"Nothing short of getting what they want—then seeing what they get—will bring it to an end."
My concern is that many are incapable of seeing it. I've been asked for specific evidence, shown it (from right-leaning sources) and seen it refused on ground of pure solipsism.
They can hear him promise billions in new expenses, and hundreds of millions in tax cuts, then they'll tell me with stars in their eyes that he'll balance the budget.
I saw a warning about the "kayfabe" creeping in to politics in 2015 and brushed it off because it seemed so absurdly irrational. But we are far more stupid and wicked a people than I had imagined.
From the point of view of this moderate (or so he thinks) lefty, there are so many excellent points in this excellent article that I am astonished that there are so few comments. I don't see how Claire does it, but we are better for her doing it.
I'm not a moderate lefty, and I agree with you completely. We probably disagree on much, but it seems to come down to the means of achieving things, and not the actual end-goal. There is no doubt Claire wishes the best for our society, and takes her dad's advice about insulting ideas and people she sees as wrong. I've moved to joking about staying in Ukraine forever to defend the attractive women there, to calling and writing govt reps in support of sending more help to them. Claire did that. I envy those close enough (not just geographically) to her to have in-person conversations, that would be amazing. Of course, meeting her Dad would be a bonus.
As a polio survivor, I have always viewed RFK, Jr. with the utmost loathing and contempt. Would that the “toxic” polio vaccine had been available when I was six years old! The man is nothing more that a medical Luddite.
And if RFK Jr. thinks that Trump is going to make him America’s medical tsar, he’s even stupider than I believe him to be. Assuming that Trump is elected president next week, in a year’s time RFK Jr. will be denouncing him in a joint press conference with John Kelly on MSNBC. Why? Because RFK Jr. is a true believer, whereas Trump believes in nothing but his own wonderfulness.
Forgive this tangent. I mean the following with all due respect as a faithful reader and fellow-traveler.
I wish you would separate the ideas and policies of Rachel Levine from the human who is Rachel Levine.
The ideas can be absurd and harmful, but the human suffers and is as deserving of compassion as the next person.
For a moment, leave aside that I personally have (and you likely have not got) complete comfort thinking of adult-transitioned women as “she/her*.” (The asterisk comes from the obvious biological differences and the painful societal edge cases worth thoughtful consideration and discussion.) From a rhetorical perspective, calling RL “this fellow” is needlessly combative, reads as ad hominem and turns off the people you might actually persuade. I plead with you to use your prodigious writerly gifts to *persuade* rather than to reinforce.
You are eloquent, passionate and well-informed. I see you as someone who could prompt action from both sides of our political divide. Why limit who might be receptive to your message?
I understand the impulse to throw red meat to otherwise occupy the attack dogs!
I wish that our cultural discourse weren’t in the state that it is. You should be able to clearly make a point (however culturally controversial!) and know that it will be received in good faith and
Fair point. I brought it in because I was already seeing that reply on social media and was thinking I'd preempt the argument, but there's no need to make her, in particular, the object of mockery: It probably does just distract. The issue is sufficiently sensitive that it requires me to actually make an argument about why I think Biden was unwise to appoint her.
While it may seem like everyone voting for Trump is some sort of deranged, crazy person, that's simply not true. I've been critical of him where warranted, and was far from my first choice, but the alternative, in my opinion is far worse. Trump is neither who his hardcore supporters think he is, nor is he who his hardcore detractors think he is. He surrounds himself with people I don't agree with, but have you seen the current admin? Unreal. Harris wants to censor us, disarm us, while both want everything to be more expensive.
In regard to Scott Adams, he was on the "gravy train" before he was canceled by the left, and lost a huge chunk of his income. Does that sentiment also apply to Lincoln Project guys? Talk about gravy train. Thank you, have a great day.
Forgive me for forgetting to add that Kennedy is a horrible choice, and Trumps embracing him is a terrible idea. Pretty much the same with Carlson, and former HI rep, whatever her name is.
