I have mentioned before that I find it remarkable that if you can string three sentences together and appear relatively affluent and educated, people assume that you hate the President and believe that “everything is terrible.”
Today I was waiting in an inexcusably long line because Harris Teeter’s had only one check-out station open even though it had to know that the snow-phobic Northern Virginians would be stocking up for the weekend snow storm. I found myself behind a chatty and pleasant woman close to my age. She struck up a conversation, and, as usual, I was not at a loss for words. We talked about movies and history, National Parks, the Tunnel Tree, and Theodore Roosevelt.
She said she wished it were a longer line because she enjoyed the conversation so much, and out of the blue said that if we weren’t going to be so snow-bound, she would join a protest somewhere, because there is so much to protest. She said it as if she didn’t think there was a chance in a million that I wasn’t in complete agreement. After all, I was friendly, polite and articulate: surely I must be terrified by the threat to democracy that all decent people—all her friends and social media pals and those smart pundits on MSNBC—see.
I saw no point in challenging her. In my experience, when I ask, “What exactly do you think is so terrible?” the answers that come back are vague, evasive, non-substantive or factually wrong. She seemed happy and was enjoying my company. Why break the mood? I’ll probably never see the old bat again. I did not want to prompt an imitation of that woman in “The Birds.”
I was dying to point out, I must confess, that her disdain for Donald trump was at odds with her stated admiration of Teddy Roosevelt, since Trump’s view of his office is more Rooseveltian than any POTUS since TR, with the exception of his cousin Franklin. I’m pretty sure Trump had Teddy in mind when he reacted with defiance after being shot: Roosevelt pulled the same stunt in 1912.
It is remarkable that everyone around here just assumes you are a member of their progressive club, or cult, or delusion. Never have I had anyone make the opposite assumption, that I am one of them, the evil people who think this President is doing many things that desperately need to be done, and that he deserves more support and respect for having the guts to do them.
Why is that?
Ethics Alarms 
“It is remarkable that everyone around here just assumes you are a member of their progressive club, or cult, or delusion.”
The running joke among hopelessly outnumbered Righties in the 77 Square Miles surrounded by A Sea Of Reality is the sad lament of the ideologically immovable, stubbornly steadfast career Lefty:
“How did Trump get elected…TWICE? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”
PWS
That’s kind of humorous, Paul, since more people in your state pulled the lever for Trump than Harris. Of course, the “77 Square Miles” is so unbelievably red that I suppose it’s possible to truthfully say that. Madison is similar to Iowa City here, where it breaks down something like 70-30 Democrat-Republican.
“Of course, the ’77 Square Miles’ is so unbelievably red that I suppose it’s possible to truthfully say that.” (bolds mine)
That a typo?
Madison’s CommonSENSELESS Council came up one (1) vote shy of renaming Bassett Street Ho Chi Minh Trail, installed the Plastic Pink Flamingo as the Official City Bird (DISCLOSURE: One of the originals lies within 50 feet/15.24 meters from where I type), features an seemingly submerged Statue of Liberty on a frozen Lake Mendota, and held Boom Box Parades, all of which, and so much more, gives it a reputation for being eccentric…edgy…fun…zany…out there.
But red? Ne’er the twain shall meet!
PWS
THAT would be a typo that I completely glossed over.
“Blue.” Unbelievably “blue”.
It’s northern Virginia. It should still be part of DC. I’d imagine those counties go almost 95-5 for Democrats. She was making a safe bet.
But it’s not just Northern Virginia. As I wrote at the time, everyone at my law school reunion was taking to me like this. The only political posts on my Facebook page from lawyer and theater types are Trump Deranged, and nobody is expected to disagree. Comments on my ethics lawyers; website are also always full of anti-Trump shots, and because I am one of the few members who responds to these with routine, “Keep it to legal ethics; I’m not here to read partisan rants,” I am effectively marked with an “Untouchable” brand there. (They can all bite me.)
