The Wokest of Us All

Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, Jr., LaVerne Watson, and David W. Bridell on Boston Common, ca, 1955, via Boston University. 

Hi, here with a couple of slightly novel ideas for my annual post on the content of your character and the annual Republican explosion of enthusiasm for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as an opponent of anybody ever referring at any time to anybody's race, especially when the subject is college admissions.

First, just to note that the argument is a fine example of what I have called the "Scalian Hermeneutic", the philosophical technique of totally divorcing a linguistic expression from its context before you attempt to analyze it, named after Justice Antonin Scalia's interpretation in Heller of 52% of the Second Amendment as if the other 48%, not to mention an entire history of the right to bear arms going back to the Glorious Revolution in England 1689 and a Bill of Rights that granted gun rights only to members of the established church, did not exist. 

The advocates of Conservative King, similarly, base their case on 2%, 35 words from the 1,667 words of King's fervent appeal of August 28, 1963, for racial justice and equality, a speech that frequently mentions people's races, as right at the opening,

It's not the same

Washington, September 12 2009. via Fox News.

I'm seeing a lot of traffic on the Twitter, including from some distinguished journalists, drawing an equivalence between these town hall meetings where Republican legislators are getting screamed at and the Tea Party agitation of 2009-10, much of it with the optimistic view that this could augur one of those big waves in the 2018 elections:

Like Tea Party protests, Chaffetz town hall could be harbinger of midterm trouble - Washington Examiner https://t.co/x59yVfVdJ7

— Gregory McCray (@g_mccray) February 11, 2017

Or even pessimistic, worrying that protesters are making themselves obnoxious, and nobody likes that:

No, I'm saying that history teaches us that #resistance movements are also disruptive and often disliked. Some ppl like to look over that... https://t.co/WYZvZX8SFl

— Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) February 23, 2017

And for counterpoint the breezy Cillizza dismizza:

Why chaotic town halls mean less than you think https://t.co/JIRGfoQvnZ pic.twitter.com/Lj6T2JdnjD

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) February 22, 2017

And then there's this:

Woman at Tom Cotton town hall: “We’re going Medicare MY way. Not your way. My way. I’ve got a husband DYING.” pic.twitter.com/fHF9nbyqiB

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) February 22, 2017

It struck me there's an enormous difference between these protests and those of seven or eight years ago, in that these are about reality.

The Tea Party was complaining about taxes going through the roof and masses of Mexicans invading our country when taxes had in fact been going down for years and Mexicans had started migrating in the opposite direction. Not that most of them were lying, I think they really didn't know. They hadn't gone to the trouble of putting two payslips together and figuring it out, and they didn't live in places where there were any Mexicans, and they didn't know what they were talking about, just what Rush and Sean were telling them, and our beloved mainstream media didn't seem to know either—the Chris Cillizzas and Adam Nagourneys who don't feel they're being paid to know anything about real life since how does that impact the horse race anyway?

This week's town hall protesters, in contrast, are talking about access to lifesaving medical care and Donald Trump's tax returns, and it carries a certain conviction. Anyway it feels a lot different to me.

Cross-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.

Fretful symmetry

Astroturf nail art by Marlene Vinha.

Monsignor Ross Douthat, the apostolic nuncio to 42nd Street, is interested in the fate of the "Tea Party" in last Tuesday's primaries and in its long-term effect on the Republican party, which he thinks he can clarify by comparing it to something even more imaginary:

think about another recent grass-roots movement that reshaped our politics: the netroots/Deaniac/antiwar insurgency, which roiled the Democratic Party between 2003 and the ascendance of Barack Obama.

I swear I was right there, joined MoveOn in 2003, and I'm still waiting for our politics to be reshaped or at least to see the old party just a little bit roiled. My best recollection [jump]

Behind the headlines, but not too far

Image from MI Printing.

TOM BROKAW: Well, I really think that, behind the headlines-- this is the Washington Post this morning, and it says that, "Obama sees 2014 as key to his legacy." What we have going on here, 18 months out, are both sides positioning themselves for trying to retain control on the Republican side of the House, and maybe even win the Senate; the president trying to build a legacy of some kind. There's a whole lot of politics in this, as there is in everything else. Kind of two villages, clashing with each other, who seem to occupy a separate universe. (via driftglass)

Drifters didn't get a chance to take formal note of what is to me the most amazing part of this horror, which is that Brokaw knows perfectly well that it's not a question of both sides at all, and is too cynical, or insufficiently sober (has anyone else noticed how drunk he has sounded whenever he pops up on TV over the past ten years or so?) to disguise it. Because that first clause of analysis, from "What we have going on here," says it's about "both sides" but isn't. How many parties are trying to retain control on the Republican side of the House, or maybe even win the Senate? As I count all the parties that have control on the Republican side of the House and haven't won the Senate yet this cycle, I can't get past one.

And then he realizes that grammar has let him down and it's oops, did I let the cat out again? and adding an additional clause, not about the Democrats, who scarcely exist, but the president, who has to be accused of the parallel crime of wanting to, um, accomplish something (the swine! the bloody show-off!).

Cheap shot

Image vis Midtown Miscreant.

It's easy to dump on Dennis Rodman kvelling over his new little friend Kim Jong-eun, but what the hell.

– “I hate the fact that he’s doing that [human rights violations], but the fact is that, you know what, that’s a human being, though. He let his guard down one day to me, a friend.”

