The obnoxious screed “Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?,” authored by an obscure writer I never heard of (three of his better-known mentors are above) and hope I never hear of again, was deemed appropriate content for New York Times readers, and not as satire either.
Litt epitomizes the type of insufferable elitist jerks that have made the modern Left the pit of despond that it has become over the last decade or so. Yuck. Was this guy ever a tolerable human being? The Times should be required to publish a full analysis of how Litt got this way as a public service, kind of like that episode of “I Love Lucy” where her book draft was sought by a publisher to use in a how-to tome to illustrate what writers shouldn’t ever do.
The column is about how Litt “felt a civic duty to be rude” to his wife’s younger brother because he hadn’t seen the light and surrendered his mind to the Woke and Wonderful. A few excerpts will tell you all you need to know about Litt, but I may add a little commentary here and there:
- “He lifted weights to death metal; I jogged to Sondheim.”
Oh, aren’t you an intellectual gem! Wearing earbuds or Bluetooth while jogging isolates you from your community and other human beings, which I regard as anti-social conduct. Lifting weights is as good exercise (or better) as jogging: too toxically masculine, is it? Ooh, and you groove on the sophisticated wordplay and studiedly unhummable music of Stephen Sondheim too! What taste! What sophistication!
- “I was one of President Barack Obama’s speechwriters and had an Ivy League degree; he was a huge Joe Rogan fan and went on to get his electrician’s license.”
I have an Ivy League degree, and the blue collar types I know (including my son) are more interesting than most of my graduating class. A lot less full of themselves, too…
-
“I wasn’t shocked when Matt didn’t get the Covid shot. But I was baffled….Had Matt been a friend rather than a family member, I probably would have cut off contact completely.”
Translation: “Lock-step progressive cant has rendered me narrow-minded, judgmental and unfit for human companionship.”
- “Being unfriendly to people who turned down the vaccine felt like the right thing to do.”
It would, when you have the ethics of a typical Hitler Youth recruit…
- “No one is required to spend time with people they don’t care for. But those of us who feel an obligation to shun strategically need to ask: What has all this banishing accomplished? It’s not just ineffective. It’s counterproductive.”
Because it helped elect Donald Trump, presumably. This guy has discovered that the true assholery of the Totalitarian Left is best kept hidden.
- “More points of deep disagreement will surely arise: over Trump’s immigration crackdown and use of the military in domestic affairs…”
Signature significance twice! Calling illegal immigration “immigration,” the mark of a dishonest propagandist, and characterizing the proper use of the National Guard when a Democratic mayor and governor are encouraging violence against law enforcement as “use of the military in domestic affairs.”
That’s almost all I will inflict on you; the story goes on to explain that Litt started surfing, and that led to a greater appreciation of his brother in law, never mind how or why. He’s cool, see: he surfs, just like Moondoggie and jana and Dean. Litt concludes, “When we cut off contacts, or let algorithms sort us into warring factions, we forget that not so long ago, we used to have things to talk about that didn’t involve politics. Shunning plays into the hands of demagogues, making it easier for them to divide us and even, in some cases, to incite violence.”
Speak for yourself, dickhead: I have never, never lacked for things to talk about besides politics, and neither has anyone else with multiple interests and a genuine appreciation of the vast sphere of human existence. And the only people I want to shun are people like you, and not because of your politics….
Ethics Alarms 
The picture at the top seems to be a damned good start for an @$$hole Mount Rushmore.
PWS
I saw this article yesterday and thought to send it to you, but decided not to as I was afraid it would cause, not only a cranial explosion, but an aneurysm. If you died because I sent you something that melted your brain, I’d feel guilty.
