
However, your commentary IS revelatory. I want everyone here to notice that Chris is completely fine with ends justifies the means. He is content that every single knee jerk mis-reporting, every single dishonest mis-construction of events, every single disproportionate flame out is A-OK as long as it seemingly causes not only Trump’s approval to plummet, but also renders non-existant any possibility of leadership or a learning curve from the President.
Despicable.
I respectfully invite you to crawl out of your own ass and stop arguing with things I never said or implied. Misreporting and lying is wrong. Negative coverage isn’t. Peaceful protest isn’t. You constantly conflate these things.
but also renders non-existant any possibility of leadership or a learning curve from the President.
That possibility is already non-existent. Acknowledging that is not partisanship, dishonesty or sabotage. It is reality.
“You constantly conflate these things.”
You may want to educate your own media propaganda machine and protesters how not to conflate these things.
And yes, you are fine with ends justifies the means. I’ve read little on here that would lead me to believe you think nothing is inappropriate to unseat Trump.
That’s pure unbridled hate. It makes you blind. It makes your commentary less credible.
Fix this.
I don’t care if you say he is as crazy as a run over dog. But that isn’t really the point here. My concern is that because of the grotesque exaggerations and outright lies of the MSM it is now impossible to form any accurate idea of how he is actually running the country. Why should I trust what may in fact be “good, solid, investigative reporting” when it is published by outlets who have destroyed any shred of credibility by their unceasing hysteric lies and their fear mongering. My father taught me that I should generally trust someone until I know they have lied to me and then it is up to them to regain my trust. I would like to see the MSM act in a manner that suggests they are trying to regain the trust of the American people and not just pandering to the left and pushing their own agenda. My opinion till then is if their lips are moving they’re lying.
Oh-oh—We had a mind meld!
One post at a time, W. One post at a time. Moreover,
1. the untrustworthy reporting makes it impossible to fairly gauge what is and isn’t “erratic,” most of which is an intentional conflation of style with substance
2. The fact that a source does good investigative journalism neither disproves nor justifies bias. This front page Times piece from yesterday,for example, is intentionally inflammatory and therefore misleading. Using a an anonymous source, the story with the headline,Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence ends up here:
That is nothing. Certainly nothing deserving front page exposure, but all my Anti-Trump hysteric friends were citing it as proof of treason.
3. Citing MSNBC is a version of using Rationalization #22, “it’s not the worst thing.” MSMBC is blatantly biased, and does little harm as a result. The Times (I’m subscriber) and the Post, use their periodic excellence to make biased stories credible. That’s much, much worse.
4. Remember, it was the Times that announced during the campaign that it would no longer be objective. How do you trust any news source that thinks that way?
He appears, by turns, lethargic and listless; wrathful and incoherent; diffuse and unfocused; obsessed with trivia and personal slights.
These are valid concerns that I happen to share. Now if only you could convince the Times and Post to focus on them instead of screeching “Nazi, Nazi, Russian front, Nazi” I might be inclined to listen to them more.
I find it worrying that so many people on this thread appear to be more worked up about the media than they do about the President’s increasingly erratic leadership.
Part of this is that Trump is just living down to expectations. His behavior isn’t exactly heartening, but I don’t think anyone here anticipated any different, however much we might have hoped otherwise.
The thing is, returning to the first point, there are very few traits that are less desirable in a President than “wrathful and incoherent; diffuse and unfocused”. “Nazi” is one of those few things. The media is making “Nazi” the baseline for judging Trump, and when the metric is “not a Nazi”, Trump succeeds admirably, making his obsession with trivia and personal slights seem not so big a deal by comparison.
Well said. In a leadership position like the Presidency, style is more than style; it also impacts effectiveness and trustworthiness. But again, this is why I keep raising the Julie Principle: this is Trump; we knew it going in. HEADLINE: Trump speaks without thinking! Trump careless with facts! Trump unpresidential! ARGHHH! is a waste at this point. It’s just hate-mongering. It’s not news. We didn’t see daily headlines that said, Nixon Shifty!/ LBJ Talks Slowly!/ Carter Sanctimonious!/ Clinton Smug!/ Bush Inarticulate!/ Obama Pedantic!
