Blog Books Websites Film/Video/Animation CGI Logos/Brands/Print Architecture/Design Drawing/Photography books Home Send Email

Bring On Pence

Sunday 21 May 2017 - Filed under Politics + Writing


Should Mike Pence become president, the Left will surely lead us in a national chorus of “Whew! Back to normal.” Correct? After all, our friends in the Democratic party have been saying for many months that President Trump is not normal, that he is uniquely unfit for office, that his brand of mendaciousness, volatility, poor character, and immaturity have no precedent in the Oval Office, that he is a Nazi sympathizer and even a fascist, that he is an extremist who exists outside the bounds of ordinary political disagreement.

Kyle Smith in National Review Online
(with gratitude to Yastreblyansky, who discusses the article here)

To believe in America is to believe in democracy, and to believe in democracy is to believe in democratic systems, meaning, constitutional systems (including all the correctional mechanisms — the creation and enaction of laws vs. the voters’ referenda and all of that). It’s a sliding scale because any system can be gamed, its weaknesses found and exploited over time — whether it’s courtroom rules (where, say, computers allow impossibly fast retrieval of case law for objections, or where software-based or audio-recorded testimony can challenge the accuracy of stenographic court reporting) or basketball rules (where, over decades, the arrival of taller and taller players changes the timing of play so completely that the “shot clocks” and other new constraints have to evolve), the idea is that if you’re going to do the thing at all, you have to stick with the template you started with. (The taller basketball players aren’t the only biological change that’s relevant to how systems work — increasing human longevity makes “lifetime appointments” mean something very different now than it did 241 years ago, so those rules may eventually have to change, too.)

Along that sliding scale, messing with voting machines or voter rolls, or taking advantage of bad ballots (as in Florida in 2000) is not OK; breaking into your opponents’ campaign headquarters is not OK (as in Washington DC in 1972). Gerrymandering districts or refusing to hold confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee are on the edge — technically, that’s working within the system, but it’s still dirty pool. And, in general, technology changes it all, as with my previous examples of how Fascism or just bad democracy results from media shifts — Leni Reifenstahl or Joseph Goebbels or Roger Ailes getting monstrous results from film, radio and television, or (just to argue the other way) local Democratic candidates getting “unfair” boosts in funding across state lines thanks to DailyKos.

So, Pence is not “as ‘abnormal’ [or, illegitimate] as Trump” (as has been argued). There are just too many things that are fundamentally wrong with Trump’s election — some of which, as I’m saying above, barely skate by as “legitimate” (not just the Electoral College but the Comey letter and the tweetstorms) but so much of which involves hacked email servers and corrupt self-dealing in international business contexts and unprecedented foreign interference and other elements that are totally beyond the pale; that have nothing to do with how the Founding Fathers set the thing up or how it carefully nurtured its own painstakingly slow evolution over the centuries. (I’m not making an “Originalist” argument — at least, I’m pretty sure I’m not; the parsing of 18th Century language through a modern lens altered by shifting social values is different from the obliteration of 18th century physical mechanisms by computers and cable televisions and international money-laundering schemes.)

Mike Pence is evil, as Yastreblyansky argues, but he’s a doctrinaire politician; an elected official legitimately vetted by the systems of our democracy; and (perhaps more important) a man who (like Gerald Ford) could never have gotten onto the national stage or into the Oval Office by himself. (I would never say of Pence that he is “not my President” — as the Right did of Obama, for their own reasons involving crackpot racist theories of his imaginary foreign birth or “allegiance” to the Muslim world, which Trump first came to the national stage by exploiting and promoting.)

We’re on the edge of serious darkness and chaos with Trump. Too many of our basic principles of democratic rule are rattling and straining under dangerous pressure, because of Reality Television and microtargeting and hacked computers. And, since I’m being called out by The National Review (as a self-appointed representative of “the Left”), I have to hold my head up high and say, Yes, if Mike Pence becomes President I will lead “a national chorus of ‘Whew! Back to normal’” — I will continue to believe what I’ve always believed and stand by what I’ve always stood by as a patriotic American. I will repeat the Gerald Ford lines about how “our system works — this is a government of laws and not of men” and I will watch lame-duck Pence and his party be decimated in the midterms as the basic, cherished wheels of American democracy grind away the last remnants of this horrible freak mistake.