I read this and, after I scraped my brain off the table and my kids schoolwork, I thought there was a very interesting point made in the article. The author starts off with a negative view of his brother-in-law (BIL) because he has an Ivy League degree (something that is a negative to the hiring process out here) and his brother is an electrician. I guess he has never needed some electrical work done. (Bias alert – I have a cousin who just graduated high school and starts his electrician’s apprenticeship – complete training provided – this fall at a $40K a year salary, rather than $40K paid for a year of school.) This negative view is of course reinforced as his BIL is conservative and refuses the vaccine (that Trump pushed through the system – how is this a progressive item) that was untested and now is highly correlated to a lot of issues, especially heart issues in men.
The author does not completely cut his BIL off, but is curt, and from the sound of things, obnoxious, to him. However, he needed a surfing buddy, so he asked the hated BIL to help. Here comes the statement that caught me. Despite the fact that the BIL is so much better at surfing, he does not look down on the author, as the author practically admits he deserves. He is a good person, despite years of family tension, which is what brings the author around to enjoying time with his BIL and even becoming friends (as long as politics aren’t involved) with him.
I think that the admission that he thought his BIL would look down on him because in this one avenue (in the author’s mind) he was superior, tells us a lot, not about the BIL, but about the author. I am not an Ivy League degree holder, but I sure don’t see that fancy degree as putting anyone above me in position. I also don’t see myself as superior to someone who decided that instead of going to college, they would embark upon a trade. This seems to be much more prominent in the progressive mindset, than in the conservative mindset, though I am certain there are conservatives who are the same.
Perhaps the real lesson to be learned from this article is that we should aspire to be like the BIL, who graciously taught the author how to surf and exuded joy, not superiority at the shared interest, even as the more skilled of the two. If we can restore some of the unity that has been lost by being gracious, forgiving, and a generally good person, perhaps that is a goal we should aspire to.
I’m with Sarah. This author guy thinks he is superior to his BIL in every way, from politics to education to music to working out to overall outlook on life, even in his acknowledgement that BIL isn’t a Neanderthal. I bet if you ask the BIL about this author guy, he’d shrug is shoulders and ask you to pass him can of Busch (the horror!). Furthermore, the author is telling us how great he is by recognizing that lowly blue collar workers may actually, in some minute way, contribute something to society. Jerk.
About a month ago, our 20 year old water heater failed – miserably, I might add, depositing 50 gallons of boiling water all over the laundry room and kitchen. (You know you have a problem when your long-suffering wife asks in a slightly concerned, sweet voice, “dear, would you come have a look at this . . . .”).
I called a plumber guy who told me what to buy and he would meet me at my house at 4:00 p.m. It was 3:00 p.m. and he apologized that he couldn’t be there earlier. So, off I ran to Home Depot. The guy in the plumbing section saw me coming and could tell I needed a hot water heater. He had already pulled the monstrosity out of the bin, had the connection lines set aside, and was ready to help me wheel it out to my car, after paying, of course. That entire purchase took less than 20 minutes. The Home Depot plumber guy is a wondeful, helpful, and instructive fellow, who has assisted me in solving all kinds of weird problems that only a 60 year old house can present.
When I arrived with the hot water heater, the plumber guy pulled into my driveway right behind me. It was now 3:30 and I wasn’t expecting him for another 30 minutes. He apologized again for being late(?!).
He and I spent about 20 minutes muscling the old unit out of its tight spot. Then, we worked together putting the new one into the tight spot, both very relieved we didn’t have to grapple with the attic stairs and tight squeezes in that place, especially in the middle of Summer in Houston!
After we finished, the plumber guy said he had never had a homeowner so involved in a project like that, especially one that did not get in the way and tell him how to do his job. My dad always taught me that I should listen to skill technicians, whether they are plumbers, electricians, A/C techs, etc. That seemed to resonate with the plumber guy. While working on the job, he told what he was doing and why, and where he deviated from the normal processes because his experience taught him that doing “Y” was more effective, efficient, and easier than doing “X”. He was surprised that a doofus lawyer was as handy with plumbing tools as I was. I told him I understood how to do certain things but when it came to the “hard” stuff (running electrical cables or breaker box issues or A/C repairs or welding galvanized pipes) I left that to the experts.