I almost think that some of these newscasters were not as offended with President Trump not calling on them as they had to share their question time with Israeli reporters since it was a joint press conference. NPR.org actually ran the conference video where it clearly shows them answering questions first from one countries side, then the other. When they started to walk off, that’s when you hear questions starting to be shouted about the campaign contacts with Russia, which he rightfully did not turn around to answer. I say rightfully because, I believe, it would have undermined what the press conference was about and wasn’t the platform for it. Perhaps that’s what they really felt snubbed about.
This from E.J. Dionne: Trump evidently needs to be removed by somebody for some reason. Not sure exactly how, but it’s clearly imperative to E.J.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/02/16/face_trumps_unfitness_sooner_not_later_133101.html
These are not ordinary times, I guess.
That is a signature significance column from E. J. He’s as bad as Krugman at this point, just pure candy for hyper-partisan confirmation bias. He was always bad, but he’s beneath contempt now.
These people have lost their minds and they are still given free rein by formerly reputable institutions. Whoever is running these papers are an embarrassment.
I found nothing whatsoever to disagree with in that article.
Shorter Dionne: We should investigate Trump because, you know, Russians! And since only Lindsey Graham and John McCain agree with the Democrats, the GOP can’t be trusted to do it.
Pathetic. It’s an opinion, but like many assholes, it stinks. Joe McCarthy, where are you when we need you?
So what’s the next step, Chris? How should E.J. Dionne’s recommendations be implemented within the framework in which our government exists?
The article says what the next steps are:
The immediate political controversy is over how Congress should investigate this. Republican leaders say attention from Congress’ intelligence committees is sufficient. Democrats (with some GOP support) argue it would be better to form a bipartisan select committee that could cross jurisdictional lines and be far more open about its work.
In fact, those pushing for the select committee are right to fear that keeping things under wraps in the intelligence panels could be a way to bury the story for a while and buy Trump time. Letting Americans in on what went on here, and quickly, is the only way to bolster trust in this administration, if that is even possible. And let’s face the reality here: It could also hasten the end of a presidency that could do immense damage to the United States.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in the meantime, must immediately recuse himself from all decisions about all aspects of the Russia investigation by the FBI and the intelligence services. Sessions should step back not simply because he is an appointee of the president but, more importantly, because he was a central figure in the Trump campaign. He cannot possibly be a neutral arbiter, and his involvement would only heighten fears of a cover-up.
I think it’s too early for impeachment, but it hasn’t even been a full month yet, so I’ve little doubt the time for that will come sooner than later.
You think???? I suppose the fact that there hasn’t been a single legitimate, substantiated claim of any impeachable conduct probably points you in that direction, huh?
The Left’s argument is now that not supporting progressive cant in the White House is impeachable. And that’s totalitarian.
Think again.
The Left’s argument is now that not supporting progressive cant in the White House is impeachable.
You know that’s not the argument. The argument has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with Trump’s many non-ideological, non-partisan defects. There was a blogger who documented many of them during the campaign; Jim, or Jeff, I wanna say. I think the blog is called “Morals Bells” or something similar. Check him out some time.
This is a lie, or willfully obtuse. I’ll give you obtuse. It is 100% ideological. Your argument is laughable. This is your failure to grasp the fact that once the leader is elected, he has been certified as fit. Fitness to be President is not a criteria for President: it is like trying to impeach Obama after his election for having no experience for the job. Do you really think if Trump had behaved exactly the same way but doubled down on Obama’s policies, the Democrats or the news media would be behaving so wretchedly, or making such absurd accusations?
You’re moving the goalposts. You said that progressives want Trump impeached for not supporting progressive policies. But he isn’t supporting very many conservative policies, either, and I don’t recall progressives calling for Bush’s impeachment a month into office.
Yes, and that’s because the Left was convinced that it had a permanent majority and that Obama was just the beginning. The totalitarian left was just getting rolling under Bush; now it has taken control. It can’t handle the fact that Hillary and Bernie lost. Hence the title: I think about these things.
Jack:
On Inauguration Day, Maddow compared Trump’s election to “Hitler’s rise.”
This is the quote, as provided by the article you linked to.
MADDOW: “This president also repeating — the new president also repeating that our — our — our — our guiding principle will be America first, America first. We know how he has used that as a campaign slogan, that also has very dark echoes in American history. There was an America First Committee that formed in this country, hundreds of thousands of people in this country, some of the richest businessmen in the country who were part of it, they were formed to keep us out of World War II. They were infiltrated by the Nazis, many of them are anti-Semitic, part of why they weren’t alarmed by Hitler’s rise in Germany. The America First Committee is something that means a specific thing in this country, to repurpose it now, not that far down the historical path. It’s — it’s hard, it’s hard to hear.”