 ::  Share or discuss  ::  2017-05-21  ::  Jordan

“Tramp the Dirt Down” — Roger Ailes Started by Giving Us Nixon and Ended by Giving Us Trump

Thursday 18 May 2017 - Filed under Politics + Writing

Roger Ailes made his debut appearance early In Joe McGinniss’ landmark book The Selling of the President 1968, a brilliant first-hand study of how filmmaking and advertising techniques permanently altered the political landscape during Nixon’s landslide election that year. McGinniss argues that the postwar, television-era thinking of Marshall McLuhan and other pioneers of media study (whose work is so quaint by modern, post-MTV, post-Twitter standards that mentioning McLuhan even in a historical context has gone permanently out of fashion) did such damage to the fabric of American political discourse that recovery is (to McGinniss’ Watergate-era thinking) probably impossible. And Ailes is right in the middle of it, a television producer coming off of talk television:

Roger Ailes, the executive producer of the Mike Douglas Show, was hired to produce the one-hour programs [the famous Nixon question-and-answer series of neo-Town Halls, now made available on YouTube by the Nixon Foundation]. Ailes was 28 years old. He had started as a prop boy on the Douglas show in 1965 and was running it within three years. […] Richard Nixon had been a guest on the show in the fall of 1967. While waiting to go on, he fell into conversation with Roger Ailes.
“It’s a shame a man has to use gimmicks like this to get elected,” Nixon said.
“Television is not a gimmick,” Ailes said.

McGinniss’ eyewitness account elaborates in detail on how Nixon’s victory was achieved through the strategic replacement of dry statistics and policy positions with painstakingly crafted short film pieces and interview segments, all designed to convey Nixon’s “qualities” through the blatant application of cutting-edge advertising techniques. (Remember that Don Draper’s fictional firm worked on the unsuccessful 1960 Nixon campaign during the early seasons of Mad Men.) At the end of McGinniss’ narrative (as Nixon triumphs), old-school journalists Jimmy Breslin and Murray Kempton are “having a sad drink together,” having completed their obituaries for Democratic opponent Hubert Humphrey: “We are two nations of equal size,” Kempton wrote; “Richard Nixon’s is white, Protestant, breathes clean air and advances towards middle age. Hubert Humphrey’s nation is everything else, whatever is black, most of which breathes polluted air, pretty much what is young […] There seems no place larger than Peoria from which [Nixon] has not been beaten back; he is the President of every place in this country that does not have a bookstore…”

Almost fifty years later, as bookstores, too, are fading into the past, the continued legacy of that first television-based campaign Ailes masterminded is, needless to say, not just still with us but dominant and triumphant. As Leni Riefenstahl did with movie cameras and Joseph Goebbels did with radio, so Ailes did with television — a lost-wax technique whereby delicate political meanings are melted away and the remaining hollow mold of “TV news” filled with the immutable bronze of emotions and impressions. The chain of causality that leads from Nixon to Reagan (and the force of Peggy Noonan’s rhetoric) to George W. Bush to Donald Trump is assembled from links like Cokie Roberts’ assertion that Hillary Clinton’s transgressions, though imaginary, were “out there” (meaning, being discussed by the public) and therefore warranted further journalistic scrutiny; by Karl Rove’s infamous declaration that “an empire” like the United States “makes its own reality”; by Frank Bruni and others insisting that Bush won the debates with Gore by “appearing Presidential” (rather than sighing “arrogantly” as did Gore); and finally back to Ailes himself, in his curtain call as Trump’s most vital supporter throughout 2016 (and, of course, as fellow serial abuser of women).

