I too was a fan of Matt Taibbi for his seeming irreverent takedown of bullshit, especially when he wrote for Rolling Stone. I was taken aback when he supported John Edwards for President and went after Hillary; Hilary is not above criticism, but Taibbi’s criticism was definitely sexist. However, I still subscribed to his Substack account for a while, until I realized he had gone over to the dark side. Taibbi said he didn’t change, the world changed, and I think he’s right. He was not so much irreverent all along as transgressive, and the “liberal” world finally realized the difference. So, Taibbi gravitated toward others who sought to be transgressive, such as Musk.
I not only want to fight back, I want to hit every well-meaning liberal who explains why we must “listen to those Trump supporters who FEEL ignored and left out and unappreciated.” I would be glad to listen to them if there was even a slight chance they would ever listen back. Like you say, what they want is “the pleasure of hating.” Being transgressive is the right to impose one’s politically incorrect (usually disgusting) views whenever and wherever. “Woke” culture, to me, is the moral imperative that everyone deserves respect, from the standpoint of identity; Taibbi, because he identifies the superficiality of some, either doesn’t get or doesn’t care about the underlying morality.
Being a "right-winger" has no intrinsic meaning, especially now; William Buckley is the exact opposite of Donald Trump as far as politics and philosophy are concerned. Respect or disrespect for INDIVIDUALS is very different from disagreement over politics or disrespectful behavior toward others because of their ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality.
So, if "right-winger" has no intrinsic meaning, then conservative = fascist = libertarian = liberal (and, I'm guessing, continuing on with liberal = socialist = communist = anarchist?). There are differences between and even within the groups, but that doesn't mean its members can't share a politics and ideology (even while disagreeing to a killing extent).
Buckley and Trump, like all conservative elites, share a belief that there's a natural division of humanity, between those like them, who're naturally disposed to rule and order (and exploit as their due) the lives of others who are, unlike them, naturally disposed to be ruled. They can and do argue endlessly about how big their "executive club" is or is supposed to be, who can get in, etc but they still agree on these fundamentals; that's being "right wing". The bourgeoisie pried open the door to that club a bit wider in the past 300-some-odd years (probably while many of them still believed the original nonsense [or at least want to believe it]) with more modern rationalizations of who can be a club member but still believe in that ultimate bullshit about Who Naturally Has to Spit and Who Naturally Has to Wipe. Both Trump and Buckley are anathema on the idea that someone they believe is inferior to them should be treated as their equal.
As for "individuals", just remember that they're embedded in a social matrix that helps make up, to one degree or another, that "individuality".
FWIW, try reading Robin's book The Reactionary Mind.
Of course there are differences between political ideologies, but that's not what's driving the rejection of social justice initiatives, DEI, affirmative action and other progressive behavior. So I'm not going to write a treatise defining my understanding of each political ideology, but I practically have Cory Robin's book memorized. My starting point was to respond to what I took from Laurie's beautifully written opinion piece: (1) Trump voters are transgressive in their egocentrism, resentful and want to blame some group--Jews, women, migrants, etc.--for whatever their problems are. As such they hate being "politically correct" because the last thing they want to do is show respect to the groups they hate. (2) Trump voters are fascist because they have surrendered their agency, no matter if his policies hurt them economically or in other ways, to follow a messianic leader, even if he tells them to drink Kool-Aid or bleach. Maybe Buckley wasn't the best comparison, but at least he believed in science and reason and, what used to be one of the core beliefs of conservatism, to be suspicious of radical change. I do believe the Democrats are controlled by elites, but at least they believe in vaccines; if anyone could have changed things it was Bernie, but he couldn't overcome the flaws in the system. (3) Where I wholeheartedly agree with Laurie is that it's impossible to change the hearts and minds of Trump voters; the only answer is to fight back rather than try and console the poor little dears. And an awful lot of Trump voters are working class. (4) Where you and I probably differ is the underlying cause of the increasing divide between two political understandings, whatever the names of those understandings are; you think the differences are mainly class based, and I think the differences, now, are psychologically based. Of course people need a safety net, affordable housing, food and health care, but when they feel insecure and worried, they often blame the wrong causes and people; it's not Biden's fault that bird flu killed all the chickens and made eggs unaffordable.