So the comparison was not between “Trump’s election” and “Hitler’s rise.” It was between Trump’s use of the slogan “America First” and the anti-Semitic group by that name that operated in America during WWII. The fact that they were sympathetic to Hitler was tangential to her comparison.
I’d add that “[Insert country here] First” is a well known framing of fascist and xenophobic groups across the world today, such as the notoriously racist “Britain First” group. The term does have historically awful connotations.+
The tone hasn’t softened. Yesterday, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” announced that Kellyanne Conway was banned from the show. Conway is an embarrassing and untrustworthy shill, but similar conduct did not provoke any news organization from banning,say, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose penchant for Jumbos in defense of the Obama administration should have guraranteed employment with Ringling Bros.
I’ve seen Scultz tell proven lies, though I don’t know if she does that to the same degree as Conway. Maybe they both should have been banned.
I believe there is more to the Flynn scandal than you seem to think. This is the third Trump advisor who has had to resign due to inappropriate actions regarding Russia. There is smoke here. Whether there is fire is a reasonable question.
Ann Althouse and her readers may not care about the daily reports of incompetence and chaos within the Trump White House, but a look at Trump’s approval rating indicates most Americans seem to.
I don’t see the resistance as anti-American or anti-democracy. Trump won the election, but he is clearly not fit to serve, and pointing that out is not wrong.
I think you are being disingenuous with your first example. If Hitler and Nazism were tangential to her comparison, then why did she mention them. The point you are saying she wanted to make could have been made as well by leaving out the last bolded sentence in your quote. Did she directly say Trump is Hitler and the Nazis are coming? No. But it is clear she wanted to make the association. I agree that pointing out problems is not anti-American or anti-democracy, in fact, I think it is pro both of those and a necessity for a functioning democracy. The media has an important job here to keep us informed and tell the truth. But how can one take anything they say seriously when they continue to act with reckless disregard for truth and fairness.
I said on another thread the other day, Chris, that a phrase used almost 80 years ago by a group almost no American knew/remembered existed until last week does not prove that Trump is basing his strategy on The America First Committee. This is tabloid-level smearing to drum up fear. Jack Kennedy was a donor to the AFC, Gerald Ford, Sargent Shriver, and many American businessmen, from the Vicks Corp, Sears and Roebuck and other corporations were members and supported the effort to keep America out of the European conflict. I still have found no proof at all that they were either pro-Nazi or infiltrated by Nazis (the two claims I’ve seen this week). Did Trump know about the Committee and choose ‘America First’ for that reason? To accomplish what, exactly? It’s not as if the America First Committee was a long-lived entity that had far-reaching political strength for decades…it was disbanded after one year, due to the attack at Pear Harbor. It just looks like grasping at straws, everything and anything that can be turned to innuendo. ‘Britain first’ may be a racist group (I have no idea, and so cannot comment in regards to them) but does that mean that every group that uses ‘ First’ is racist?
Who should Trump be putting first, if not the country he leads? I would think that any national leader on the planet is putting their country first…he just said it. He is naive ( what leader with any sense of diplomacy says ‘My country comes first’?), inexperienced, ridiculously uninformed and blunt, but I do not think he is a Nazi, and the efforts to paint him as such are an embarrassment. The press has gone insane.
Oxford educated Rachel seemed to want to have us believe Trump, of all people, is a subtle reference dropper on a level with T.S. Eliot or Ezra Pound. That whole “America First” equals proto-fascist is just way to academic and obscure for anyone with any common sense.
The other thing that happened this week that got my attention was a group of psychiatrists signing a letter and publishing it, stating that Donald Trump is mentally ill and needs to be removed from office. I consider it a list of unprofessional practicioners to be avoided.
Chris has been called out on his “America First” tactic multiple times. He refuses to accept reality on this one.
None so blind as those who refuse to see.
What is scary is those who fear fascism most, if they mistake a sloppy speaker with a big ego as dangerous, they’re the perfect ones to be deceived by a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I’ve noticed they are highly impressed by people who are all wrapped up in a “smarter than you” costume. And who have that smug, condescending way of speaking. Like obama could do so well.