A subtext of Citizen Kane was the replacement of the Hearst empire (newspapers) — represented by Kane — with the Luce empire (newsreels; the “picture magazine” etc.) — represented by Thompson, the reporter whom we follow through the movie. Neither of them are particularly good at getting to the truth, but both are influential in a sub-rational way (“You supply the prose poems; I’ll supply the war,” as Kane tells his reporter covering the nonexistent Cuban war, repeating Hearst’s alleged words) and the newsreel that we see provides a near-operatic context for the events of the day that supplants the prose-poetry of the “yellow” newspapers. In the post-Nixon era, we have seen something similar: the elemental force of opinion-based TV totally supplanting the politics of newspapers and conventional “evening news” programs. Trump is the ultimate result of this trend, not just because he, himself, is so obviously immune to any kind of printed matter but because the movement he created has been trained to disregard journalism — and, by extension, truth itself — entirely.

It’s fitting that Ailes exits the stage at a moment so similar to when he entered, a crossroads of activism, turmoil, corruption and unrest that will almost certainly alter the political and social landscape of the decades to come. Let’s hope that Trump is Ailes’ requiem; that the cynical and corrosive manipulation of image and feeling to the detriment of reason and meaning is buried along with him.

 ::  Share or discuss  ::  2017-05-18  ::  Jordan

Movie Loves, Lost and Found

Tuesday 7 March 2017 - Filed under Movies + Writing


Sometimes I end up watching two movies back-to-back that are not just different, but are polar opposites—that balance each other in such a perfectly bizarre yin/yang juxtaposition that the randomized double-feature shocks me with its illumination and depth, as if some broad truth that runs across the spectrum of art and life has been unexpectedly and shockingly made clear. And when I’m feeling sad or lonely (which is when I end up watching random double-features) this feeling is especially magnified, like I’m a mad scientist in a lonely garrett, rejected by the world and the scientific community, mixing bizarre combinations of chemicals and creating violent new life.

The best example was back during the early Obama years when I received some bad news (technically “heartbreak”) and ended up, since the discs had just arrived from Netflix according to their mysterious availability schedule, seeing Wanted and The Wrestler (both 2008), which, when put side by side, seemed that depressing evening to constitute a definitive statement on sexuality, desire, violence, and loss. The Wrestler is of course brilliant and Wanted is of course ridiculous, but that night it made no difference: they were the two acts of a devastating single story about how men and women try and fail to connect, and how they are destroyed or fulfilled by their (one hesitates to use the phrase) gender roles. The protagonist of Wanted — which is based on a comic book I have not read — is a classic comic-book loser (played by James McAvoy), meant blatantly to stand for the reader: oppressed, cheated on, miserable in his software-company job, “apologiz[ing] too much,” with a missing father (in other words, a poor man’s Neo or Luke Skywalker) whose world is overturned in an instant when a gunslinging Angelina Jolie drops suddenly into his life, turning his drugstore visit into a shooting match which leads to a car chase, and revealing that he’s actually not a loser but is in reality a super-warrior, whom she’s (of course) in love with. Watching this, I kept waiting for the dream or spell to end; for a Walter Mitty/J. Alfred Prufrock awakening, but of course it never came; the story kept escalating and escalating with curving bullets and assassination schemes and naked Jolie bathing in special sci-fi milk that heals her wounds, and gunfights atop moving trains, and Jolie kissing McAvoy in front of his unfaithful girlfriend, and Morgan Freeman, until the whole plot blows up and everyone is dead or has won and McAvoy sneers, “What did you do today?” directly at the camera (I had done nothing except miserably order Chinese food and open two Netflix envelopes.)

