Myth 1: That it’s
anything other than arrogant to explain “what happened” in the election to anyone
right now.
Man…I don’t know where you are with things. What stage of grief is it when you
absolutely can’t stomach a single solitary opinion you read? That’s where I am.
This is textbook Internet dysfunction: I cannot stand the takes right now, but I persist in reading the takes. And yet is only in processing this horrible
fucking sensation--my visceral disgust for the thoughts and feelings of nearly
everyone who voted like me, more so than the information that’s in the takes
themselves--that I feel like I’m even beginning to get a picture of where it
all went wrong.
Let me give you an example. During the election, I really
liked reading Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone. As I read his post-election
take, “President Trump: How American Got It So Wrong,” I found myself
nodding along in the beginning. Sick
Giuliani own. Yes, this is the good stuff. But soon after that I grew frustrated
until finally, at the end, I was a little surprised to realize I was totally furious...but not for the reason I was supposed to be furious.
Taibbi writes:
We journalists made the same mistake the Republicans made, the same mistake the Democrats made. We were too sure of our own influence, too lazy to bother hearing things firsthand, and too in love with ourselves to imagine that so many people could hate and distrust us as much as they apparently do.
It's too late for any of us to fix this colossal misread and lapse in professional caution. Now all we can do is wait to see how much this failure of vision will cost the public we supposedly serve. Just like the politicians, our job was to listen, and we talked instead. Now America will do its own talking for a while. The world may never forgive us for not seeing this coming.
Like…I
don’t know, mister. How about you take a
minute. Your job demands that you provide quick commentary, I get that. Seems
like this could have been the time for ‘if this election has taught me anything
it’s that it would be arrogant to say I’ve got this whole thing figured out’—something
like that. What no one needs is ‘Admittedly
I was a self-absorbed nightmare person 36 hours ago, but now I’ve had a chance
to reflect on my mistakes. I’m only sorry my epiphany came too late to do
humanity any good. As a consolation here are more Giuliani owns.’ In response
to Taibbi’s theory of where all of journalism went wrong in 2016, let me float
my own: maybe it’s just deeply unnatural to churn out a self-assured 2,000
words about the end of the world immediately after it happens, you smug fuck.
Okay, okay…I’m very angry and maybe projecting some stuff
onto that take. Never mind. Let us carry on with my take. The One True Take.
Myth 2: Michael Moore
is a precog now.
Maybe there’s only so much horror the human brain can handle
before it just starts rejecting things, but are people seriously praising
Michael Moore as a fine political mind now? I’ve run the numbers, adjusted for
how much my Internet Outrage Centers are over-firing, and I’m still 85 percent sure
we shouldn’t kickstart a Michael Moore gimmick movie about the revolution just
yet. (My other 15 percent is just really distracted by whatever is going on with his hair.) Yes, for sure, he wrote an eerily good take. But on the
other hand…he is Michael Moore. Gather
your wits, people.
Myth 3: The War on
Harry Potter
Far be it from me to question the peerless political minds
that belong to the weird twitter irony bros, but it’s a fine line between the
dim notion that fuels “muggles unite” and performative disdain for Lena Dunham.
I mean, I get it, in our new nightmare world Gryffindor is OUT, calling Kate
McKinnon a loser is IN, comparing the president-elect to Voldemort is dumb, but
making middle-school grade jokes about Arthur Chu sweating a lot makes you a
paragon of political seriousness. Turns out that everyone—whether you’re an
overly earnest fucking idiot or an irony boy who takes selfies with the katana
sword he probably used for reals back in high school--falls back on whatever
feels comfortable to them in times of trouble. Go figure.
Myth 4: Khaleesi must be held accountable (and/or Bernie definitely would’ve won).
A lot of people seem real worried that history won’t heap
enough blame on Hillary Clinton, which is pretty weird since, so far as I can
tell, every left-leaning man on the internet blames Hillary Clinton (along with
the phrase “yasss queen,” for some reason) for literally everything ever.
It’s my own feeling that, though she’s flawed and problematic, the time has
come to give it a rest? I would have worried about her flaws and problems a lot
more had she become president. Campaign strategy is fair game, but a question I
genuinely have for the people who think hers was horrible is what a good
campaign for Hillary Clinton would have even looked like. It also seems like
she gets zero credit for the times she navigated impossible terrain with
surprising competence. The debates? Come on.