I think there are genuinely good people in the left who really think trump is evil and who care about all people and want to try to work together.
Not many of the leaders act that way.
The American Psychiatric Association in its Principles of Medical Ethics states in Section 7:
“3. On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional
opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”
If the psychiatrist who signed are members of the American Psychiatric Association, then they violated their professional organization’s code of ethics. Item 3 above is the so-called Goldwater Rule.
For another psychiatrist’s analysis:
Sorry. Tried to only post the link but clearly computer is not my best subject.
I really muse that the entire unadulterated onslaught by the Left Wing media and huge swathes of the Elected Left grabbing every real problem, even minor ones, and grabbing made up problems is ultimately designed to push Trump to snap and do something domestically that looks “authoritarian” so they can finally scream “see, he’s a Fascist, like we always said!”
I am not sure if you, Jack, would see it as connected, but there is a quite interesting article in the NYTs about the rise of a ‘deep state’ in America. It was the first time I came across the term and never have encountered the concept. But it seemed to me important when coming to try to understand the behind scenes power politics, which also has a face of ‘righteous politics’ (I mean a political class that sees itself as ‘righteous’ but is tied to a vast political machine, such as that of the Clintons and the big donors.
This is the article which your surely have seen: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=world®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
It is related. Thanks for the link.
Jack, did you see any of Trump’s press conference yesterday?
The man took a question that was designed to give him an opportunity to condemn the growing anti-Semitism in America, and made it all about how the media is mean to him.
The media, in my view, has a duty to be Trump’s opposition at this point. They also have a duty to be honest. These duties should not conflict.
It has a duty to be the opposition to every President and party, in exactly the same way. Until there is some indication that this is a permanents change of practice from the last 8 years, however, the presumption should be partisan bias.
I would not take the bait on the anti-Semitism question, if I had foot in mouth disease like Trump. He’s too inarticulate to make off the cuff statements when he hasn’t thought about it, and too often even if he has. Moreover, he is not the new media’s trained monkey. It’s not up to them to dictate who and what he “condemns.” Obama just stabbed Israel in the back at the UN: I suspect a lot of that rising hostility came from his perfidy. I’d say the smiles from Netanyahu and Trump when they met this week nicely addressed the issue, and will do more to help the problem than some Trumpian bluster.
I would not take the bait on the anti-Semitism question, if I had foot in mouth disease like Trump. He’s too inarticulate to make off the cuff statements when he hasn’t thought about it, and too often even if he has.
My understanding is that he was asked a similar question on three separate occasions this week, and still had no answer each time. It’s also an easy question.
Moreover, he is not the new media’s trained monkey. It’s not up to them to dictate who and what he “condemns.”
Every president has been asked to condemn acts of violence, and especially hate crimes. It isn’t hard, and doing so doesn’t make one a “trained monkey.”
Obama just stabbed Israel in the back at the UN:
I don’t agree with that characterization; his position is no different from Bush’s on this issue.
I suspect a lot of that rising hostility came from his perfidy.
I highly doubt that. While there is anti-Semitism on the Left, my suspicion is that the bomb threats have been coming from white supremacist groups.
I’d say the smiles from Netanyahu and Trump when they met this week nicely addressed the issue,
What issue? Anti-Semitism in America? I don’t see how. The ADL and the AJC both condemned Trump’s response, so it seems Jewish groups are not finding Trump’s rhetoric or behavior to be helpful.
Anyway, this is the exchange:
“What we are concerned about, and what we haven’t really heard being addressed, is an uptick in anti-Semitism and how the government is planning to take care of it,” Turx said.
As Turx continued, Trump interrupted, “See, he said he was going to ask a very simple, easy question, and it’s not.”
The reporter said, “It’s an important one.”
“Not a simple question. Not a fair question. OK, sit down. I understand the rest of your question,” Trump said. “So here’s the story folks. No. 1, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. No. 2, racism. The least racist person. In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican.”
Turx raised his hand again and spoke up.
“Quiet, quiet, quiet,” Trump replied. “See he lied about — he was going to get up and ask a very straight, simple question. So, you know, welcome to the world of the media.”
Turx shook his head, and Trump continued as if he himself had been accused of anti-Semitism, despite Turx’s preface.