He was a very nice, professional, and instructive guy. I learned a lot about plumbing and handling customers from him. As it turned out, my neighbor had a plumbing issue a few weeks later. I referred him to the plumber guy. Same experience.
All of this is to say that, much like my dad taught me, I don’t look down on others because they are not college/law school/medical school educated. The guy down the street is a master carpenter who makes some of the most impressive cabinets right in his garage. Mitre saws and paint dance at his command even though he only has an associates degree from a community college. I am constantly in awe at his abilities. Likewise, the nextdoor neighbor is a hairstylist whose formal education was cosmotology school but she can work wonders with the mop that is my hair like no one else.
jvb
Outstanding thoughts, jvb!
PWS
I agree with this; “When we cut off contacts, or let algorithms sort us into warring factions, we forget that not so long ago, we used to have things to talk about that didn’t involve politics.”
A 30 year acquantice (ex friend) did so with our relatioship that use to consist of weekly coffee meetings to talk of books, cinema, and other non political stuff. Starting in 2016, elevating in 2020, and now at its apex in 2024-25 he and his wife have permitted alogorithims, to destroy “chatting and coffee.”
An addendum: I should have seen the red flag when I was the one who alwys paid for the coffee. He could never find his pocket!
I sentence the author to one week of no electricity, no indoor plumbing, and no garbage pick up. I give him til noon before he has a complete and utter meltdown; like only the Ivy league educated can.
I’ll take the gift horse, thanks.
This person is telling a story that will connect with people who think like him, and the lesson of the story is that people who don’t think like them aren’t bad people; they’re worthy of the same respect as anyone else.
He’s not writing for you; he’s writing in a way that builds credibility with the people who need to hear his message.
Maybe he is a snob, but he’s a snob who’s learning. Are you going to punish him for taking a step towards ethics? Are people going to want to take that step if that’s the response they get?
That said, you’re not writing for his audience, either, so you’re not wrong to criticize them. Just be mindful of what you’re trying to accomplish when you say things. If you do ever want to reach those people later, you’ll need to adjust your approach.
Your argument reminds me of William Jennings Bryan’s dodge in the Scopes Trial, when Clarence Darrow was examining him on the stand regarding the literal interpretation of the Bible, that God sometimes used terms that could be understood at the time. Like He didn’t really mean that the Sun moved around the Earth, but since people at the time believed that, that’s what He said even though of course God knew that the Earth moved around the Sun. It’s a neat dodge. But it still is a dodge.
What am I dodging? And what does the Bible have to do with this? People who say the Bible was written so it could be understood by ancient humans are trying to rationalize why modern humans should continue to follow it. I’m saying that Litt’s article is a scaffold, an incremental step that can be respected for what it is, and then discarded when people have moved past it.
Can people do better than what Litt describes, and should they? Absolutely! But do you want people to feel good about having made an attempt at human decency? Or do you want to ignore that and call attention to everything they still lack? Because that sounds a lot like Litt to me.
I have a policy when I’m talking to someone who’s technologically illiterate. No matter how annoyed I am with them, I will praise them for understanding something or doing something correctly. If my tone has gotten cold, often I’ll let it melt entirely. The goal is that instead of remembering web navigation as a harrowing experience, they’ll remember it as a personal triumph. They will be less afraid to learn more. This principle applies to getting anyone to challenge themselves, including challenging themselves to be a more ethical and open-minded person.
What part of this isn’t making sense?
Are there potential elements of progress indicated in the writer’s article, yes. And these are good. If I were in person with him, I would celebrate with him for his novel discovery.
His article could be sincere, I hope it is. If it is maybe he realizes how wrong he was, but must write in tone to avoid alienating his audience…. Not many have the humble fortitude to endure the hard writing style of Jack Marshal.
However, as someone listening to its tone from a galaxy far far away, it sounds dripping of self-congratulations for taking one for the team, a real servant of servants, condescending benevolently even like Jesus coming down from glory to bear with us ignorant pedestrian others.
