Well said, as always. There's also the mind-bogglingly low bar we set for Trump. We expect him to be as awful as possible at all times, so when he is, it's a "dog bites man" story. It's not news.
But the Democrats not only claim the high road, but usually take it. Everyone - even their detractors - expert them to at least try to be better people. So when they stumble, it's "man bites dog." "Oh, look who isn't as great as they say they are!"
There's no point in shaming the billionaire media. They don't care what we think.
The only solution is to cancel your subscription. And don't stream it either.
There are plenty of sources of information. I bet your library has a subscription if you really need to know something from the NYT. Or tune in to your local TV channel with an HD antenna. It's free.
It's easier to remember "Cling to their guns and religion" and "Deplorables" because Democrats almost never talk this way. When we keep going back to the same two examples because there aren't any others that come to mind, of course we'll be able to remember those two examples really, really well.
Meanwhile, when was the last time a Republican insulted people in San Francisco or New York City? Fifteen minutes ago? When it's a firehose of hate, then no, I can't precisely recall any individual hate-droplet aimed at me.
If this was Germany in the 1930's (gosh, wonder why that came to mind) and somebody tried to put you on the spot and said, "Name one specific thing Hitler said against the Jews", you might actually be hard-pressed to do so, because the hate was so constant and all-encompassing. Hate was in the air that people breathed, after a while people stop noticing or remembering specific examples.
One thing that makes Republican attacks more effective (aside from the fact the media keeps parroting them) is that they're always careful to fit any attack on an individual Democrat into a wider framework of attacks on all Democrats. People just remember individual facts better when they're given a frame to put them in. So their response to Clinton's "deplorables" remark wasn't just "Clinton said an outrageous thing", it was "All Democrats are liberal elitists who have contempt for ordinary, working-class Americans and this just proves it." This makes it possible to re-use the attack, over and over, even after the "offender" has left the scene.
Democrats, OTOH, have no wider framework, no general critique of Republicans at all. Trump does something awful and the response is to point out for the zillionth time that Trump is awful, instead of saying, "Well, what do you expect? Trump's a Republican, and that's just how Republicans are." No, Democrats must never say such a thing, because there's a woman who lives in the Pittsburgh suburbs who's a moderate Republican, and she's right on the edge of voting for us, but any general attacks on Republicans she will take personally, causing her to run back into the arms of the Republican party. I guess that's their rationale, I can think of no other.
I think it's at least a focusing issue. Flood the zone works. Guns and religion. Deplorable. Rinse and repeat. Message discipline.
Now compare: Crypto corruption, threats to education, media, and big law, disruption of government agencies, demonstrable incompetence by cabinet secretaries and their subordinates, ICE, Epstein... How can you maintain focus? Who can even keep track? If I mentioned that a right wing Christian evangelical was charged with paedophilia, sexual assault, fraud - would your response be which one? Even if mainstream media wanted to cover all these issues ( NYT lack of No Kings coverage demonstrates otherwise), how could they and still properly cover the next outrage. And the next. Medicaid/ACA funding holdout during this shutdown is the best that's been done lately. That is damning in itself. Still, hope lives.
One thing I'll say about Trump is that he commits to the bit. While other politicians hem and haw about the context of their remarks, ol' Teflon Don doubles or even triples down. He is so clearly full of shit, but because he rarely flinches, he seems authentic to many.
But yeah, it's frustrating that "vice signaling" appears to be the central guiding principle of the GOP. They disdain the rest of the electorate, and they don't care if you know it.
Well said, as always. There's also the mind-bogglingly low bar we set for Trump. We expect him to be as awful as possible at all times, so when he is, it's a "dog bites man" story. It's not news.
But the Democrats not only claim the high road, but usually take it. Everyone - even their detractors - expert them to at least try to be better people. So when they stumble, it's "man bites dog." "Oh, look who isn't as great as they say they are!"
There's no point in shaming the billionaire media. They don't care what we think.
The only solution is to cancel your subscription. And don't stream it either.
There are plenty of sources of information. I bet your library has a subscription if you really need to know something from the NYT. Or tune in to your local TV channel with an HD antenna. It's free.
We can start by calling it was it was. Shit. Not feces. Not excrement. Not diarrhea. SHIT.
CBS called it "sludge."
It's easier to remember "Cling to their guns and religion" and "Deplorables" because Democrats almost never talk this way. When we keep going back to the same two examples because there aren't any others that come to mind, of course we'll be able to remember those two examples really, really well.
Meanwhile, when was the last time a Republican insulted people in San Francisco or New York City? Fifteen minutes ago? When it's a firehose of hate, then no, I can't precisely recall any individual hate-droplet aimed at me.
If this was Germany in the 1930's (gosh, wonder why that came to mind) and somebody tried to put you on the spot and said, "Name one specific thing Hitler said against the Jews", you might actually be hard-pressed to do so, because the hate was so constant and all-encompassing. Hate was in the air that people breathed, after a while people stop noticing or remembering specific examples.
One thing that makes Republican attacks more effective (aside from the fact the media keeps parroting them) is that they're always careful to fit any attack on an individual Democrat into a wider framework of attacks on all Democrats. People just remember individual facts better when they're given a frame to put them in. So their response to Clinton's "deplorables" remark wasn't just "Clinton said an outrageous thing", it was "All Democrats are liberal elitists who have contempt for ordinary, working-class Americans and this just proves it." This makes it possible to re-use the attack, over and over, even after the "offender" has left the scene.
Democrats, OTOH, have no wider framework, no general critique of Republicans at all. Trump does something awful and the response is to point out for the zillionth time that Trump is awful, instead of saying, "Well, what do you expect? Trump's a Republican, and that's just how Republicans are." No, Democrats must never say such a thing, because there's a woman who lives in the Pittsburgh suburbs who's a moderate Republican, and she's right on the edge of voting for us, but any general attacks on Republicans she will take personally, causing her to run back into the arms of the Republican party. I guess that's their rationale, I can think of no other.
I think it's at least a focusing issue. Flood the zone works. Guns and religion. Deplorable. Rinse and repeat. Message discipline.
Now compare: Crypto corruption, threats to education, media, and big law, disruption of government agencies, demonstrable incompetence by cabinet secretaries and their subordinates, ICE, Epstein... How can you maintain focus? Who can even keep track? If I mentioned that a right wing Christian evangelical was charged with paedophilia, sexual assault, fraud - would your response be which one? Even if mainstream media wanted to cover all these issues ( NYT lack of No Kings coverage demonstrates otherwise), how could they and still properly cover the next outrage. And the next. Medicaid/ACA funding holdout during this shutdown is the best that's been done lately. That is damning in itself. Still, hope lives.
One thing I'll say about Trump is that he commits to the bit. While other politicians hem and haw about the context of their remarks, ol' Teflon Don doubles or even triples down. He is so clearly full of shit, but because he rarely flinches, he seems authentic to many.
But yeah, it's frustrating that "vice signaling" appears to be the central guiding principle of the GOP. They disdain the rest of the electorate, and they don't care if you know it.