I mean, we’re really talking about
at least three separate things: why people voted for Trump, why people didn’t vote (for anyone), and whether or
not Bernie could’ve mobilized those non-voters. These questions seem worth
considering across three areas:
Messaging Problems
Republicans are really great at messaging: “No abortions,
foreigners, or people of color. Also Jews.” Easy peasy! But while the average
conservative has no problem embracing radical rightwing propaganda, most
democrats can’t quite let go of the old-fashioned idea that messaging should be
at least somewhat cogent and true, yet vague in such a way that you can project
your own personal hopes and dreams onto it come away thinking that the message
is about those. On top of that general problem, which has been going on for a
while, this particular election was historically insane. What would the liberal
equivalent of Trump’s “Mexicans are rapists” platform have looked like,
exactly? Free college? You think subsidized book learning is ever going to be
as compelling as the subjugation of minorities, a value on which this country
was built? How do you translate Let’s Build a Registry of Muslims into Democrat
if not Jesus Christ, let’s definitely NOT
do that?? Even Obama ran on “Didn’t Do Iraq,” which is only different from
“Not Trump” in that its locus is in the past, not the future.
Messaging for Democrats in 2020 will be easier, of course.
It won’t take much to mobilize under a Trump regime--and whichever
man comes along and does it, whether it’s Bernie or whoever else, will get a
whole lot of credit for it, I’m sure. Meanwhile I’m not so convinced that
Bernie would have mobilized non-voters in what was still the era of Obama. And for
my money he sure as shit wouldn’t have swayed any people who ended up voting
for Trump. The reason why “low-information” voters whose primary focus was income
inequality (not racism) chose the celebrity in the gold-plated elevator wasn’t strictly a matter of Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment; it was also because they
want to be the celebrity in the gold-plated elevator. I
think low-information voters are aspirational, and no one wants to be Bernie
Sanders. No one.
Racism
Demographic data tells us that Trump’s win comes down to two
kinds of racists: bigots and the kind of people who aren’t full of hate
so much as they don’t give a shit that some people are. That isn’t really a
meaningful moral distinction, but probably they’re worth considering separately
since the latter could have been potentially be reached through their “core”
issue. With those voters, we’re looping back to the messaging stuff, which
again I’m not so convinced that Bernie had on lock.
Misogyny and Double Standards
To say that Hillary is personally responsible for Trump’s
win is to suggest that her reputation as unlikeable, selfish (lol), and
divisive comes down to her faults—which are real—rather than sublimated male
supremacy, which is realer. That’s confusing! And it’s made even more confusing
by the fact that the far-ish left is unusual in that it dislikes Hillary for real
substantive political reasons. Those aren’t the same reasons that most of
America doesn’t like her, which are…….…
*gestures vaguely*
So there are these tangled threads—some lightly sexist, some
straight-up misogynist—that become very difficult to separate. Some stuff is
obvious: her biggest election “scandals” would have never in a million years
stuck if she were a man. Other stuff is harder to articulate, but: peer into
the hearts and minds of the boys
of Deadspin and tell me the Liberal Man Crisis of Conscience Shtick wasn’t
gendered in weird complicated ways. (See also: liberal men who expressed palpable disgust about the pneumonia
collapse thing and told themselves that sentiment was somehow about her being
hawkish.) I worry that a lot of things that people read as “inadequate
politician” come down to Hillary navigating this election as a woman.
Anyway I think it’s really important to separate out that sexism/misogyny
was more a factor for non-voters and maybe third-party voters, not so much Trump
voters. Trump won because he ran on an
openly racist platform. He didn’t run on an openly misogynist platform. In fact
his misogyny was the one thing that
people almost cared about.
Myth 5: The Left will
eat itself if it continues to focus on identity politics.
A big mistake I made in the wake of the election was going
on Facebook, a dumb platform I abandoned a long time ago. There, I saw two pals
who I don’t really keep up with—an American diplomat who was born in Ukraine
and a Sikh academic, both Democrats—talk about how the loss came down to the
left’s insistent focus on identity politics. These are smart, politically savvy
people—an immigrant who became a foreign service officer talking to a guy in a
turban. What?