Hillary Clinton is a deceitful warmonger and the walking embodiment of the Democratic abandonment of the working class. I voted for her anyway, because I grew up in New York where Trump has been a public figure my entire life and I knew him for what he was.
The problem is the Democrats learned nothing and forgot nothing, as the saying goes, and only the personal political talent of Obama masked how they have been bleeding support for 15 years. The fact that the Republicans have been terrible all along has kept the Dems viable, but this election their decay finally caught up to them. (Meaning a decisive loss and not a squeaker like 2016.)
I have been screaming (figuratively) about things like woke politics for years because I believed they would put Trump back in office. Being vindicated like Cassandra sucks, but I don't apologize for constantly criticizing the Democrats; it's always been because they needed to do better.
And then you asked in a chat a couple months ago about why people were squabbling about how the Democrats could have done better. I hope I was restrained in the chat, but since then it's like I have been finding new gaskets to blow. You have just convinced me to start my own substack so I can vent about what the Democrats need to change. If nothing else, it will help me follow Orwell's advice about seeing what's in front of my nose.
I will apologize for not defining my terms, though - I am normally more careful to avoid the word "woke" because everyone projects their own meaning onto it.
My definition is Freddie de Boer's, if you care to track down his essay "Of Course You Know What Woke Means", but the short version is that it is the change in progressive discourse since the Obama administration. It is the support of social justice goals (which I almost entirely support) through a politics which is obsessed with issues of discourse and representation, and not material change - and which has abandoned class justice.
A perfect example would be Hillary Clinton saying :“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?” ((We already knew in 2016 that they deserved it and that they posed a systemic risk, her suggestion that she might do anything to banks was facetious.) This is using rhetorical concern for racism as a shield to deflect attempts to check plutocracy. THAT is the "woke" politics I have been screaming about.
What you're describing is standard left-bourgeois politics (that's been moving to the right since before either Clinton) that have been going on since _way_ before Obama: toss some inexpensive sops to appease the groundlings, while making sure that the people who really matter aren't put out too much if at all.
No argument there, the first neoliberal Democrat was Carter. But I feel it got worse during the "woke" era, which was a bitter pill coming off the success of economic populist messaging in 2008.
And this right here is the problem. The Democrats have done a terrible job, and yet if you refuse to cover for them people think they have cleverly sussed you out as a Trump-lover. (You're more charitable than most in saying "centrist", but still wrong).
This "praise our team or you're the enemy" attitude is what has shielded the Democrats from accountability.
Please. I know the difference between a MAGAist and a centrist, same as I know the difference between a fascist and a conservative.
The Democrats have been acting according to what they are: a (vaguely) leftish bourgeois party of capital who don't have a problem throwing their (working-class) constituents to the wolves ie "making hard choices" when it looks necessary to them to win elections. As they've moved more to the right, the more applause they've gotten from people (who tell themselves they're "intelligent leftists, ones with clear eyes") who think they need to outflank the Republicans during elections just enough with just enough "anti-wokeness" to allow them, somehow, to make things better for minorities. And when the Republicans have power, Democrats clutch their pearls and help move things along just to show the bourgeoisie who can carry their water better while still offering them a fig-leaf (or even trying to push one onto them).
I won't quote this publicly because "this post is exclusive to paid subscribers ". But what you say here really needs to be heard, so I wish you would publish a public version of at least some of it.
| But I just can’t grok how it’s logical or ethically sustainable to, for example, to respond to accusations of transphobia by becoming a full time transphobe.
It's a failure of perception. They don't see the point, and they go one further, and don't see the moral criticism at all. They perceive it as just someone hurting them, then they push back.
Welcome back! You were missed.
I too was a fan of Matt Taibbi for his seeming irreverent takedown of bullshit, especially when he wrote for Rolling Stone. I was taken aback when he supported John Edwards for President and went after Hillary; Hilary is not above criticism, but Taibbi’s criticism was definitely sexist. However, I still subscribed to his Substack account for a while, until I realized he had gone over to the dark side. Taibbi said he didn’t change, the world changed, and I think he’s right. He was not so much irreverent all along as transgressive, and the “liberal” world finally realized the difference. So, Taibbi gravitated toward others who sought to be transgressive, such as Musk.