Yet, I know someone who is sincere and they talk and write in the same tone…. And this person is completely sincere. I think the tone might just be a product of the finishing school he attended.
The part that justifies writing something that is pandering crap to one audience while a more rational audience realizes it’s crap, but the writer says, “I wasn’t talking to you.” Would you make a same argument for a white racist who says, “I wasn’t talking to you, Midnight!” Presumably a Times column should have value for all readers, not just progressives who think they know it all and are better than those who think Sondheim is an over-rated auteur. Like I do…
If the white racist was being criticized for how they told the story of how they learned that they were wrong to disrespect people of other ethnicities… well, I suspect they wouldn’t phrase their self-defense so rudely, or it would invalidate their story of learning humility. But yes, I would absolutely make the same argument. Don’t alienate the people who are making an effort and moving in the right direction.
I finally actually read the article, and I can barely see what you’re seeing. I think you’re looking at Litt with a jaundiced eye, interpreting his personality in the worst way because you disagree with his politics, and because of how he characterizes himself of three years ago. A normal photograph of someone’s face looks flattering if you’re told the person pictured is a skilled rescue worker, but creepy if you’re told they’re a serial killer. (That’s not how they originally tested the Kuleshov Effect, but it’s easier to explain.) Sometimes that applies to writing as well.
I was likewise puzzled at first that he included his brother-in-law’s name, but I think that he makes his respect for his brother-in-law clear while being tactfully candid about what he used to think of him. He’s describing his former perspective so he can explain to people how he was wrong and what he learned. The “lifting weights to death metal” and such just illustrates that their personal differences made it hard for Litt to connect with his brother-in-law, and gives concrete examples of how their personalities are different. (If someone writes “I like hiking; she likes reading,” is that judgmental?) He needed to convey those differences, whether or not he judged his brother-in-law for those and not just for the political differences. Same with the education/occupation–they come from different backgrounds, that’s a good way to communicate it to the audience, and the audience might identify with it. The different personalities and backgrounds is part of what made it easy for Litt to dismiss his brother-in-law over political opinions; until Litt took up surfing, they didn’t have enough in common to make him realize that they could still interact as fellow humans.
It sounds like Litt now respects his brother-in-law despite their political differences, and realizes he was wrong to disrespect him before. I think his brother-in-law would agree after reading this article.
When someone tells the story of how they learned humility to an audience who needs to learn the same lesson, I would expect them to illustrate not just their initial arrogance, but how that arrogance seemed reasonable from the inside. Otherwise the intended audience can’t connect with it. How do you think Litt should have done it? Should he have adopted his brother-in-law’s political positions at the end? Should he have said that not only was he wrong on general principle to look down on his brother-in-law, but in fact he has now realized that all the things he had despised in his brother-in-law actually made his brother-in-law superior to him?
If I take this at face value, it sounds a lot like projection to me. You’re expressing the lifestyle judgment you think Litt was thinking about his brother-in-law, which I don’t even think he was thinking. (Maybe he was at some point; doesn’t matter.) Are you actually holding his musical tastes against him? Or are you just demonstrating the point that other people can judge his lifestyle just as easily as he can judge theirs?
Either way, I get the strong impression that if Litt were here, he would treat you better than you would treat him.
It has nothing to do with his politics at ALL. The fool defines himself by meaningless things: he likes Sondheim: so what? He jogs. Big deal. He went to an Ivy League school. And? He wrote speeches for Obama. Big whoop. He’s using stereotypes to define himself and everyone else. He’s shallow and doesn’t even realize it. Why should anyone like that have a platform in the Times? He’s a bad example and teaches anti-social habits. I’m not interested in the revelations of someone who reasons like that, and nobody else should be either.
“The fool defines himself by meaningless things… He’s using stereotypes to define himself and everyone else.”
Where I come from, this is known as “telling a story.” He is characterizing the people in his persuasive nonfiction story with concrete details to flesh out their personalities in the minds of the readers. This is how I learned to write prose.