That's tough, so much bad on both sides. I see a Trump admin more likely to protect my conservative values than a Harris admin. I see Trump admin more likely to fix our defense problems. Harris wants to take my firearms, and I think Trump has learned his lesson on that. Claire convinced me of the need to support Ukraine, and neither is good on that count, with Trump being terrible. It would be fair to say that I think we stand a better chance of fixing internal problems under Trump, but I hate that it will probably hurt much of the rest of the world. Not that it will be great for us. Trump does good, then Kennedy, Carlson, etc.
Well Leroy, first of all I want to explain that I am a Harris supporter, secondly, while I don't agree with you I respect your right to form your own opinion about which way to go in this election. I would respectfully counter that , so far as I know, a Harris/Walz Admin would seek to restrict gun access and try to prevent "gun excess" -- private citizens amassing arsenals of deadly weapons like th cache of arms confiscated just last week (sorry IDK the details at this point).
Be that as it may, let's say Trump wins, and it turns out his 'values' do not in fact protect your conservative ones, and on top of that, Trump dismantles the very democratic institutions that allow us the right and opportunity to vote our values -- what then? Many conservative leaders have publicly thrown their support to Harris for precisely this reason -- they want to protect the most import 'value' of living in a democracy - the right to vote for the government they feel best represents their values and their interests.
Thanks for the reply. I will vote for Trump, but hesitate to call myself a Trump supporter.
I would like to know why you believe what you do about their gun position? What does "restrict gun access" and "gun excess" mean, and how could anyone say that aligns with the 2A? Define "cache" and "arsenal". Who decides if I have "too many" guns?
Do you mean to imply that firearm owners would just sit around and let a Trump admin to trample on our rights? Trump let the ATF try to infringe on our rights, and I supported the lawsuits against them.
Just what institutions are you referring to, that protect our "democratic" values?
I can't read minds, and don't know anyone's motivations, but I can tell you that any Republican supporting Harris isn't conservative. This goes both ways, as evidenced by Tulsi and Kennedy. Thy want in the limelight, and they want power.
The parties are so messed-up, that no matter who wins, it's going to be a rough few years. We'll be OK, but it could be much better.
Very important request when you asked people who use pat phrases like "Trump derangement syndrome," actually to spell out whatever reasoning they think they might have.
In George Orwell's classic essay, "Politics and the English Language" he warned that it is easy to write sentences with well-worn phrases that seem to glue themselves together. More often than not, such sentences convey no meaning. Therefore Orwell proposed a simple (though not always easy) cure. To "Let the meaning choose the word, rather than the other way about."
If for example, you really believe that the covid mandates for masking and social distancing were "tyranny," you should have to explain exactly what freedoms were being abridged and what consequences you were willing to accept. You shouldn't get to shout, as Trump did, "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" from mask mandates [caps in the original] without telling us which clause of the Constitution Michigan had presumably violated, what alternative health regime he would want, and how much of an increase to the covid death rate he was willing to tolerate.
I believe that anyone who follows the rules Orwell sets forth in that essay can make a decent job of expository writing -- or at least, as Orwell says, avoid saying anything that is "outright barbarous."
We now know that masking and social distancing and lockdowns were largely ineffectual. It’s excusable that in the early going, when not much was known about the virus, such measures were embraced. But when better information came to hand, instead of adjusting its guidance the public health establishment doubled down on those measures. That was justified as “following the Science.” And need I even mentioned the totally unnecessary, politically motivated school closures that so grievously harmed this country’s children?
I think that Mr. Orwell would have been scathing in his critique of those egregious abuses of power.
Not arguing with you re schools. But it would seem that scientists believe that masking and distancing were helpful in reducing the spread of covid. Some primary sources for your reading pleasure. If you can find something from a respectable scientific journal that says otherwise I'd love to see it.
All those studies assume a masking regime that was impossible of enforcement: “well-fitting M95 masks.” As if. The paper masks worn by most people during the pandemic were totally ineffective. I myself wore those useless masks and contracted COVID anyway.
You seem to have misread the studies. For example, here's some of the text from the March 2022 study, which found significant benefits to masking.
