I would add, to Didion's observation, that for many Americans– especially on the right– we've entered into an age of slogans. Policies are not ideas and ideas are not slogans.
For example, "pro life." Pro-life isn't a policy; it's not an idea. It doesn't address abortion, or unwanted pregnancy. It's a slogan, a battle cry. One reason our political situation has become so unserious, of late, is that our conversations have become inundated with slogans.
Ideas cannot be expressed by tweets, or on TV commercials. They're best expressed in white papers and essays and treatises. Policies follow from ideas, but they're more practical. They also involve tradeoffs, and price tags and consequences. Republicans these days oppose defunding the police. They also oppose funding the police. They want Biden to implement a NFZ over Ukraine. They also don't want to send military troops abroad. They do this on pretty much every issue: no policies, no real ideas even; only slogans.
It hasn't escaped my attention that their voters have been quite miserable for many years now. If I were them, I would be, too. All talk, and no action.
Thanks for these newsletters. I like Tim Snyder’s work - he has really studied Eastern Europe and I have read Bloodlands. I plan to read On Tyranny.
I agree that we all need to pay attention to the refugees and do all we can to elevate their suffering - as best we can.
This war will end and I am hopeful that Ukraine will survive as a free, independent state. That said, the longer the war grinds on the more likely it is that more radical elements in Ukraine will coalesce around the hatred of Russia. It is conflicts like this that foster terrorist groups. In this case their focus will be on Russia and Russians but wanton terrorism is never a good thing.
I know it may be premature but I believe the western democracies should be looking at how we can rebuild Ukraine once the conflict is over. Of course we should get Russia to pay for this - confiscate property, asses tariffs on all Russian exports (especially oil &gas). However it is paid for, we need a “Marshal Plan” to rebuild Ukraine and bring them back as quickly as possible. It is clearly the right thing to do but I also believe it may help to mitigate the forming of terrorist groups in Ukraine. I hope that Biden and the other leaders in Western Europe are thinking about this.
Having found the time to read it, I found Didion's piece to be more amusing than profound. So Seventies. The first part was practical advise on how to live in a complex world, then there was her diatribe about the sixties, then she ended it with a grab the gusto paragraph. In her diatribe she complained about language use and blaming it on the sixties. I had to chuckle, I guess she never read George Orwell.
The really sad part is she was a 40 year old woman going off on the ideas in a poem written by a 17 yr old girl. When you are seventeen, you write shallow and trite stuff, it is part of being seventeen
This is not about your great newsletter choices, but I didn’t know the correct way to share this thought with the Bulwark . Anyways, how long before the FSB’s go full Martha Mitchell on Ginny?
Hey JVL, correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard y'all talk about that poll showing John Fetterman with a big lead in the PA primary race. Do you think he can beat whichever Republican makes it through?
"I’m not sure if knowing that Didion saw the same pathology 50 years ago makes it more, or less, depressing."
I would say that it makes it simultaneously more depressing, and less frightening. Depressing because it's about as solid of proof as you need that this is a "humans being human" thing, and we're going to have to fight it forever. Less scary, though, because it also means that it has also *been with us forever*. Yet, we still managed to vanquish diseases, drag billions out of grinding poverty, and even make it to outer space, even as we wrangled with it. Arguably, the weaker, more moderate version of it helped make those things possible. It's misfortune and hope, walking side-by-side.
I think people like Raffensperger actually do get it and get it quite well, but for the high profile cult GOP members the trump train is a unique cash cow and for some like say MTG the only pathway to $$$. In Raffensperger’s case he is a sellout maybe of the worst type because we know he has a conscience sometimes unlike some of the more narcissistic personalities in that party. Sell outs pretty much make up the entire Republican Party of politicians save a few. They are selling out country for personal gain. That’s why Ukraine is so compelling, hopeful, and sad at the same time. The people are actually giving their lives for their country and democracy, but here we are with the worst of humanity on figurative bullhorns talking about crazy conspiracy gibberish hoping to gain their trump riches. It’s gross.
I'm someone of, I believe, average intelligence. My formal education consists of enough college level classes to qualify for a degree, but do not have one for a couple of reasons. Beyond that, I've read a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff over a lot of years. I'm a "thinker" of sorts, I guess, but I don't think I can fairly describe myself as a "deep" thinker.