I not only want to fight back, I want to hit every well-meaning liberal who explains why we must “listen to those Trump supporters who FEEL ignored and left out and unappreciated.” I would be glad to listen to them if there was even a slight chance they would ever listen back. Like you say, what they want is “the pleasure of hating.” Being transgressive is the right to impose one’s politically incorrect (usually disgusting) views whenever and wherever. “Woke” culture, to me, is the moral imperative that everyone deserves respect, from the standpoint of identity; Taibbi, because he identifies the superficiality of some, either doesn’t get or doesn’t care about the underlying morality.
"everyone deserves respect, from the standpoint of identity"
Hopefully not including the bourgeoisie or right-wingers, eh . . . ?
Being a "right-winger" has no intrinsic meaning, especially now; William Buckley is the exact opposite of Donald Trump as far as politics and philosophy are concerned. Respect or disrespect for INDIVIDUALS is very different from disagreement over politics or disrespectful behavior toward others because of their ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality.
Wow.
So, if "right-winger" has no intrinsic meaning, then conservative = fascist = libertarian = liberal (and, I'm guessing, continuing on with liberal = socialist = communist = anarchist?). There are differences between and even within the groups, but that doesn't mean its members can't share a politics and ideology (even while disagreeing to a killing extent).
Buckley and Trump, like all conservative elites, share a belief that there's a natural division of humanity, between those like them, who're naturally disposed to rule and order (and exploit as their due) the lives of others who are, unlike them, naturally disposed to be ruled. They can and do argue endlessly about how big their "executive club" is or is supposed to be, who can get in, etc but they still agree on these fundamentals; that's being "right wing". The bourgeoisie pried open the door to that club a bit wider in the past 300-some-odd years (probably while many of them still believed the original nonsense [or at least want to believe it]) with more modern rationalizations of who can be a club member but still believe in that ultimate bullshit about Who Naturally Has to Spit and Who Naturally Has to Wipe. Both Trump and Buckley are anathema on the idea that someone they believe is inferior to them should be treated as their equal.
As for "individuals", just remember that they're embedded in a social matrix that helps make up, to one degree or another, that "individuality".
FWIW, try reading Robin's book The Reactionary Mind.
Of course there are differences between political ideologies, but that's not what's driving the rejection of social justice initiatives, DEI, affirmative action and other progressive behavior. So I'm not going to write a treatise defining my understanding of each political ideology, but I practically have Cory Robin's book memorized. My starting point was to respond to what I took from Laurie's beautifully written opinion piece: (1) Trump voters are transgressive in their egocentrism, resentful and want to blame some group--Jews, women, migrants, etc.--for whatever their problems are. As such they hate being "politically correct" because the last thing they want to do is show respect to the groups they hate. (2) Trump voters are fascist because they have surrendered their agency, no matter if his policies hurt them economically or in other ways, to follow a messianic leader, even if he tells them to drink Kool-Aid or bleach. Maybe Buckley wasn't the best comparison, but at least he believed in science and reason and, what used to be one of the core beliefs of conservatism, to be suspicious of radical change. I do believe the Democrats are controlled by elites, but at least they believe in vaccines; if anyone could have changed things it was Bernie, but he couldn't overcome the flaws in the system. (3) Where I wholeheartedly agree with Laurie is that it's impossible to change the hearts and minds of Trump voters; the only answer is to fight back rather than try and console the poor little dears. And an awful lot of Trump voters are working class. (4) Where you and I probably differ is the underlying cause of the increasing divide between two political understandings, whatever the names of those understandings are; you think the differences are mainly class based, and I think the differences, now, are psychologically based. Of course people need a safety net, affordable housing, food and health care, but when they feel insecure and worried, they often blame the wrong causes and people; it's not Biden's fault that bird flu killed all the chickens and made eggs unaffordable.
I have mixed feelings reading this.
Hillary Clinton is a deceitful warmonger and the walking embodiment of the Democratic abandonment of the working class. I voted for her anyway, because I grew up in New York where Trump has been a public figure my entire life and I knew him for what he was.