And after this came The Wrestler and suddenly Mickey Rourke — beloved Mickey Rourke, from my college days of watching Angel Heart and Diner over and over with roommates — now a destroyed, surgically-mutilated grotesque, shuffled from his trailer park to his supermarket job to his miserable paid appearances in sleazeball gyms, having destroyed his body and soul in order to act out a caricature, a known pantomime, of the same kind of combative, triumphant masculinity that McAvoy effortlessly achieved in the other movie. Angelina Jolie did not drop into his life in a drugstore. Instead, he had a heart attack while trying desperately to connect with an aging stripper (Marisa Tomei, whose constant, pained smile — she keeps putting it back on in case the bosses are watching — broke my heart) and with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) and ends up weeping in view of the action figures made of him in his prime and then, rather than winning by blowing up enemies, redeeming himself by leaping into offscreen oblivion. Wanted was a young man’s dream of sex and power and The Wrestler was the world revealed in (as Evelyn Waugh described the end of youth) “the bleak light of dawn,” an old man who has also turned himself into an action figure, a comic book character, an adolescent figment of manhood, but is made of soft flesh rather than plastic or printer’s-ink and has collapsed into self-parody and self-loathing. The good-looking woman isn’t a fellow super-warrior aching to save him; she’s just another used-up gender icon, a stripper too old for her collegiate clientele (who openly mock her), an ordinary person trying and failing to be “a sex symbol,” just like him.

Together, that night in 2009, those movies were indelible, unbearable—it seemed that there was no hope for anything in between juvenile dreams and aging decay, and that the only constant between the two was the unforgiving superhuman lure of sex and potency, which, for gunslingers or wrestlers, comic-book warrior babes or cut-rate strippers, always disappoints, always leads into the solitary depths of escapist fantasy or the brutal reality of failure and age.

Today’s serendipitous double-feature was less bleak, but the total effect was not that different (especially given my current mood): watching David Lean and Noel Coward’s Brief Encounter (1945) and then Vincente Minelli’s Oscar-sweeping Lerner and Loewe musical Gigi (1958), I realized I’d accidentally created, or discovered, another fully-realized composite treatise on love and desire, this time more directly in the formalized context of retrograde social expectations and obligations (forgive me, but “gender construction”) and the contrasts and similarities between the turn of the last century, the end of WWII, and today.

David Lean, who would make widescreen epics like Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago, started out with intimate, black-and-white, impeccably English material like Brief Encounter, a miniaturist drama about an upper-class London wife and mother (Celia Johnson, nominated for an Oscar) who, during her weekly shopping trip by train, meets a married doctor (Trevor Howard) whom she, in that strange way that seems to happen only once a lifetime or not at all, instantly and mutually falls in love with. As Johnson and Howard — whose “chemistry” (as we now say) is as tender and heartfelt and unglamorous as anything I’ve ever seen or read — rendezvous over successive Thursdays (bookended by Lean’s magnificent black-and-white steam-train imagery) their “relationship” (to use a word the two proper English characters never would—like The Remains of the Day decades later, the movie is, as much as anything, a fond portrait of an upper class forever frozen outside the margins of emotional self-expression) blossoms, not to an affair, but to a desperate, futile bargain; a mutual decision to refuse each other but to delay the moment of refusal for just enough time to grant themselves the joy—and, as they well know, the eventual solitary agony—of a few scattered days spent alone together, as if they were lovers (although they never are). The movie is so good, so rich and honest and well-observed, that I was stupefied by its emotional force (I had only seen it once before, on television, and the digitally-restored Criterion edition I saw today is like a museum gallery of luminous mid-1940s black-and-white urban splendor) and the naked, helpless yearning of the two near-lovers: it isn’t Shakespearean “tragic love” with all that amped-up operatic dimension; it’s the mundane world of coffee spoons and library books and sudden London rainstorms that casts the urgency of Johnson and Howard’s “brief encounter” in such stunning, indelible relief.