On the opposite side of the spectrum of liberal opinion,
over the weekend I was hanging out with one of my best friends, a Mexican American born in
Texas to a Mexican father and a white American mother. She told me about a
painful “please don’t hate me” conversation initiated by her white cousin, who
voted for Trump. “Barack Obama is like me—a white mom and a dad who was born
somewhere else. Trump wouldn’t recognize him as an American, and he’s the fucking
president,” she told her cousin. “Who knows whether or not my citizenship will count?”
She’s a history professor who is not prone to panic about the news of the day...she tends to see things in terms of the bigger picture, and in this case it is personally frightening to her. In
all my worry about Trump deporting millions of undocumented immigrants and
creating a Muslim registry, this line of concern hadn’t quite occurred to me. Like...it’s just staggering, how much there is
to worry about.
As marginalized people and even not-so-marginalized people
(meaning white women like me) increasingly come under threat, identity politics
aren’t going anywhere. It’s a very safe bet they’re only going to ramp up—as
they should. The last few months I’ve had the
president-elect’s voice in my ear talking about pussy. Abortion rights are about to be back on the table. Yeah, the Lena
Dunham reaction was a bit much but also
people are not freaking out because they identify with Hillary Clinton. Get a
fucking clue.
Uneasy Conclusion
I’m old enough to remember my disappointment after the 2000
election. What worries me most about this result is recalling how worried and
depressed and unhappy I felt back then, and knowing that I underestimated how
bad things would turn out by a lot.
Then, as now, I did that self-soothing thing where you tell yourself it can’t
possibly be as bad as you think…when in fact it ended up worse.
That said, I’ve seen liberal takes that express the exact opposite
opinion: that George W. Bush was bad, but not as bad as people said he’d be. That
opinion is curious to me, given that, in 2000, no one could’ve anticipated the latitude
W would have after 9/11, but…okay. I honestly don’t remember the takes from
back then so much as my own feelings of doom.
I don’t have a huge amount of political smarts, but I know something about what W. did to this country—to the world. I know how the fundamental tenets of American defense policy changed and how Obama has made that worse. I see Peter Thiel…the death throes of satire…Chelsea Manning in a fucking hole trying to kill herself…photographs of these lunatics who will make up Trump’s cabinet, with their spittle and their unhinged grins, and the impossible question I’m left with is this: How is the Left going to reconcile the god-awful opinions of everyone who shares its core values? In a world where “working across the aisle” is plainly folly, the new tolerance is finding some way to countenance the clowns who are supposedly yours in the struggle. This hasn’t even started yet and my patience ran out about a year ago. This hasn’t even started yet and everyone thinks they’ve got it all figured out.
Totally agree with you on #1. You use the word "arrogant", and I've been thinking the exact same thing from the other side -- surely, SURELY, the lesson from the election is that everyone needs to take a huge dose of epistemic humility.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, you've got the people who were wrong five days a week for the past year -- wrong that Trump finally had torpedoed himself now this time for sure, wrong that he'd never win the primary, wrong that he'd pivot to the "centre" (whatever that is) for the general, and then the biggest misprediction of all -- and those people have the chutzpah to turn around without missing a beat, or at most with a few paragraphs of handwringing, and explain to us what happened and what we need to do now. Like, Jon Chait wrote a post "Donald Trump Is Not Going to Win Michigan" and then six days later he's telling us "What should Democrats in Congress — and Barack Obama, and you — do now?". *Six* days later and we're supposed to take him seriously again already? How the hell do you go from being completely wrong about Donald Trump Will Never Ever Win the Election to deserving our trust about Here's Why Donald Trump Won the Election? You fucked the prediction up that badly and now you're going to postdict it? It'd be comical if the stakes weren't what they are.
So those people are the worst. But you've also got folks on the other hand who maybe didn't spend the last year singing "la la la never going to happen", but still feel confident now to explain why it happened, and what to do next, and they should STFU too. They don't know why it happened either...I've been seeing this from the distance of Australia and reading either vaguely or less-vaguely left-ish takes on it in our media, and the CW has quickly coalesced into "oh, this was about economic uncertainty, losers of globalisation etc." But how do they know that? All they've got now is one more piece of evidence on top of what they already had; the reasons for the result are an empirical question and should be basically black-boxed until people have done a lot more work to investigate them. Yeah, those explanations sound intuitively plausible (as does your One True Take), but (again) SURELY the lesson of the election is that intuitive plausibility ain't worth shit when it comes to Trump?
(Anyway, really pleased to see you blogging again, Kim)