The problem is the Democrats learned nothing and forgot nothing, as the saying goes, and only the personal political talent of Obama masked how they have been bleeding support for 15 years. The fact that the Republicans have been terrible all along has kept the Dems viable, but this election their decay finally caught up to them. (Meaning a decisive loss and not a squeaker like 2016.)
I have been screaming (figuratively) about things like woke politics for years because I believed they would put Trump back in office. Being vindicated like Cassandra sucks, but I don't apologize for constantly criticizing the Democrats; it's always been because they needed to do better.
And then you asked in a chat a couple months ago about why people were squabbling about how the Democrats could have done better. I hope I was restrained in the chat, but since then it's like I have been finding new gaskets to blow. You have just convinced me to start my own substack so I can vent about what the Democrats need to change. If nothing else, it will help me follow Orwell's advice about seeing what's in front of my nose.
Btw Cheeto Mussolini would be worth a subscription itself, except I don't think I can subscribe twice.
"I have been screaming (figuratively) about things like woke politics for years because I believed they would put Trump back in office."
And cue the centrist (who can't apparently see what's in front of his own nose in the mirror).
I will apologize for not defining my terms, though - I am normally more careful to avoid the word "woke" because everyone projects their own meaning onto it.
My definition is Freddie de Boer's, if you care to track down his essay "Of Course You Know What Woke Means", but the short version is that it is the change in progressive discourse since the Obama administration. It is the support of social justice goals (which I almost entirely support) through a politics which is obsessed with issues of discourse and representation, and not material change - and which has abandoned class justice.
A perfect example would be Hillary Clinton saying :“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?” ((We already knew in 2016 that they deserved it and that they posed a systemic risk, her suggestion that she might do anything to banks was facetious.) This is using rhetorical concern for racism as a shield to deflect attempts to check plutocracy. THAT is the "woke" politics I have been screaming about.
What you're describing is standard left-bourgeois politics (that's been moving to the right since before either Clinton) that have been going on since _way_ before Obama: toss some inexpensive sops to appease the groundlings, while making sure that the people who really matter aren't put out too much if at all.
No argument there, the first neoliberal Democrat was Carter. But I feel it got worse during the "woke" era, which was a bitter pill coming off the success of economic populist messaging in 2008.
And this right here is the problem. The Democrats have done a terrible job, and yet if you refuse to cover for them people think they have cleverly sussed you out as a Trump-lover. (You're more charitable than most in saying "centrist", but still wrong).
This "praise our team or you're the enemy" attitude is what has shielded the Democrats from accountability.
Please. I know the difference between a MAGAist and a centrist, same as I know the difference between a fascist and a conservative.
The Democrats have been acting according to what they are: a (vaguely) leftish bourgeois party of capital who don't have a problem throwing their (working-class) constituents to the wolves ie "making hard choices" when it looks necessary to them to win elections. As they've moved more to the right, the more applause they've gotten from people (who tell themselves they're "intelligent leftists, ones with clear eyes") who think they need to outflank the Republicans during elections just enough with just enough "anti-wokeness" to allow them, somehow, to make things better for minorities. And when the Republicans have power, Democrats clutch their pearls and help move things along just to show the bourgeoisie who can carry their water better while still offering them a fig-leaf (or even trying to push one onto them).
BOOM!
I won't quote this publicly because "this post is exclusive to paid subscribers ". But what you say here really needs to be heard, so I wish you would publish a public version of at least some of it.
This is at the end of the post: "This post is exclusive to paid subscribers —like you! But if you want to share it privately, I promise not to tell. "
I think the ideas here need to be expressed publicly.
I know this is a serious essay but I lol’d at “secondly Firstly” and listen, we all need to smile.
HEARHEAR!
You're morally sane, Laurie. And therefore indispensable.
Matt Taibbi -- Matt fucking Taibbi!! -- went morally insane, for Chrissake!
It's a reminder that it's not easy to do and something always to be grateful for.
I'm glad you're back!
| But I just can’t grok how it’s logical or ethically sustainable to, for example, to respond to accusations of transphobia by becoming a full time transphobe.
It's a failure of perception. They don't see the point, and they go one further, and don't see the moral criticism at all. They perceive it as just someone hurting them, then they push back.
Glad you mention Yasha Mounk. It put some things in perspective for me.
Thank yor your analysis!
Thank you.