"Of note, the study looked at maintaining the level of face mask use that was seen in the U.S. in March to July 2020 when many medical-grade face masks were not as readily available to the general public. Further increasing face mask use or using more effective masks such as N95 respirators could further increase the cost savings. For example, scenarios revealed that increasing face mask use by 10 percent above the levels seen in March to July 2020 could increase the cost savings and cases, hospitalizations and deaths averted by up to 20 percent."
Just one sample. As I read this text, the researchers found that on a population wide basis, even the masks you termed "useless" reduced the spread of covid.
One person's experience is not the same thing as a careful study on a large sample. That's why I used the phrase, "population wide basis." Of course some mask wearers (and some vaccinated people) will get sick. With the rare exceptions of such protective measures as the smallpox vaccine, no informed person can expect any defense to be 100% effective.
The question scientists most often answer, is, "Will protocol X reduce the percentage of people being harmed, or the prevalence of severe harm, in a large population, in a manner that can be shown to be statistically significant." That's what the real world looks like.
Just to be clear, I certainly don't mean to trivialize any suffering you may have experienced when you fell sick. I finally got covid this past August when I perhaps foolishly decided not to wear a KN95 on a cross country flight, so I know how covid feels. Never again.
Suntrader - Not disagreeing with your point, but some people do what you suggest - define a term ("Marxist" is a great one, suggesting both Communist and Jewish - a two-fer) and then accuse someone of being one. This is especially egregious when people are posting back-and-forth barbs in a comments column like this one, as the accuser generally has only limited information on the other.
🙃the best about polio were those summer school holydays in 🇩🇪 when they closed all public swimming pools and all newspapers frontpaged huge fotos of people in iron lungs.
I was 8 to max 11 during those summers when all those caring adults did their very best to max scare us all, adults & kids, into max sensible behaviour.
Very unlike Covid when all "they" seemed to care about was to protect people from panic thereby open barn doors for all kinds of nutty stories that harmed 🧡RKI🧡 our no 1 authority.
(which has lost lots of its indepence in the aftermath and been "liberated" from its possibilities to loudmouth scientifically sound but politically incomvenient facts. - "it" is everywhere💧)
I remember the days you cite in your two sentences. We lived in the Ocean State, so public swimming pools were not a big issue, but our parents kept us away from the beach crowds as well. And I was terrified by the prospect of an iron lung, actually seeing one, and its poor occupant, as well. As a first-grader I received test shot of the Salk vaccine. Not fun, but I was happy to get it. I remember that they gave us stuckees a little metal tag that bore the phrase "Polio Pioneer," which may still lie at the bottom of one of this pack-rat's boxes of memorabilia.
As best I remember I had 2 vaccs, both on a piece of sugar. Google says it was in 1962, that means I would have been 20, my memory says the fear faded much earlier. In around 1973 I had a polio survivor colleague (very kind American who found love with a returned from Argentina German Jew - sometimes life provides Romance) who was about 20 years older than I am and who walked on a stick (badly) and something had hurt his eyes that made it complicated to look straight at him.
Yes. That was the Salk oral vaccine that i think was approved in 1960. And yes, it was given on a sugar cube. I was in first grade in 1953-54, and the vaccine was given in a series of three shots. You had to get a booster every year or so. And those needles were big and scary for little kids. But polio was scarier.
My great-aunt Belle, whom I don't really remember but whom my mother sure did, was made deaf by the measles as a child. I can only imagine what my mother would have said to the people who insist measles is "no big deal." As this thread shows, many people who remember those days are still with us. I'm glad you're sharing these stories.
Thank you for sharing this memory, Claire. I find the anti-vaccine mindset unfathomably stupid. But if stupidity were a fatal illness , the population of our country would be a lot smaller .
What do you mean by this,
"turning Washington DC into Tiananmen Square."
"Nothing short of getting what they want—then seeing what they get—will bring it to an end."
My concern is that many are incapable of seeing it. I've been asked for specific evidence, shown it (from right-leaning sources) and seen it refused on ground of pure solipsism.
They can hear him promise billions in new expenses, and hundreds of millions in tax cuts, then they'll tell me with stars in their eyes that he'll balance the budget.