Astonished by the tragic power of Lean’s and Coward’s vision, I — in my aforementioned glum state — figured Gigi (which is a deep childhood memory of a vinyl record my parents played over and over, and, later, a movie on TV during my high-school years) would cheer me up, but of course it did no such thing. The shameless Eisenhower-era Belle Époque fantasy (which works by reproducing the look and feel of the most famous Parisian paintings from the post-Impressionist/Toulouse Lautrec/Sem period) starts with Maurice Chavalier’s shamelessly lecherous “Thank Heaven For Little Girls” and keeps going in the same direction: in Paris of 1900, wealthy, handsome Louis Jourdan tires of the endless willing courtesans whom he goes through like Kleenex, until he realizes he’s actually in love with insouciant schoolgirl Gigi, the granddaughter of a working-class acquaintance whose scarlet-walled apartment he frequents for no clear reason. Gigi is made over, Eliza Doolittle style, by her grandmother and other elderly ladies with dollar signs (franc signs?) in their eyes, transforming into a suitably well-gowned and bejeweled fin-de-siècle ornament, fit to ride Jourdan’s tuxedoed arm into Maxim’s and along the Jardin des Tuileries where the movie begins and ends. Jourdan rejects Caron but then accepts her (suddenly recognizing her beauty and charm, which snaps into focus for him in my favorite lyric: “Have I been standing up to close or back too far?”), and they are seen happily married as the music swells and Chevalier, singing directly into the camera, reminds us that “little girls/Grow up in the most delightful way.”

Gigi won nine Oscars (a nomination-to-win record not broken until The Return of the King in 2004) and made millions, despite being described critically as “a meal consisting of cheesecake”: the overwhelming Cecil Beaton design — the epitome of 1950s Technicolor chic — looks as edibly sumptuous on a modern flatscreen as it must have in the big, old theaters of the Capote/Hitchcock era. But after Brief Encounter, all that irresistible, infectious happiness, all the charm and wit of Jourdan and Caron, all the ageless ugly-duckling-into-swan mythology, seemed, somehow, on the edge of tragedy and existential terror. As the old women’s eyes light up with pure greed and vicarious lust at the prospect that their wayward schoolgirl will hit the jackpot that they never got near (although the grandmother and Maurice Chevalier sing a plangent minor-key song that reveals they were almost lovers), I found myself strangely moved by the “happy” ending, not because I envied the characters but because it all seemed, suddenly, so impossible: like James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie decades later, these lovers succeed in finding happiness only in the exact moment that they leave reality behind for good—when their elevation from movie life to that rarefied, transcendent state of the Hollywood ending (like Danny and Sandy flying their car into the sky at the end of Grease) pushes them across the border into Valhalla, away from the earth.

Impossible loves and possible loves; endings both violent and blissful and unbearably tragic (Celia Johnson’s final, tearful embrace with the dull, sweet husband whom she knows for certain is not the love of her life concludes Brief Encounter with a moment of almost unbearable pathos and Aristotelian closure) — four movies in two random pairings that mark out the boundaries of male and female hope, desire, fantasy, joy and loss. Movie love is not real love (and watching romantic movies alone is a kind of addictive masochism), but the truth of art, the prism of cinema across the decades, illuminates the melancholy of a fading evening like every movie screen that ever shone in the darkness.

 ::  Share or discuss  ::  2017-03-07  ::  Jordan

The Art of the Sale

Wednesday 1 March 2017 - Filed under Politics


It worries me that the speech was “a success” because it reminds me of experiences with publicity/promotion types for whom “success” is a non-negotiable perfect attribute, like the speed of light, so that even products that everyone knows became bestsellers because of shrewd advertising or clever placement or well-arranged (or bought) endorsements are, afterwards, used as the metric of “a great product,” from a quality standpoint. In other words, the same people who figure out how to hype a mediocrity so it gets attention and notoriety and sells well, then turn around and characterize it as genuinely worthy (rather than admitting, “It wasn’t very good—we, or people just like us at another company, merely packaged it successfully”).

It’s the same thing with politicians, and it’s much more this way with Republicans than with Democrats because (post-Goldwater) they don’t think the same way about their constituents: they’re not interested in what those constituents actually think or believe or what damage this does — notwithstanding the occasional heroic moment like John McCain, astonishingly, correcting a town hall questioner who called Obama a Muslim — they just want the numbers, the sales, the votes. (My friend, a Trump supporter — for reasons apparently having to do with regulatory agendae and a mistrust of the NATO order and its trade systems, as well as a certain hard-to-define cultural anarchism — was a big fan of Obama; when I say, “You mean the Kenyan Usurper?” he shrugs and says, “That’s politics.”)