“But let me just tell you something: I hate the charge. I find it repulsive. I hate even the question because people that know me — and you heard the Prime Minister, you heard Benjamin Netanyahu, did you hear him, Bibi? He said, ‘I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time,’ and then he said, ‘Forget it.’ So you should take that instead of having to get up and ask a very insulting question like that.”
Later on in the news conference, Sirius XM’s Jared Rizzi said, “I’ll follow up on my colleague’s question about anti-Semitism. It’s not about your personality or your beliefs. We’re talking about a rise in anti-Semitism around the country. Some of it by supporters in your name. What can you do to deter that?”
Trump said, “Some of it is written by our opponents. You do know that? Do you understand that? You don’t think anybody would do a thing like that?”
He went on to insist anti-Semitism was coming from his political opponents, who were doing it to generate anger: “Some of the signs you’ll see are not put up by the people that love or live Donald Trump. They’re put up by the other side, and you think it’s like playing it straight? No. But you have some of those signs, and some of that anger is caused by the other side. They’ll do signs and they’ll do drawings that are inappropriate. It won’t be my people. It will be the people on the other side to anger people like you.”
….In an appearance with Netanyahu at the White House Wednesday, Trump answered a question about anti-Semitism by talking about his electoral victory and mentioning his daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, who are Jewish.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-news-conference-anti-semitism/
The man is unfit for the office.
From the actual transcript:
THE PRESIDENT: Wait, let’s see, who’s — I want to find a friendly reporter. Are you a friendly reporter? Watch how friendly he is. Wait, wait — watch how friendly he is. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Q So, first of all, my name is (inaudible) from (inaudible) Magazine. And (inaudible). I haven’t seen anybody in my community accuse either yourself or any of the — anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic. We have an understanding of (inaudible).
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q However, what we are concerned about, and what we haven’t really heard be addressed is an uptick in anti-Semitism and how the government is planning to take care of it. There have been reports out that 48 bomb threats have been made against Jewish centers all across the country in the last couple of weeks. There are people who are committing anti-Semitic acts or threatening to —
THE PRESIDENT: You see, he said he was going to ask a very simple, easy question. And it’s not. It’s not. Not a simple question, not a fair question. Okay, sit down. I understand the rest of your question.
So here’s the story, folks. Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. Number two, racism — the least racist person. In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Quiet, quiet, quiet. See, he lied about — he was going to get up and ask a very straight, simple question. So you know, welcome to the world of the media. But let me just tell you something — that I hate the charge. I find it repulsive. I hate even the question because people that know me — and you heard the Prime Minister, you heard Netanyahu yesterday — did you hear him, Bibi? He said, I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time, and then he said, forget it.
So you should take that, instead of having to get up and ask a very insulting question like that.
Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.
Second one:
Q Yes, Mr. President, two questions —
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. One question. Two, we can’t handle. This room can’t handle two. Go ahead, give me the better of your two.
Q (Inaudible) it’s not about your personality or your beliefs. We’re talking about (inaudible) around the country, some of it by supporters in your name. What do you —
THE PRESIDENT: And some of it — and can I be honest with you? And this has to do with racism and horrible things that are put up. Some of it written by our opponents. You do know that. Do you understand that? You don’t think anybody would do a thing like that. Some of the signs you’ll see are not put up by the people that love or like Donald Trump, they’re put up by the other side, and you think it’s like playing it straight. No. But you have some of those signs, and some of that anger is caused by the other side. They’ll do signs and they’ll do drawings that are inappropriate. It won’t be my people. It will be the people on the other side to anger people like you. Okay.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/16/remarks-president-trump-press-conference
No annotations or media spins, which what you reference very obviously has. The New York Times and an Australian paper actually ran this as well, with more (inaudible) being inserted so I’d have to conclude it was from an angle everything wasn’t heard. Likely the AU paper printed the NYT version, they’re the same, but the only two I found that didn’t annotate it to put their own bias on it.
Should he have answered the question directly instead of being insulted? I can’t disagree with Jack about being baited. But I also think everything the media does is to bait him. He does need to wisely pick and choose his battles with them.