I say this because I'm having a problem understanding a small piece of Didion's words and am looking for a little help. I've got a mental flat, have opened the trunk to discover I'm missing the jack needed to make the repair and get back on my way, and am hoping some kindly motorist out there will take a moment to pull over and provide one.
It didn't take me an hour to recognize the quote from the Brazilian guerilla's book as gibberish. It struck me that way as soon as my eyes got to the period at the end of the sentence. The problem I'm having is with what comes in the next paragraph, in which three similes are proffered which are, if I'm taking Didion correctly, also devoid of meaning. I can see "culture at the crossroads" easily enough in that light, but "broken home" and "ask not..." , well they are in the depths of the well that my mind's reach is apparently unable to plumb at the moment as far as being meaningless goes.
Broken home seems to me to have a definite meaning, one which is pretty much recognized and agreed upon. And I am old enough to remember hearing Kennedy speak those words on TV, and even at that young age they had meaning for me, one that I've only more appreciated as I've grown older. So, what am I missing here? I know enough to know that Didon full well knew what she was talking about, so I'm feeling a bit inept in my efforts to put on that spare, and a hand with the jack and the lug wrench would be much appreciated.
" Brazilian guerilla's book as gibberish. It struck me that way as soon as my eyes got to the period at the end of the sentence. "
I gotta disagree. It is a very coherent statement. You do have to look at it from the eye of someone fighting against oppression with limited access to folks who write "serious" stuff. After all it is the serious people who get to create the definition, not some Brazilian peasant.
If you have noticed both Putin and Zelensky understand the Brazilian guerilla's quote.
Then there is the Vonnegut quote from Mother Night
" “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” "
Noted. And upon reflection, gibberish is probably the wrong word, though that's what came to mind in the moment. What the guerilla wrote is meaningful to him and someone with his perspective I guess, yet, if not completely meaningless to me (and apparently Didon), at best it's murky and a bit nonsensical. But I guess you can't fault the writer for that, if you consider the context and circumstances you describe. And you can't fault me either, I suppose. When words land in my ear or eye, I interpret their meaning based on my understanding of their definition and how I've experienced their common use in mental constructs. Which gets at a lot of the problem inherent in our attempts to communicate with each other. Words, despite their formal definitions, often mean different things to different people based on personal perspective and biases. Not sure if there's a solution to that, beyond perhaps what's going on right here. So, thanks for pullin' over for a minute. I appreciate it.
For "broken home," I would say that meaningless doesn't just mean "has no definition." It can also mean "so singular in meaning that it carries no substantive semantic force." What is a broken home? One might respond with "a home mired in dysfunction." Which is fine if you want to go from "orbital level" to "40,000 feet," but you're still not giving "theoretical alien me with no knowledge of human relations" anything I can use to get a handle on it. It's just a euphemism for "a family mode which I believe is harmful to those within it." Is that a kid living with a single parent? A lot of people would say so. What if dad gets drunk and beats mom half to death, or mom poisons kid so she can get attention from medical professionals? Divorce and the not abusive parent taking the kid still make it broken? Every home does damage to those within it. Deciding which ones are "broken" is, at best, four parts "weighing available options" and one part "aesthetic preference," and phrase "broken home" provides no assistance in making that determination. We still have to look. It's a handy euphemism for us to be able to set a certain assumption, but it ultimately obscures more than it illuminates. And making a euphemism the background of your conduct is a disaster.
As for the "ask not" cliche, it's meaningless because it presupposes the existence of a thing that *does not exist*. I have no country. You have no country. We have a government, with a law code, and a set of mores that guide our behavior. These things serve as the guiding principle for the 320-million odd people who live here. When I'm "asking what I can do for my country," which of those am I taking about? Ellsburg and Gravel launched an attack on the government when they released the Pentagon Papers and made sure they couldn't be hidden, but they did it in service of the people. Were they "doing for their country?" The country is a euphemism for "us and everything that binds us." You can't render service to it, because it has no existence separate from its parts. Meaning "ask what you can do for your country" is arguably just an encouragement to view "the thing I want to serve" and "the country" as being one and the same. Which can be really good, or *really, really bad* depending on what that thing winds up being.