I saw a warning about the "kayfabe" creeping in to politics in 2015 and brushed it off because it seemed so absurdly irrational. But we are far more stupid and wicked a people than I had imagined.
From the point of view of this moderate (or so he thinks) lefty, there are so many excellent points in this excellent article that I am astonished that there are so few comments. I don't see how Claire does it, but we are better for her doing it.
I'm not a moderate lefty, and I agree with you completely. We probably disagree on much, but it seems to come down to the means of achieving things, and not the actual end-goal. There is no doubt Claire wishes the best for our society, and takes her dad's advice about insulting ideas and people she sees as wrong. I've moved to joking about staying in Ukraine forever to defend the attractive women there, to calling and writing govt reps in support of sending more help to them. Claire did that. I envy those close enough (not just geographically) to her to have in-person conversations, that would be amazing. Of course, meeting her Dad would be a bonus.
Thank you.
As a polio survivor, I have always viewed RFK, Jr. with the utmost loathing and contempt. Would that the “toxic” polio vaccine had been available when I was six years old! The man is nothing more that a medical Luddite.
And if RFK Jr. thinks that Trump is going to make him America’s medical tsar, he’s even stupider than I believe him to be. Assuming that Trump is elected president next week, in a year’s time RFK Jr. will be denouncing him in a joint press conference with John Kelly on MSNBC. Why? Because RFK Jr. is a true believer, whereas Trump believes in nothing but his own wonderfulness.
Claire,
Forgive this tangent. I mean the following with all due respect as a faithful reader and fellow-traveler.
I wish you would separate the ideas and policies of Rachel Levine from the human who is Rachel Levine.
The ideas can be absurd and harmful, but the human suffers and is as deserving of compassion as the next person.
For a moment, leave aside that I personally have (and you likely have not got) complete comfort thinking of adult-transitioned women as “she/her*.” (The asterisk comes from the obvious biological differences and the painful societal edge cases worth thoughtful consideration and discussion.) From a rhetorical perspective, calling RL “this fellow” is needlessly combative, reads as ad hominem and turns off the people you might actually persuade. I plead with you to use your prodigious writerly gifts to *persuade* rather than to reinforce.
You are eloquent, passionate and well-informed. I see you as someone who could prompt action from both sides of our political divide. Why limit who might be receptive to your message?
…(fat thumbs) that people will not be distracted by others’ fallacious arguments.
We live in a serious time that deserves sincere and informed discourse.
Thank you.
I understand the impulse to throw red meat to otherwise occupy the attack dogs!
I wish that our cultural discourse weren’t in the state that it is. You should be able to clearly make a point (however culturally controversial!) and know that it will be received in good faith and
Thank you.
Fair point. I brought it in because I was already seeing that reply on social media and was thinking I'd preempt the argument, but there's no need to make her, in particular, the object of mockery: It probably does just distract. The issue is sufficiently sensitive that it requires me to actually make an argument about why I think Biden was unwise to appoint her.
Well said.
While it may seem like everyone voting for Trump is some sort of deranged, crazy person, that's simply not true. I've been critical of him where warranted, and was far from my first choice, but the alternative, in my opinion is far worse. Trump is neither who his hardcore supporters think he is, nor is he who his hardcore detractors think he is. He surrounds himself with people I don't agree with, but have you seen the current admin? Unreal. Harris wants to censor us, disarm us, while both want everything to be more expensive.
In regard to Scott Adams, he was on the "gravy train" before he was canceled by the left, and lost a huge chunk of his income. Does that sentiment also apply to Lincoln Project guys? Talk about gravy train. Thank you, have a great day.
Forgive me for forgetting to add that Kennedy is a horrible choice, and Trumps embracing him is a terrible idea. Pretty much the same with Carlson, and former HI rep, whatever her name is.
Tulsi Gabbard.
Leroy - When weighing the virtues and deficits of Trump and Harris, what are the strengths and weaknesses of each, in your opinion?