So Nixon (at first) and Reagan and Bush II and Trump (not yet but eventually) are elevated to “greatness” because the salesmanship worked well, since each man’s superficial attributes were malleable and compliant enough to fit into the stylistic “President” package (as Trump fit that package last night). And the goal is met; the elections won (just like those products hit their sales goals) and the agendae advanced,* so that eventually this quality itself becomes “greatness”; the operatives can’t tell the difference themselves any more because they’ve devoted their lives to erasing that distinction in the public’s minds.

*Hollywood producer Joel Silver, asked about the artistic merits of Die Hard and his other early hits, famously snapped, “I don’t make art — I buy art!” (meaning, the movies’ success allowed him to expand his personal collection of paintings — and all goals are met).

 ::  Share or discuss  ::  2017-03-01  ::  Jordan

Out of Touch

Friday 17 February 2017 - Filed under Politics + Writing


What’s absolutely infuriating me right now, more than the daily psychic blows of the Trump era, is the way that my own (and others’) expectation that Hillary would win the election is being turned into a blunt-force rhetorical weapon against us—against myself personally and others who think like I do, as recounted everywhere, daily—not just by Trump supporters but by other liberals/progressives. The “surprise” of Trump’s victory is the argumentative wedge that invalidates any critique: what can I claim to know about Americans’ problems if I couldn’t predict his monstrous triumph?

So when I attack Trump, even when agreed with, I am scolded: my critique, I am told, is invalidated by Trump supporters—not by their views or opinions, but merely by their plurality; not because they’re correct about anything but because they exist in greater numbers than anyone thought—the apparatus of democracy itself is turned against us. (Apparently, only good candidates win — performance in office isn’t as decisive as a priori victory, which is why Trump keeps presenting his electoral stats as if they’re policy arguments.) Because we liberals/progressives underestimated the threat, exactly as von Papen and Hindenburg and Chamberlain did in 1933, we must be wrong about what that threat means, where it came from, and what to do about it.

More specifically, I am angry because when I say what’s wrong with Trump, and what horrifying damage he will do to the world, and specifically to the people he gulled into voting for him, I am told not that I’m wrong but that, simply by describing the problem in con-man/victim terms, I’m adopting an unacceptably superior rhetorical stance. When I characterize Trump or his supporters (which is not difficult; none of this is subtle) I am routinely told that I do not understand something that I can see very clearly—we all are—simply because our observations may be wedged into a framework of “condescension” or “naïvité” (which, while inapplicable and misleading and misguided, is, masochistically or not, emotionally satisfying: it feels good to tell liberals — or for liberals to tell themselves — that they’re blind, because we’re the ones evangelizing our views so confidently and intrusively). And it’s absolutely crucial, if we’re to survive this period (and I literally mean “survive”) that these dangerous and incorrect ideas be set straight.

The unpleasant reality that we all must face is that something terrible has been done to a significant portion of the American public, over the decades, that has ruined their thinking ability to such a profound extent that they are now Trump supporters. It didn’t happen fast and it wasn’t easy — it was a confluence of deliberate and accidental factors, emerging from the advertising renaissance of the 1960s (as chronicled in Joe McGuinness’ landmark The Selling of the President 1968 and elsewhere, especially Rick Perlstein’s brilliant work) and incorporating the infamous “Southern Strategy” and other noxious public movements so that the ability of voting Americans to understand politics on a basic level has been fundamentally distorted and wrecked. Natural anti-authoritarian commiseration and anger was deflected away from predatory corporations towards “government.” Unnecessary, calamitous wars were presented as necessary “defenses.” Bigotry was amplified and nurtured. Personalities of politicians were cast in a movie-style framework that favored “folksy” dumbness over knowledge or capability or achievement — we were taught to prefer candidates we “could have a beer with”; those who reminded ourselves, reassuringly, of our own foibled ignorance rather than of any coherent notion of expertise.

