This is signature significance. I shouldn’t have to point out that such a public declaration of bigotry, hypocrisy and ethics duncery is signature significance for an utter asshole, so I’ll just add that it is also signature significance for anyone who reads Saltz’s Instagram post whose immediate reaction isn’t, “Wow. What an asshole.”
To be fair, Saltz is an art critic for New York Magazine. I personally think art critics are worthless, even more worthless than drama critics and movie critics, but as art critics go, he could still be as reliable and trustworthy as any despite this “I am a hateful idiot!” announcement. Stephen King has made an ass of himself repeatedly during his own descent into Trump Derangement; he’s still the best horror novelist around. Mark Ruffalo’s a fine actor; Rob Reiner might even still be a terrific director; presumably Bette Midler can still sing. If I don’t hold artists’ flawed character and Swiss Cheese brains against their art, I certainly am not going to going to let a blathering critic wildly out of his lane convince me that his astuteness in a dubious pursuit like art criticism is undermined….unless, of course, when he’s judging the art of a Republican. Based on that Instagram outburst, I presume Saltz can never again review the creation of a registered Republican.
I don’t think Jerry thought this through… But based on his quote, I’m not certain Jerry can think. If you voted Republican–ever, apparently, or to avoid electing a struggling stroke victim who was lying about his condition—it means you want to lynch blacks. That seems fair. New York Magazine might want to double security in its offices and have tasers on hand just in case Jerry declared himself Marie of Romania and starts running amuck with a machete.
Later, in a continuation of his meltdown while arguing with Glenn Greenwald (who had written of Saltz, “Doing that as a journalist seems fatal to the job, and well as psychologically ill,”‘ the psychologically ill critic (pssst!…Glenn!…Critics aren’t journalists!), Saltz wrote that Republicans “are anti-democratic, authoritarian.” That’s the argument that continues to make me doubt the sanity of such people. How can anyone who supports the 2023 model of Democrats say that without exploding their own heads? You know…
What an asshole.
__________________
Pointer: Other Bill
Ethics Alarms 
Among NY lefties (and Dems in general)
, I doubt this guy is an outlier. I can see Joy Behar or Chuck Schumer or Bernie Sanders (or Adam Schiff) saying the same things at a cocktail party. These people woke up criminally insane the day after Trump was elected. If they had access to a neutron bomb that would kill only Republican voters, they’d use it in a heartbeat. They want single party rule, like Cuba. The only thing standing between them and Nirvana on earth is Republicans.
Ready to reconsider that national divorce yet? At a bare minimum maybe it’s time for us on the right to start shunning our relatives on the left and boycotting screamingly left-wing businesses. If we are now admitting that it’s time we learn to use ballot harvesting, early voting, and other tools that aren’t going away to our benefits, then it’s time we fight just as dirty with friendships and relations. I’m done sitting and seething while some lefty cousin goes on and on about this or that issue. It’s time to go back at them just as hard, and if necessary, hand them their coats and tell them never to return, even throwing them out bodily if needed.
Having already posted at length about the three-step reconciliation process that Saltz is apparently too self-righteous to grasp, I’ll just start by enumerating his assumptions.
1. He assumes there is no ethical reason a person might vote Republican instead of Democrat, presumably because he assumes Democrats are preferable to Republicans in every meaningful way, unless one has selfish, unethical motivations.
2. He assumes all the people who hold these motivations either know the motivations are unethical, or are in denial based on willful ignorance and rationalizations.
The twist is that even if these assumptions were somehow true, shunning would still be an ineffective approach compared to engaging with people. How exactly does he think that criminals get rehabilitated? Granted, if a person has aggressive tendencies, shunning can protect other people from them and reinforce the importance of self-control. However, when a person attempts to negotiate with society in a civilized manner, refusing to negotiate just because one doesn’t like their perspective is a counterproductive and oppressive approach that reinforces the idea that coercion is the only effective means of interaction. If you don’t give people a path to redemption, they have no reason to change.