That's tough, so much bad on both sides. I see a Trump admin more likely to protect my conservative values than a Harris admin. I see Trump admin more likely to fix our defense problems. Harris wants to take my firearms, and I think Trump has learned his lesson on that. Claire convinced me of the need to support Ukraine, and neither is good on that count, with Trump being terrible. It would be fair to say that I think we stand a better chance of fixing internal problems under Trump, but I hate that it will probably hurt much of the rest of the world. Not that it will be great for us. Trump does good, then Kennedy, Carlson, etc.
Well Leroy, first of all I want to explain that I am a Harris supporter, secondly, while I don't agree with you I respect your right to form your own opinion about which way to go in this election. I would respectfully counter that , so far as I know, a Harris/Walz Admin would seek to restrict gun access and try to prevent "gun excess" -- private citizens amassing arsenals of deadly weapons like th cache of arms confiscated just last week (sorry IDK the details at this point).
Be that as it may, let's say Trump wins, and it turns out his 'values' do not in fact protect your conservative ones, and on top of that, Trump dismantles the very democratic institutions that allow us the right and opportunity to vote our values -- what then? Many conservative leaders have publicly thrown their support to Harris for precisely this reason -- they want to protect the most import 'value' of living in a democracy - the right to vote for the government they feel best represents their values and their interests.
Thanks for the reply. I will vote for Trump, but hesitate to call myself a Trump supporter.
I would like to know why you believe what you do about their gun position? What does "restrict gun access" and "gun excess" mean, and how could anyone say that aligns with the 2A? Define "cache" and "arsenal". Who decides if I have "too many" guns?
Do you mean to imply that firearm owners would just sit around and let a Trump admin to trample on our rights? Trump let the ATF try to infringe on our rights, and I supported the lawsuits against them.
Just what institutions are you referring to, that protect our "democratic" values?
I can't read minds, and don't know anyone's motivations, but I can tell you that any Republican supporting Harris isn't conservative. This goes both ways, as evidenced by Tulsi and Kennedy. Thy want in the limelight, and they want power.
The parties are so messed-up, that no matter who wins, it's going to be a rough few years. We'll be OK, but it could be much better.
Very important request when you asked people who use pat phrases like "Trump derangement syndrome," actually to spell out whatever reasoning they think they might have.
In George Orwell's classic essay, "Politics and the English Language" he warned that it is easy to write sentences with well-worn phrases that seem to glue themselves together. More often than not, such sentences convey no meaning. Therefore Orwell proposed a simple (though not always easy) cure. To "Let the meaning choose the word, rather than the other way about."
If for example, you really believe that the covid mandates for masking and social distancing were "tyranny," you should have to explain exactly what freedoms were being abridged and what consequences you were willing to accept. You shouldn't get to shout, as Trump did, "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" from mask mandates [caps in the original] without telling us which clause of the Constitution Michigan had presumably violated, what alternative health regime he would want, and how much of an increase to the covid death rate he was willing to tolerate.
I believe that anyone who follows the rules Orwell sets forth in that essay can make a decent job of expository writing -- or at least, as Orwell says, avoid saying anything that is "outright barbarous."
We now know that masking and social distancing and lockdowns were largely ineffectual. It’s excusable that in the early going, when not much was known about the virus, such measures were embraced. But when better information came to hand, instead of adjusting its guidance the public health establishment doubled down on those measures. That was justified as “following the Science.” And need I even mentioned the totally unnecessary, politically motivated school closures that so grievously harmed this country’s children?
I think that Mr. Orwell would have been scathing in his critique of those egregious abuses of power.
Not arguing with you re schools. But it would seem that scientists believe that masking and distancing were helpful in reducing the spread of covid. Some primary sources for your reading pleasure. If you can find something from a respectable scientific journal that says otherwise I'd love to see it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7471891/
https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201007085638.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220308190532.htm
All those studies assume a masking regime that was impossible of enforcement: “well-fitting M95 masks.” As if. The paper masks worn by most people during the pandemic were totally ineffective. I myself wore those useless masks and contracted COVID anyway.
You seem to have misread the studies. For example, here's some of the text from the March 2022 study, which found significant benefits to masking.