To the point in his answer to the second question, he’s not wrong about some of it being done by anti-Trump people. Most everything reported as hate crimes committed after the election were found to be false, including two different accounts of Muslim girls saying they were attacked who ended up in jail for filing false police reports. It’s not his followers causing riots, blocking traffic, destroying buildings, and beating up people at colleges. Some places even tried to spin the Berkley incident into being Trump supporters in disguise -Young Turks for one. Most everyone else has no doubt Antifa was behind it, along with a lot of the riots.
As for what he said about his daughter and her husband in response to the anti-Semitism comment, you can find the whole answer to that here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/15/remarks-president-trump-and-prime-minister-netanyahu-israel-joint-press
The media very much picks and chooses what it wants to highlight and sensationalize to get the reactions.
Thanks, Beckie, for providing the full transcript, which makes Trump look even more incoherent and petty.
Should he have answered the question directly instead of being insulted? I can’t disagree with Jack about being baited. But I also think everything the media does is to bait him. He does need to wisely pick and choose his battles with them.
Here’s the thing: even if this is true…so what? You wouldn’t be able to “bait” Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan with this question, because you know what they’d say?
“I stand with the Jewish community against any act of anti-Semitic hatred directed against them. My administration will not tolerate bigotry, and we will work to ensure that this nation continues to stand for the ideals of tolerance and respect for difference. Jewish people have contributed a great deal to this country, and anyone who says otherwise does not speak for me or my administration.”
It’s that easy! I’ve never been so much elected to city council, and even I can do it!
The fact that Trump interprets such a question as “bait” and as an attack is important, and this means this is exactly the type of questions journalists should ask him. Shouldn’t we know that Donald Trump can’t even handle the most basic tasks of being president? Shouldn’t we know that he makes everything, even attacks on Jewish people, about himself? Shouldn’t we know that he is so bad at diplomacy that he blows up over things like this?
And yes, we already know all that. Here. Trump’s supporters won’t accept it, though, and there are plenty of people even here who want to move on from it. But it matters, it goes right to the heart of his lack of ability to do this job, and it should be something we are reminded of every day he remains in office.
Most everything reported as hate crimes committed after the election were found to be false
I’d love to see you defend this statement, because to me it’s pretty clearly indefensible. Yes, there were some false reports of hate crimes made after the election. I highly doubt you can support the assertion that “most” hate crimes reported since then have been false. Anecdotes about false reports do not prove that most such reports are false. And the bomb threats to Jewish centers that this reporter brought up are a fact.
It’s not his followers causing riots, blocking traffic, destroying buildings, and beating up people at colleges.
One of Trump’s followers shot a protester at a Milo Yiannopolous event. One of Trump’s followers shot and killed six Muslims at a mosque in Quebec. Don’t tell me the violence is worse on my side when you haven’t even mentioned these events.
Some places even tried to spin the Berkley incident into being Trump supporters in disguise -Young Turks for one.
And that’s stupid, but how is it any different from Trump saying that the attacks on Jews are false flags perpetrated by leftists?
Ugh. Yes, Chris, everyone knows Trump is incoherent and petty, also vulgar, thin-skinned, ignorant and mercurial. None of which are grounds for impeachment, or justifications for a revolution.
Adams was petty. Jefferson was a hypocrite, Jackson shot people; Madison was short and a weenie. Van Buren was devious, Tyler was imperious, Harrison was old, Polk was secretive and ruthless. Pierce was drunk and depressed, Buchanan was gay, Abe was bi-polar, Andy Johnson had an inferiority complex and a bad temper, Grant was too trusting and sentimental, Hayes was a mama’s boy, Cleveland harassed young women…Teddy was slightly insane, Taft was fat, Wilson was a racist, FDR was a sociopath, Truman was petty and not all that bright, JFK was an addict, a fraud, and a misogynist, LBJ was devious and vulgar, Nixon was paranoid, Ford was over his head, Carter was a prig and a horrible speaker, Reagan was losing it, Bush I garbled the English language, Clinton was Clinton, Bush 2 was shallow AND inarticulate, and Obama was smug, arrogant, and inept.
And all of them had a lot longer than a month before they were subjected to half this kind of hostile treatment. The President has every reason to feel ill-treated, and not to trust the news media.
I really wish you would stop pretending that this is normal. It’s not normal, for the reasons you catalogued during the campaign. Yes, other presidents had damning flaws. Which rationalization are you using here?
And all of them had a lot longer than a month before they were subjected to half this kind of hostile treatment.