Progressives have four things going for them:
Their sense of untouchability. Don Lemon, Renee Good, your lady in line at the store, rioters, etc. They genuinely believe they have some special voice in our constitutional arrangement that can say and do anything with impunity when they disagree with politics. Conservatives, wielding a dismissably small fraction of the pop culture / media control of the free speech space, however, operate with far less confidence knowing even a tiny comment in public can be recorded leading to doxxing and personal harrassment from legions of Leftists acolytes who somehow exist without jobs obligating them to be somewhere.
Their supreme sense, built around their echo chambers, that conservatives exist almost entirely in trailer parks deep in rural areas, and if they were to venture into the erudite confines of a metropolis, they can be tamped down via the threats described in #1. Because of this, they are 100% certain that a person in public must agree with their refined Left wing views.
The fact that, generally speaking, knowing there are exceptions, that progressives tend towards atheism/secularism, have scant little else in their lives of interest to talk about and are reasonably convinced that people of other worldviews also only want to talk about politics.
If they were to be confronted, they don’t have to back up anything, because if you disagree with them, by their definition its because you are either a sexist, a racist, a homophobe, xenophobe, or some other form of intolerant bigot (as if tolerance is actually a virtue beyond it being mere patience).
I too experience times when I’m with a mix of people, who are generally from a wide spectrum of political beliefs and its almost only ever the progressives who are bold enough to just start complaining. It’s never a discussion and its always a matter-of-fact declaration.
Yay wordpress ignoring the formatting that IT CLEARLY recognized as it automatically populated the list numbers for me as I typed. Of the 6 paragraphs, the middle 4 are supposed to be numbered
Jack,
It makes sense that lawyers tend to favor bigger government. Trump’s desire to reduce the regulatory burden for business which is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars would reduce their potential incomes. This is no different than any other lobbyist who seeks rules to prevent barriers to entry. Lawyers have proven themselves to be more inclined to follow the money than necessarily seeking fair and just outcomes in disputes.
In Economics we term this rent seeking: Rent seeking is defined as any practice in which an entity aims to increase its wealth without making any contribution to the wealth or benefit of society. It’s typically done by manipulating the political environment and can result in social harm. A common example of rent seeking is the act of lobbying for government-funded subsidies.
A great addition to my complaints in a previous post about the Stock Market.
In New York its “Wall Street” , In Texas, its “Big Oil”, in Massachusetts its “Big Pharma”, at one time Virginia was “Big Tabacco”. None of those is where the real money is. The real money is in “Big Government”. They can print all the money they want. That is why the four or five counties that surround DC are the wealthiest in the nation and some of the least affordable areas to live because of government largesse.
Big Government is the only “Big” without a negative connotation.
There’s also “Big Law” and “Big Media” and “Big Education” which are exactly as ethically corrupt and economically greedy as progressives imagine the “Bigs” they complain about to be. But those don’t get complained about. I wonder why?
I should have added those. Big Law was referenced – but not by that term – in a different comment on lawyers.
“It is remarkable that everyone around here just assumes you are a member of their progressive club, or cult, or delusion. Never have I had anyone make the opposite assumption, that I am one of them, the evil people who think this President is doing many things that desperately need to be done, and that he deserves more support and respect for having the guts to do them.
“Why is that?“
Michael Burkun wrote a revealing book: The Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (2003):
“Tracing the beliefs in various conspiracies and mega-conspiracies in literature, apocalyptic and political writing, and popular culture, Barkun creates an exceptional and invaluable genealogy of the extraordinary permutations that these ideas have undergone since WWII and, of course, as a result of the Internet. Barkun dives into the religious and political matrix of what some call the “lunatic fringe,” forcing us to look at the revival and spread of conspiracist thinking on an even grander scale into broad reaches of American culture. For those who think conspiracy thinking is a fading phenomenon, or a cultural phenomenon of little significance or creativity, think again. Welcome to the third millennium.”