"Of note, the study looked at maintaining the level of face mask use that was seen in the U.S. in March to July 2020 when many medical-grade face masks were not as readily available to the general public. Further increasing face mask use or using more effective masks such as N95 respirators could further increase the cost savings. For example, scenarios revealed that increasing face mask use by 10 percent above the levels seen in March to July 2020 could increase the cost savings and cases, hospitalizations and deaths averted by up to 20 percent."
Just one sample. As I read this text, the researchers found that on a population wide basis, even the masks you termed "useless" reduced the spread of covid.
Really? Then why did I, who followed that masking guidance, come down with COVID?
ROFLMAO. I don't know. And I don't have to.
One person's experience is not the same thing as a careful study on a large sample. That's why I used the phrase, "population wide basis." Of course some mask wearers (and some vaccinated people) will get sick. With the rare exceptions of such protective measures as the smallpox vaccine, no informed person can expect any defense to be 100% effective.
The question scientists most often answer, is, "Will protocol X reduce the percentage of people being harmed, or the prevalence of severe harm, in a large population, in a manner that can be shown to be statistically significant." That's what the real world looks like.
Just to be clear, I certainly don't mean to trivialize any suffering you may have experienced when you fell sick. I finally got covid this past August when I perhaps foolishly decided not to wear a KN95 on a cross country flight, so I know how covid feels. Never again.
Suntrader - Not disagreeing with your point, but some people do what you suggest - define a term ("Marxist" is a great one, suggesting both Communist and Jewish - a two-fer) and then accuse someone of being one. This is especially egregious when people are posting back-and-forth barbs in a comments column like this one, as the accuser generally has only limited information on the other.
Best monument to "celebrate" "freedom" I know of: (but will it be any help next time ?)
https://www.nationalcovidmemorialwall.org/
Hear, hear.
🙃the best about polio were those summer school holydays in 🇩🇪 when they closed all public swimming pools and all newspapers frontpaged huge fotos of people in iron lungs.
I was 8 to max 11 during those summers when all those caring adults did their very best to max scare us all, adults & kids, into max sensible behaviour.
Very unlike Covid when all "they" seemed to care about was to protect people from panic thereby open barn doors for all kinds of nutty stories that harmed 🧡RKI🧡 our no 1 authority.
(which has lost lots of its indepence in the aftermath and been "liberated" from its possibilities to loudmouth scientifically sound but politically incomvenient facts. - "it" is everywhere💧)
I remember the days you cite in your two sentences. We lived in the Ocean State, so public swimming pools were not a big issue, but our parents kept us away from the beach crowds as well. And I was terrified by the prospect of an iron lung, actually seeing one, and its poor occupant, as well. As a first-grader I received test shot of the Salk vaccine. Not fun, but I was happy to get it. I remember that they gave us stuckees a little metal tag that bore the phrase "Polio Pioneer," which may still lie at the bottom of one of this pack-rat's boxes of memorabilia.
As best I remember I had 2 vaccs, both on a piece of sugar. Google says it was in 1962, that means I would have been 20, my memory says the fear faded much earlier. In around 1973 I had a polio survivor colleague (very kind American who found love with a returned from Argentina German Jew - sometimes life provides Romance) who was about 20 years older than I am and who walked on a stick (badly) and something had hurt his eyes that made it complicated to look straight at him.
I feel lucky I never got closer to it than that.
Yes. That was the Salk oral vaccine that i think was approved in 1960. And yes, it was given on a sugar cube. I was in first grade in 1953-54, and the vaccine was given in a series of three shots. You had to get a booster every year or so. And those needles were big and scary for little kids. But polio was scarier.
My great-aunt Belle, whom I don't really remember but whom my mother sure did, was made deaf by the measles as a child. I can only imagine what my mother would have said to the people who insist measles is "no big deal." As this thread shows, many people who remember those days are still with us. I'm glad you're sharing these stories.
Thank you for sharing this memory, Claire. I find the anti-vaccine mindset unfathomably stupid. But if stupidity were a fatal illness , the population of our country would be a lot smaller .
It's not far off a fatal illness. If Trump loses, one reason among many will be the disparate Covid fatality rate among his base.