And none of them behaved the way Trump has during their first months in office. When are you going to start holding Trump responsible for our national mood to the same degree you held Obama responsible?
How many presidents have held campaign events less than a month after their inauguration? This is not normal, Jack.
There is no “normal”, and my complaints about Trump never used that term, nor do I think that term is fair, useful or relevant. “Normal” is a standard cooked up in some Dem/prog war room or strategy session as a way to delelgitize Trump, and you raise suspicions by using it. A black President wasn’t normal; so what? There is ethical, there is effective, there is what works and what doesn’t. That’s all. Non-traditional methods by a President are not per se wrong or bad. Using the term “Normal” shows a weak grasp of Presidential history and the evolution of the office. Or, worse, it suggests a cynical and destructive political strategy. All it does is “justify” the suspension of normal ethics. “These are not ordinary times.”
There are no ordinary times.
I assume Becky and Chris that you did not get hold of the really full transcript! Well, I have access that you will not ever have! So, here you go.
“I stand with the Jewish community against any act of anti-Semitic hatred directed against them. My administration will not tolerate bigotry, and we will work to ensure that this nation continues to stand for the ideals of tolerance and respect for difference. Jewish people have contributed a great deal to this country, and anyone who says otherwise does not speak for me or my administration.”
He should have further gone on to say:
“I must say that stand with the intellectual and the historical communitity as well, and with the great mass of Americans, and I recognize the need to open up what is, certainly in America, a closed conversation, an unmentionable conversation, that has to do with the history and effect of tribal Judaism in America and, really, throughout the Diaspora. It seems to me that one thing is quite plain, and tell me what you think, but it seems to me that in respect to the Jews, to Judaism, to Jewish power, and to all Jewish questions, that one is not allowed, intellectually, to really think things through. How long has this self-censorship been encouraged. I’ll leave that question to the historians. Yet I am pretty sure it has been going on for 200-300 years at the least. On one side you have those who deny any issue or problem with Jews or ‘Israel’ as a tribal presence within Occidental nations. Then, you have a group which while not exactly friendly to Jewish interests and critical of them is certainly not ‘antisemitic’ but yet is critical and cautious (here I would mention that this has been the Catholic position, taken as a whole). Finally, there is the real antisemitic faction. The real Jew Haters who exaggerate Jewish power, who paranoically turn the Jew into a Satan, an invisible and devious Force. Well, let me just state that, in my view, all of this needs to come out into the open.
Now, my position here may not be popular but I think we need to be able to talk about Jewish presence, and Jewish power, within the American power structure, within industry and media, and also — now hold on to your hats because this will be a bit hard — we must begin to understand the effect of undermining Christian institutions, education, values and mores, through a general effort by interest in which the Jew is often highly represented. But I ask: How can this conversation be fairly conducted? How can it take place without leading, on one hand, to a whitewashing of real events, and real history, and on the other to open expressions of hatred, and even violence against innocent persons? I ask you: in a country which values and encourages ‘free speech’ and thus free-thinking, how has it come about that there are topics that are off-limits?
Recently — it was, and this surprised me, in the NY Times — an article came out on the topic of the Deep State. What is the ‘deep state’? It is an interesting and provocative question. A deep state is a faction withi a nation which, I surmise, holds some level of power which is extra-governmental. It is submerged, perhaps invisible, and yet effective and real. Within the Halls of Power, and privately, I think these factions of the Deep State are understood and known. But how many people, that is, citizens, are aware of the Deep State, and how even would they be able to conceive if it since, by definition it is ‘deep’ and invisible?
Now, I want to bring up the topic of the ‘New York Intellectual Establishment’, and here of course I must mention the NYTimes itself, as a manifestation of —- but I admit to some confusion as to how to describe it — as a manifestation of the interests of a submerged power block within the American power-system. These are the folks who mold ideas and opinions and whose effects are known and felt in the world that is created, but yet who remain, often but not always, invisible and behind the scenes. Can I be allowed to ask the question: What is this? Who stands behind it? What is the connection between this opinion-setting group, and industrial and cultural power, and the Democratic party which, as it seems to me at least, is fighting tooth and nail against whatever it is that they say I am, or what I represent?
And to what degree does this touch on Jewish interests, Jewish power, Jewish domination within a short span really of just over 100 years, of what I will sugest to you here as a ‘deep state power-block’? How can these questions, issues, repressed perceptions, and so much else, begin to be talked about openly and freely?