James Lindsay, who though he seems to be heading for a ‘deeper end’ has done a great deal of decent work analyzing ‘the origins of woke’, has arrived at a general theory which is quite similar to that of Barkun. I wonder how it could be summed up? I think I would say it like this: Everyone is seeking an ‘explanatory model’ to make sense of what is, essentially, the incarnated being’s ‘existential dilemma’. James Lindsay, who earlier devoted his reserches to ‘the Woke Left’ has, logically as far as his analysis goes, turned his focus to ‘the Woke Right’ which, in his view, offers an equally radical ‘explanatory model’. But according to Lindsay it too, or it in similar and corresponding ways, reflects and embodies an essentially paranoid model.
Donald Trump must be seen as, and can only be seen as, a deeply psychological figure who invites classic ‘projection’ of inner material. They see in him what they want to see, or in this sense what they need to see: Is he a Savior-figure who will restore America to a former ‘greatness’, or is he an echo of a Hitlerian historical figure who will deal with so-called Progressive America’s ‘Weimar Republic’ by sending them off to their visualized death camps?
If history does not repeat itself but ‘rhymes’ then in this period of rather obvious pre-(world) war conditions, but war of a Forth and Fifth Generation sort where controlling information and ‘view’ is the name of the game, then it stands to reason that all narratives will be made deeply convoluted, but this convolution is also and actually the state of many American’s inner self and soul: They are not capable of rational analysis because they cannot separate themselves from the currents of presented views and ‘interpretations’ that come to them from all angles.
It is a curious problem that I have tried to face in myself: If you do get to the point where you see that ‘the world has gone mad’ and you cannot count on the people of that world, and the people around you, to be able to ground themselves in ‘reality’ and to see and explain clearly and truthfully what is really going on, what then is left for you? That is, what is your ethical and moral option?
Some observations from south central Wisconsin perch.
I’ve noticed for a while that no one is really happy about what’s going on politically in our country. Lots of people seem to think that “everything is terrible” but they seem to think that way for entirely different reasons.
Keeping that in mind and knowing that I have no formal training in this, I’m trying to approach this in, what I would consider to be, a journalistic manner.
Late last year I came up with a canned reply that I think is relatively non-partisan to use when I’m talking in-person with a person that talks about politics in a “everything is terrible” way. I’m intentionally trolling these people, trying to suck them into a perceived safe space to open up. It goes something like this…
…then I wait for the person to open up, if they choose, and reveal which side of the partisan divide they’re on. Some people seem to allow their their fear of public confrontation to take control and basically shut down. I try to remain as non-partisan as I can, ask some simple opinion questions about current events, try not to choose a side, and give them room to babble. It’s amazing how some people are willing to endlessly babble on about politics once you give them a space. Extradimensional Cephalopod would certainly agree with that.
I’ve been doing this, in person, since somewhere shortly after Thanksgiving last year. I’ve veered away from doing this with close friends or family members. Some of the people are people I’m sort of familiar with, but most of them I don’t know at all. So far, I’ve done it with about 50 people and I’ve noticed a trend that the replies are kind of predictable.
Most of the people that have been relatively conservative minded people seem to actually talk about what I actually said; they too thought more general involvement in politics was a good thing, they too wish there was far less propaganda, and they are really tired of the partisan hypocrisy. There were a few in this group of people that went to the extremes with things like it’s going to end in civil war, but most stuck to the topics I raised.
On the other hand, almost every person that revealed themselves to be non-conservative leaped directly to listing their anti-Trump grievances and it almost always started off with something related to racism, ICE, and fascism. What’s become really clear to me is that the non-conservative people that I personally talked to in this area think Trump’s crack down on illegal immigration has got absolutely nothing to do with enforcing the law, instead they honestly believe it’s fascist racism, but they produce some frontier gibberish when you ask them to support either their fascist or racist claims and the conversation is instantly over. These people seem to truly believe that Trump is pure evil. The shear anger in the faces of the non-conservatives when talking about Trump was very visible, they were totally consumed with hate.