Of course, political parties maintain power and profits if they can convince their followers that efforts to communication are futile. If you make people afraid enough, you can convince them to tolerate corruption, with no theoretical limit. You can also convince them to say and do incredibly stupid things, like writing off entire groups of people. That’s why we hear idiocy like Saltz’s tweet. There’s no insight or critical thinking behind it; it’s a reflex, like flinching away from a snake. Before we do anything else, we need to address people’s fear.
He should be reminded that shunning people effectively eliminates your ability to antagonize bakers in court. I wonder if he realizes that the guy who clears his clogged sewer line or operates the tow truck or any other “menial” non-degreed job probably votes Republican.
Coercion is the only effective means of interaction.
Might as well be the left’s motto.
Ooops. Meant to be a reply to EC’s comment.
A worthy nomination, Jack. In fact, he’d be a shoo-in if the position weren’t so unfortunately competitive every year.
Maybe it’s just me, but this sort of advocacy of familial distrust is weirdly reflective of the Civil War — brother killing brother, and all that. Is fomenting resentment and possibly hatred all radicals like this guy have in their arsenal?
How is it possible for someone to be so totally assured of their own moral superiority? I remember a time when people used to question their morality all the time, but it seems that nowadays if you aren’t completely sold on your own moral superiority and preen accordingly at every available opportunity, you must be some kind of evil Putin sympathizer. When did life become so black-and-white for the Left?
Can it ever be said that we owe it to our country to shun fellow citizens with whom we disagree? I don’t think so.
Jack wrote;
Based on that Instagram outburst, I presume Saltz can never again review the creation of a registered Republican.
Well if he can, he is an absolute hypocrite. Of course, that seems to be no bar for the Left these days — in fact, they wear hypocrisy like a badge of honor, bragging about it. I guess when you are so superior to everyone else, you don’t have to concern yourself with such mundane things.
We are seeing this more and more, and it is likely to end badly at some point. What am I to think of people that care only about my politics and nothing else? I’ll tell you what I think — they have driven themselves insane, just as you suggest.
Not only an asshole, but a douchenozzle as well. It would serve him right to perish in the flames of the fire he apparently can’t wait to set.
I’m with you 100%.
I don’t think we need a national divorce per se; rather, all we need to do to re-emphasize federalism/decentralization of the country. Many of our issues stem from and are a function of the federal government growing in size, power, and reach far beyond what the founding fathers envisioned or desired. Let the States run their economies and societies the way their citizens choose, so long as they don’t violate any of the rights expressly enumerated in the US Constitution. People then will vote with their feet
The states face similar issues with the rural/urban divide: The big cities have come to dominate state politics to the frequent detriment of those citizens in the small towns and rural areas. To remedy this:
(1) States need to devise a sort of electoral college process to balance those often-opposing interests rather than letting the urban areas impose their will over the rest of the state in national elections.
(2) Among laws passed by the legislature in my state, “public acts” are applicable to all jurisdictions, while “private acts” generally have local application only. Private acts are likely requested and subsequently approved by a local government. I’m sure most states have similar provisions. They are not used often enough, in my opinion. States need to make more use of legislation that affects only those cities or counties that request such laws and approve such measures by referendum. If the residents of “Bigtown” want to go Leftist crazy (within constitutional limits) then let them have at it, but don’t allow them to impose their lunacy on the rest of the state’s people, who want nothing to do with it.
A friend who lives in rural Illinois often decries that his state is “Chicago vs. Everybody Else.” A relative of mine lives in a very conservative county in Oregon, in a very conservative region of the state, yet Portland often calls the shots in the legislature. Other states obviously have similar conflicts that need to be addressed.
“And yes, they want to bring back lynching.”
Wasn’t it the Democrats who were the biggest fans of lynching back in the day?
I will say this for the critic, if he stops interacting with all Republicans, it’s definitely a win for those Republicans. 🐘