“My brother-in-law and I are different.” The audience wants to know how so. “I like X, he likes Y.” Ah, there we go. The details support the assertion of difference, add human interest, and yes, they do allow people to fill in the gaps between what’s said explicitly with some assumptions of their own. That’s how characterization works sometimes. Should he have said, “I like cats and he likes dogs,” or would you find a sense of superiority in that? What if it was the other way around? What about, “I like country music and he likes pop”? Is Litt supposed to lie about his musical preferences in order to seem less pretentious to you, even though the audience he’s trying to connect with probably shares his tastes anyway?
If readers start judging the brother-in-law by Litt’s descriptions, that only makes the lesson of the story hit harder for them, because the point of the story is that the author realized he was wrong. The readers who identify with the author will then have to wrestle with the idea that the author has moved away from that judgmental point of view. The brother-in-law probably still likes lifting weights to death metal, but now the reader has to reevaluate the assumptions they made based on that fact.
Would you criticize the story of the Good Samaritan for invoking the stereotype that a Samaritan would not be willing to help a Jew injured on the road? Because the story would be almost pointless without that element. This is the exact same principle.
I think your assessment that you cannot trust the author is mistaken, but you’re entitled to decide what trust you’re willing to extend. I disagree with your interpretation of the author’s current perspective, but I can see how you would draw that conclusion. However, if you can’t see why I would draw different conclusions about the author, even if you believe I’m mistaken, then you have some serious issues. You may want to take a step back and reflect on how you evaluate people.
Litt is an example of what a reasonable Leftist can look like. If you want reasonable Leftists to come to your blog, you need to be able to recognize them and treat them as such. If you don’t believe there is such a thing as a reasonable Leftist, then it shouldn’t surprise you when Leftists assume there are no reasonable conservatives and express vicious contempt for conservatives and their beliefs. You certainly wouldn’t be giving them a reason to rethink their assumptions.
I dunno, EC. While he seems to have changed his opinion about his BIL, he still seems like a jerk to me.
Perhaps it is because of my recent experiences with an immediate family member that cloud my normal belief of giving people the benefit of the doubt.
See, he came to visit in 2019 when our brother was in the hospital and again in 2020 just before the elections. He berated me because I voted for, and planned to vote again, for Orange Man Bad. He didn’t care why I voted for Trump; he simply declared that I voted for a racist, sexist, . . .; therefore, I am a racist, sexist, . . . When asked what Biden’s tax policy was, his response was “Not Trump.” When asked about immigration or trade or Russia policy, his response was “Not Trump.” He couldn’t articulate why Biden was better or what evil Trump and perpetrated. Just “Trump is evil.”
I found it odd that he stayed in our house, ate meals prepared by my wife (who, incidentally, could destroy Bobby Flay or that other English blowhard in a cookoff throw down any day of the week), slept in our house, and played with our dog, yet he felt secure enough in his convictions that he could insult us and accuse us of crimes against humanity because we voted for Trump, all while asking to pass the salt, chipotles, and tortillas.
After our brother passed, I attempted to make contact with him. Crickets. He hasn’t spoken to me in over two years and refuses any sort of contact whatsoever. He ignores our son’s text messages and phone calls. Our son is more blunt about it: Me: “Did you call your uncle for his birthday?” Him: “No. Why would I do that? He treats you and mom like shit. He can go to hell.”
My wife attempted to contact him but after the most recent handslap to the face cyber-rebuke, she has decided to give up, too. My wife showed her texts to him. Benign and courteous: “Hey, we are coming to your neck of the woods in July and would like to see you.” His response: “Yeah, no. That worthless husband of yours has to attone for his bad behavior before I will agree to see him.” I can’t imagine what the hell he meant or why he said that. My wife is more disturbed or upset about than your humble correspondent.
Yet, your comment led me to a re-reading of the article, thinking I was too harsh to the author and missed something, based on your position that we should try to acknowledge – or at least recognize – when someone makes a change for the supposed better.
