For whatever reason, this political cycle is making me thoughtful. I’ve been politically aware(ish) since I became environmentally active during the Reagan administration. Because I’m me, I keep trying to “figure things out” so they make sense.
But for this DKOS blog post, let me observe and link.
The image above is from the 3/20/2016 MSNBC front page. Of the “Top Ten” news stories, FOUR mention Trump. None mention any other political candidate. One is about refugee registries (did not click, but sounds vaguely xenophobic and Trumpy). Two are about Republican SCOTUS obstructionism. One sounds like a personal interest story. One is about foreign terrorism. This is a pretty big media fail, IMHO. (One correctly identifies Obama’s visit to Cuba as “historic” — good.)
There’s been discussion or mention of Donald Trump in terms of fascism. (I’ve been listening to the podcasts of the “Sunday news shows” while gardening in the rain in Seattle today, plus I read the headlines.)
Bernie Sanders is holding huge rallies in Washington State today, but I needed the weekend to putter around the house and work in the garden before another Monday reared it’s ugly head.
So, after a flight of “sour beer” tasters, including Duchesse de Bourgogne, let me link and pontificate.
Miss the “orange omnilepticon” or whatever it was called.
Anyway… does anything in this article on the Economics of fascism sound familiar? One must take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but generally, it’s pretty good...
While much of my life is spent in front of a computer, I’ve got some physical books speaking to me this week — I’m originally from Illinois and I just got a copy of Paul Simon’s Advice and Consent which I’ll probably browse and take back to my local used bookstore. However, I think it’ll be an interesting read, based on this review. The Sunday talk shows are full of spin on the context for the nomination of an ostensibly semi-liberal-if-not-conservative Obama nominee for the Supreme Court.
For the last few weeks, I’ve been carting around Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason, reading snippets. Every time I make any significant progress in that book, I find myself thinking about current political events. With Trump and the attendant media attention comes anti-intellectualism in one of its most raw forms and the media seems baffled how to handle it responsibly.
For context, I make sure to watch Fox News regularly (which annoys the hell out of my girlfriend), and what I’ve seen are some of the most rational, coherent arguments being made against Trump. Trump is actually activating anti-anti-intellectual elements within the Republican party, which is nice to see.
So… why am I making a diary/blog mentioning Trump when I’m simultaneously complaining that Trump is receiving too much attention? It’s this. Trump is good as a gauge or meter. He should not be the primary focus of things, nor should he be the title of things. When we talk about anti-intellectualism, Trump should be an example. He is merely the latest manifestation of a political event that periodically occurs in democratic societies. Trump is a symptom, not the cause. He is a catalyst or reagent, not the reactant.
In the grand scheme of things, Trump is (historically) replaceable.
Jacoby’s chapter, written after the 2008 election (think “Sarah Palin”) titled “Public Life: Defining Dumbness Downward” is fascinating. Part of my support for Obama was his support for a more elevated and nuanced pattern of speech and communication. Part of my disappointment with Obama was that he started speaking downward once he was elected. Part of why Sanders makes me twitch is his deliberately simplistic communication style and sticking to his talking point when he clearly could do so much better. But this pales when compared to Trump… brief googling comes up with this and this (which has a nice graphic, but is only about the announcement speech).
You may hear a “Republican” attack someone as an “elite”, but you probably won’t hear it from a “Democrat”. Democrats seem to (correctly, IMHO) phrase things more in terms of direct class struggles (using terms like “The 1%”, for example), not communication or education levels.
It would be an interesting question to pose to Republicans (particularly those who are elite-bashers) as to whether they support having the most educated populace possible, and if so, what that might look like? Does anti-elite and anti-educated mean the same thing? I don’t think so, but… what would an anti-elite yet educated country look like?
Would it look like free public education of any kind? Early childhood education? Would that be good? College or university education? If so, should it be affordable (or free) to all?
Regardless of that last thought, there’s an interesting interplay between “establishment” political institutions, “outsiders”, the “media”, and the American people. Trump gets the most free press coverage because the traditional “press” these days cannot help themselves.
So let me get back the criticism of “the press”:
- One of CNN’s top stories is about a fatal bus crash in Spain. This has nothing to do with anything except Spanish people who might care about things like road or bus safety. There is no journalistic effort. It does nothing to advance any real story. It is only notable because it was a bus crash. Waste of time and space for every US reader unless you had a relative on the bus.
- On FOX — Discovery of wallet reportedly reignites search for missing American surfer. No. Fox should legitimately have lots of coverage of Trump. FOX is a primarily Republican news sources and coverage of Trump there should be considered “local news” and very relevant. He IS the Republican frontrunner.
Anyway… yeah, sort of rambling and gripey. But there you have it. Blogged dissatisfaction and disappointment.
And for reference… in case there’s pie afoot… I’m pro-Bernie but will hold my nose and vote for Hillary.