"I hate it too, man," said Jong-eun confidentially. "Violating human rights is like so not what I'm about. But you got to cut me some slack. Like I'm only human myself, after all? Like people can constantly be stomping on my feelings and I'm not even supposed to say anything, or send them to labor camp, or have them shot?"

Exactly. And that's just not the man I know, the kind of guy who'd help a homie out with his $808,000 in back child support. And you wouldn't believe the shit people say about the guy:

(a) Violation of the right to food, in particular the effect of State-controlled food distribution policies on the nutritional status and health of the population and the restricted entry of international humanitarian aid to deal with the endemic food crisis;
(b) Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, including inhuman conditions of detention;
(c) Arbitrary detention, as a form of persecution and the criminalization of any behaviour deemed threatening or contrary to the official ideology of the Government, the lack of rule of law and the absence of due process or an independent judiciary;
(d) Violations of human rights associated with prison camps;

(e) Discrimination and the disproportionate or specific effect of human rights violations on vulnerable groups, in particular women, children, people living with disabilities and returnees. Of particular concern is the fact that society is divided into three distinct groups classified according to their political allegiance to the Government. A person‟s place in this hierarchy determines the level of access that he or she will have to basic human rights, including access to food, health, education and freedom of movement;

(f) Extensive violation of freedom of expression and other related freedoms;
(g) Violation of the right to life, in particular the abusive application of the death penalty and the use of public executions;
(h) Restrictions on freedom of movement and abusive treatment of citizens forcibly returned;
(i) Enforced disappearances, including in the form of abductions of foreign nationals.

This is a little guy who just loves basketball more than anything else, people. And you know how old he is? I'm like who do you know who wasn't in trouble once in a while when he was a kid? You know what I was up to when I was his age? I'll tell you, I was pimping sneakers.

– “It’s a different story because guess what, the kid is only 28 years old, 28. He’s not his dad, not his grandpa. He’s 28 years old.”

– “It’s just like we do over here in America, right? It’s amazing that we have presidents over here do the same thing, right? It’s amazing that Bill Clinton could do one thing and have sex with his secretary and really get away with it and still be powerful.”

And I was like shut up because I never even heard that one before. You mean like Albright? Eww! Politicians, they're all the same.

Skepticism and sifting

James, the Snooker Kid, at the Conservative Club; London, 1997. From Fast Mikey's Pool Page.

The Apostolic Nuncio to 42nd Street, Mgr. Ross Douthat:

Like so many members of that class, Bloomberg combines immense talent with immense provincialism: his view of American politics is basically the famous New Yorker cover showing Manhattan’s West Side overshadowing the world, and his bedrock assumption is that the liberal paternalism with which New York is governed can and should be a model for the nation as a whole.

It’s an assumption that cries out to be challenged by a thoughtful center-right. If you look at the specific proposals being offered by Bloomberg and others, some just look like reruns of assault weapon regulations that had no obvious effect the last time they were tried. Others still might have an impact on gun violence, but only at a cost: the popular idea of cracking down hard on illegal handguns, for instance, would probably involve “stop and frisk” on a huge scale [....] But instead of a kind of skepticism and sifting from conservatives, after a week of liberal self-righteousness the spotlight passed instead to ... Wayne LaPierre.

So the Monsignor thinks LaPierre is a clown, and he's wondering how the right can come up with a dignified opposing partner to that leftist Bloomberg—more cosmopolitan than our bumpkin mayor (who lives on the East Side, thanks very much), with his Massachusetts accent, and equidistant from that imaginary center. He's not exactly sure what's called for, but he has an idea how it smells: "skepticism and sifting".

It's the urbane conservatism of yore! Remember? Brandy and cigars after dinner, and gossip about poor people, blacks and Jews, racehorses and actresses. People are savages, what can you do? Take away their guns and they'll kill each other with tire irons.

Your vulgar new-money conservatives seem to be all about doing things all the time; they didn't quite get the message that government is the problem. It'll be a terrible idea—build moats around all the schools, with alligators!—but an idea nevertheless. Your true clubbable conservative knew better: the job of the rulers is to cover their mouths while yawning, and be mildly amused.

But then some feel that when a bunch of little kids are murdered, mild amusement is not the appropriate response. Indeed Rabbi Jesus himself says something of the sort.

False Equivalency Department

William Hogarth, The Laughing Audience, 1753. From shakespeares-sonnets.com.

From the "news analysis" by Michael Shear in today's Times:

And many Republicans remember well when the tables were turned. After Mr. Bush’s re-election in 2004, Democrats eagerly thwarted his push for privatization of Social Security, hobbling Mr. Bush’s domestic agenda in the first year of his second term.

That's right! Jeez, what a bunch of spoilsports we were, back in the day! Wouldn't even let him privatize Social Security, for Pete's sake! And now look at us complaining, just because they don't happen to feel like helping us save our economy from imminent collapse, is that ironic or what?

But then again,

New polls suggest that Mr. Obama’s popularity has surged to its highest point since he announced the killing of Osama bin Laden. In the latest CBS News survey, the president’s job approval rating was at 57 percent.

See, the thing is, those voters totally hated the idea of privatizing Social Security, and they actually like the idea of saving our economy from imminent collapse. It's kind of why Obama won the election, because he didn't do the one and he did do the other. Call them saps if you like, but they're the ones who pay for the whole show (it's true! the donors only pay for the campaigning part), and Democrats always like to give them a little of what they came for.