See, I don’t buy that he has changed. Nobody writes something like that about a friend or family member. Nobody. And they surely don’t name the target of their screed like that. Were I to read that about me in the NYT, I would tell my BIL that I am not availalbe for surfing anytime soon. I am not, and never intend to be, the foil for some self-absorbed prick’s realization that people of different backgrounds are not evil knuckledraggers and just may be decent people. Should I be honored that my BIL thought me a simpleton but my athleticism caused a shift in my BIL’s perception of me? My response would be: “Look, you’re 35 years old and you are only NOW realizing that not everybody on the planet went to some Ivy League university, and those of who didn’t are not worse off because of it? Where the hell have been and why did it take you 35 years to figure that our? Therapy much? Look at you: you’re Ivy League educated but it looks like that high-powered learning has not served you very well in the real, tangible world. You and your fellow Ivy Leaguers think you are our superiors. Fuck that. I bet you couldn’t fix a lamp if your life depended on it.”
jvb
I agree the guy sounds like he is still a jerk, as does (unfortunately) your OMB brother. My sympathy with that, and also with the loss of your other brother.
Yikes, I’m sorry to hear that your family member is so closed-minded and ungrateful.
I do think that you may still be reading the article through that lens you mentioned. It reads sincerely to me. I don’t see any condemnation or mockery of the brother-in-law at any point, just a matter-of-fact description of the author’s perspective–in terms of honest confusion (“how can someone hold these opinions?”), which is a valid perspective and should not be taken as inherently insulting.
It would have been nice if Litt had already made it as far as realizing “oh, that’s how someone can hold these opinions.” Maybe he has and it was just outside the scope of the story he wanted to tell, because people deserve respect even when you don’t understand their perspective.
That’s what I gather from the article; Litt tells how he came to realize that just because he didn’t understand his brother-in-law’s opinions didn’t mean his brother-in-law was a bad person or less worthy of respect.
No, that’s missing the point. The point was that his brother-in-law had an opportunity to express the same sort of superiority over Litt that Litt felt over him, but didn’t. That set an example that Litt realized he himself wasn’t living up to. His brother-in-law showed ethical behavior, which Litt learned from.
I don’t know that I’d suggest sending it to him yourself, but I do think your family member would benefit from reading that article.
Does that make more sense?
“His generosity of spirit in the water made me rethink my own behavior on land.” Well. A little bit. A step. The context in which he detects this generosity of spirit is also telling — his BIL has the opportunity to look down on him, and doesn’t. What changes the author’s perspective is something BIL *doesn’t* do (look down on others, a move that is apparently second nature to the convinced-of-his-superior-status author) rather than something he does. It’s not a rant, a parading of facts, an appeal to experts that has an impact — it is BIL being his best self, and the author noticing this.
So, a baby step. In these times of extreme partisanship, in which people who identify with right and left sides of the spectrum seem to be endlessly asserting to one another that those with a different perspective are evil, insane, brainwashed, etc., even baby steps are still steps in a better direction….
Litt admits to jogging? It’s only been a couple of months since another NYT opinion piece had the title, “Jogging Has Always Excluded Black People”. He better watch out, he might not pass the next purity test.
I can’t imagine how he can write about shunning a family member until that person had a skill that Litt wanted to learn, and not realizing that it makes him look like a manipulative user. I got the feeling he thought he was being gracious by allowing the ignorant peasant to help him surf better.
“Wearing earbuds or Bluetooth while jogging isolates you from your community and other human beings, which I regard as anti-social conduct.”
David Litt is a smug insufferable elitist libtard but by god you manage to come across as even more retarded than him.
Thanks for giving me credit! People who block out the world while walking in public, jogging in public and riding bicycles in public endanger themselves and others, PLUS they isolate themselves from their community. So do people who walk along staring at their phones. You can choose to shrug it off, but that’s still true. I presuume your a misled because “everybody does it.”