I’m going to continue to do this more as we approach the mid-term elections.
Finally; I heard something the other day in one of these conversations that I’m not sure about but is seemed to be accurate. Is there history supporting this kind of thinking, “war divides people and post war politics seem to always be really divided and messy for a few decades”. Is there some truth in saying that what the USA is going through now is at least somewhat related to the years long War on Terror?
“war divides people and post war politics seem to always be really divided and messy for a few decades”.
Is this true for the United States during World War II?
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT asked, “Is this true for the United States during World War II?”
I don’t think it happened in 1945, but I wasn’t there. Someone other than me wrote the history books.
Remember, I’m not the one that stated that, I stated “I’m not sure about” about it. I’m the one asking if there’s truth to the statement.
Finally; I heard something the other day in one of these conversations that I’m not sure about but is seemed to be accurate. Is there history supporting this kind of thinking, “war divides people and post war politics seem to always be really divided and messy for a few decades”. Is there some truth in saying that what the USA is going through now is at least somewhat related to the years long War on Terror?
I noticed in your essay that you desire for there to be no or less ‘propaganda’, so you should be able to state beyond all questioning that the “war on terror” — the phrase itself — is bound up directly in bona fide propaganda. If this is so then an interesting project stands before us: to accurately see and honestly state every use of “propaganda” in our present and also historically.
Curiously the prime minister of Canada just came out and admitted that the very structure of a “world rule based order” led by the US and participated in by Occidental powers was a convenient lie and a propaganda term. Oopsie! It is now being discussed widely (Glen Greenwald has a long video where he expresses amazement at the bold honesty).
But what interests me more is your question about the effects of war on the social body of America. But let’s be realistic: the effects of unjust war on a wide class within America who show signs now of social sickness and the sort of ills that show up in ‘the body politic’.
It was Donald Trump’s narrative (apparently a propagandistic ploy, a trick) that the ills of America were brought about by policies that did great harm to Americans: those endless wars, the gutting of industries being the main ones. What class in America did all that? For Heaven’s sake the facts must be stated non-propagandistically, yes?
If “stating the truth” is ethical (this might be doubtful since it is sometimes better to avoid the truth when economic factors are at play) then how indeed shall we go about explaining what Donald Trump et al are doing now that they have the reins of power?
In my view it is easier to state the truth. At least one will not therefore fall into self-deception and the damage it does to a person’s integrity.
The psychological health of America is not in a good, balanced and ordered state. And this man, this president, emblemizes in notable ways America’s sickness. He is filled with lying as is the entire political class!
This has happened to me constantly since 2015. I assume it’s my nose ring. I usually do not engage but just smile politely.
Why is that?
We don’t sufficiently realize that we move among the well to do, college educated, white, suburban demographic that makes up a major component of the Democratic party’s base. This cohort has known we know better ever since high school. We’re smarter. Come on, most people don’t even know what “percentile” means, never mind perch in the upper reaches of SAT takers.
I had the same experience during my college reunion. One classmate, the wife of a fellow graduate research physician, gushed about what an absolutely brilliant man St. Anthony of Fauci is. But remembering what college was like and what my first exposure to the Northeast was, everyone in the Northeast college educated demographic was brought up to think we knew best and the vast majority of the populace are morons who need to be led by their betters, i.e., us. And that never went away, it just grew more prominent. Now we’re retired, we have all day to tell ourselves how great we are and preach the truth to others.
By the way, when I was trying to argue with the ICE get out protesters, one of the women, hilariously, pulled out and waved the “I have a Ph.D!” saber. It was only after the fact I realized I should have responded, (if not, “Your mother smells of elderberries!”) “Yeah, well, doctor, I have a J.D.! So, I’m a doctor too! Neener, neener, neener!”