Most important, these and other propagandist elements were shrewdly threaded together (with the collusion of a weak and sensationalistic press) into a coherent system of thought that embraced two or three crucial Orwellian inversions of reality: that those amongst us fighting for the underprivileged or the historically disenfranchised, rather than being heroic (as anyone defending the downtrodden is generally regarded in Western culture, starting with Jesus), are actually “the elite” in disguise, sowing unfairness and imbalance; that the qualifications for high office or for any task that one develops in universities or libraries, rather than enhancing one’s capabilities and perception, are actually the foundation of a sort of effete willful blindness; that (as John Updike argued decades ago) the American pioneer spirit, the spirit of rebellion that was the proving ground for our nation and the symbolic basis for the world’s eternal romantic fixation with “cowboys,” somehow means that dumbness is a virtue; that the ignorant are better; that feelings of exclusion or envy (setting aside those that sell movie tickets or sporting events) are not childish whims that must be cultivated into ambition and competitive, aspirational drive but are, instead, the bedrock of a deep hateful truth, a resentful awareness of a profound, uncorrectable “injustice” that must be nurtured over a lifetime into a profound anger: the worst and ugliest kind of anger; the kind based on the deep psychology of jealousy and bafflement, that fuels totalitarian movements.

Just as Scientology shrewdly insulates its followers against psychiatry and the internet (the forces of reason that can tear it down) or Glengarry Glenn Ross real estate sharks “protect” their victims from attorneys, the people who create the sentiments I’m describing work to discredit not just universities and cities and other symbols of civilization and meritocracy, but journalism and constitutional government — the only forces in a modern society that can save it from tyranny — so that, like Scientologists with serious problems who are trained to run away from the doctors and psychotropic drugs that can save them, the public fights against the forces of enlightenment.

How bad is this problem? Look around you—Trump is the President. But we’re not allowed to outline the crisis the way I’m doing here because it’s “condescending” and “out of touch.” Like missionary doctors sent into infected areas with vaccines, we’re rejected as interlopers: the fact that we weren’t aware of the extent of the disease and rot (that, in other words, we were surprised by Trump’s victory) makes us, not more correct in our dire warnings, but, somehow, less correct; more easily dismissible; “proof” that we know nothing and deserve to be disappointed and alarmed. The doctors and their vaccines are expelled from the villages because they know better than the Shamans — yes, they bring penicillin and it provably works, but that’s irrelevant compared to how superior they think they are; the way that they parade their knowledge so insultingly, for which they must be punished.

So I’m tired of being told that I’ve been “living in a bubble” because I expected Hillary to win. I’m tired of being lectured about how the fact that a surprising number of gullible Americans were tricked (by means of historically-proven totalitarian techniques) into voting 100% against their own interests, thanks to a systematic, half-century-old propaganda campaign and a trained aversion to facts and reality, somehow means that I’m confused; in the wrong; naïve; misguided; “elite.” I’m tired of seeing the catastrophe of Trump’s election being held up as “proof” that liberal/progressive solutions “have failed” — which is like arguing that the rise of Naziism “proved” that Jews had failed. (As David Bowie sang, “To be insulted by these Fascists is so degrading.”) I don’t care if it’s “condescending” or not—there is far more at stake than the pride of Trump’s victims (be they tenants, contractors, “university” students or voters). You can’t get the snake oil off the market if you’re afraid to insult the marks who fell for it. Yes, Hillary lost—the cancer is far more advanced than any of us believed. This makes the chemotherapy more necessary, not less. To hide from the truth, to accept that “we lost” and this somehow means that the forces of enlightenment should give up and go home, is to abandon a fundamental patriotic duty.

 ::  Share or discuss  ::  2017-02-17  ::  Jordan

« Older entries