I only quoted what was give on the White House website. Whatever access you have, all you did was quote what Chris said in your first bolded paragraph, and the rest is what you think he should have gone on to say. “He should have further gone on to say:” followed by your ideals of what should have been stated.
Yes, of course. It is that Chris offers a bromide, but one that is fully tuned to the PC. It is acceptable speech of a Good Boy who mouths the correct platitudes. Since he imagined Trump to have should have said that, I went further an imagined an entire other conversation. It was sort of fun I admit. I had been listening to a debate between William Buckley and James Baldwin on Youtube and fancied I was imitating the way Buckley speaks.
But the part about ‘deep state’, that is really an idea that is being dicussed, in the Times in fact. I therefor suggest that there (must be) various ‘deep states’ operating and that what we witness now — I wonder if it is so? — is the power-struggle between two or more Powers vying for control of the Nation. It does have an epic feel to it, doesn’t it? Shakespearean somehow.
You think I’m going to read that anti-Semitic drivel, Alizia? Fuck you.
That is a curious word, drivel. I have heard it but never did know what it means. It means ‘to slaver’.
It is important that you understand that I am a Jewish Jewish-critical. I am a Christian convert (in essence) and so I look upon Jewishness as something I have evolved out of, if sometimes also ‘escaped from’. But of course there is no absolute escape. And I still have all manner of ties.
But even if you do not read this, someone else might, and it is important to make certain distinctions in the Jewish-critical position. They are three:
One is I think yours. It is that of a person, from a European liberal background, in your case America, who essentially has no position at all on Jews or Judaism, and who reflexively *defends* against any statement of any sort that is not completely positive when Jews or ‘The Jews’ are brought up. This position did not come out of a vaccuum. When you examine it closely, it is really a strange position. Jews have been extremely relevant since the days of the Roman Empire and have a long and complex history there and through all European history. It is a tragic history taken on the whole. And out of this complexity there have arose various different poles of relationship to the Jewish presence. The resistance to Jewish presence, and Jewish activity, is a historical feature. It can be looked at and spoken about. Except of course by people like you. With you the mere mention of something that seems to you criticizing evokes out of you a reactive posture (and naughty words!) In point of fact, and to turn your own word against you, it is you who ‘slaver’ when you yell at me! (Slaver in that sense means uncomprehending reaction, doesn’t it? Like drool or spit or perhaps vomit?) Your position also has a history, a history that can be known, and stems mostly from the French Revolutionary times.
A second position — much more my position — is a fair-minded Jewish critical stance. The essential tenets of Jewish religiosity and the Jewish character are freely examined with a critical but not a violent-mindedness. It is NOT an antisemitic position. In fact it is a position that allows for a more even-minded view of what can only be described as a strange, complex and also powerful people. In fact, a Jewish critical position is a sort of buffer against overt antisemitism.
Antisemitism is another animal altogether. It seems to be a psychological state and to be essentially unreasoning and unreasonable. It grounds itself in taking a mood of dislike to the most farthest points. Essentially, you cannot reason with it. It is a complex subject all in itself. It is fair to say that it does have a relationship to a benign Jewish critical position insofar as its criticisms are not pure inventions. But it does invent complex mythologies which, like myths, exaggerate certain truths. It is dangerous in that sense because antisemitism becomes almost a religious position.
If you are located in the first position, you are there because you have opted to do no thinking at all on the topic. You have just closed your ears, and your mind, to any level of conversation or consideration. Obviously, this is a weak position. But it is also one that the ‘classical Progressive’ takes up, not only in respect to Jewishness (as distinct from Zionism which the Left has never been comfortable with), but in respect to numerosu hot-button topics.
It is the position of a man not free in my opinion. When we do this with any topic, any difficult topic, any unpleasant topic, we are not at all serving the intellect, nor really ‘truth’ if we accept truth as attainable. We are serving nescience. I would suggest that a person opts for this position when that person is under coercive pressure, and the obvious coercive pressure is the guilt and intense heaviness that came about after the last European War with the destruction of the European Jewish communities.
Finally, we are coming to arrest your illegal Meso-American students and ship them back to their homes unless you wash out your mouth with a clean-smelling Protestant soap! All because you said a naughty word!
😉
OK, back to politics-as-usual ….