Well hey, Sherm. Was beginning to wonder if anyone was gonna' pull over and lend a hand. I'd say that was about a couple of bucks worth.
Since I posted that distress flag, I'd been thinking a little along the lines of the definition and meaning of individual words, and the accuracy and usefulness of the euphemisms and other constructs that we build with them, and how those meanings can and do vary depending on one's point of view and life experience. And your insight helps with a little better mental articulation on that for me. One man's "country" may in fact exist for him as simply a geographical land mass with borders on a map and a population within those lines, and another's more along the lines of what you wrote.
Appreciate you lengthening the rope on my bucket a bit. As I continue to drop it down this particular well, at least it will come back with a bit more water in it than before. So, thanks for that.
Yes, but... one might also suggest that your original insight/perspective is not without value. To say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," is certainly not without specific and profound meaning. We tend to go through our lives thinking about how a system of government -- which is really just a way of framing how the totality of a community the size of a country -- is serving our needs. But it's an important flip at key moments to think in the other direction: how our daily choices, values, priorities, etc can serve to make that totality better, stronger, more able to stand up to its existential obstacles. It's difficult to see that as cliche or mundane or, as didion puts it, as having "no meaning at all".
Hello, B... Kennedy's words do have a specific meaning for me. Perhaps those more cynical than I (and I have a fairly healthy dose of that these days) may find those words cliche, but I don't. However one parses them out, they impart a specific idea in my mind, and I happen to agree with it. But what Sherm had to say does help my understanding of how other people with other perspectives / experiences might take a different meaning from them (or other such statements), or even find them meaningless, as Didion apparently did. Likewise, I found Jack B's take on the line from the guerilla's book also useful in this regard.
I'd say you're dead on in what you said about how we spend most of our time thinking about how "government" serves us, so when someone proposes a reverse in the direction of that thought it would no doubt be harder for some to assign meaning than others. Just as physical habits are hard to break, so it is with some mental ones as well. And I think that's also a part of the problem of "meaning" differing among people who are reading / hearing the same words.
I've found all of this quite interesting. I've always liked our language and the words it consists of, and how we use them to communicate with each other in both mundane and profound ways. Thanks for taking the time to give me some more input. As with the others who did, I do appreciate it.
The problem here is that people like Raffensberger see no other lane but the party they belong to. The real problem is the party structure and it’s hold on otherwise rational human beings.
Lesson Three is the main reason I can’t go all in with the Democrats. During the recent redistricting here in Virginia, I’ve been moved from a conscientious moderate Democrat’s district, Spanberger’s 7th, to an amoral, hack, machine Democrat’s, McEachin’s 4th. On the bright side, I’ve been removed from a white populist social justice warrior’s House of Delegates’ district, VanValkenburg’s, to a district held by a moderate African-American Democrat, Lamont Bagby. Finally, I’ve been redistricted from the district of a moderate, conscientious Republican to that of a moderate, conscientious Democrat, so that’s a wash. Going forward, I will be happy to vote for Del. Lamont Bagby, where I couldn’t pull the lever for his fellow Democrat, Del. Schuyler VanValkenburg. I will continue to support both my old senator, Republican Siobhan Dunnavant, as well as new senator, Democrat Jennifer McClellan, because they are both genuine people actually working on behalf of their constituents and across the aisle. I appreciate their desire to see government function, instead of grandstanding. However, I cannot in good conscience pull the lever for Rep. Don McEachin, despite the fact that the Republicans lining up to challenge him are a clown show, because I know he’d be just as willing to tear the country apart to advance his political career as any MAGA Teahadist Trumpshevik. I will miss not being able to vote for Abigail Spanberger. As much as we have to stop the Trumpist authoritarians, we also have to work to maintain a two- (or more) party system, and that means continuing to support the few sane Republicans left out there.
Don't feel bad. Throughout my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood, Maxine Waters was my state Assembly rep. When I moved 25 miles away, guess who got herself elected to the House in my district? Maxine Waters! And so she has been my Congresswoman, always running virtually unopposed, for nearly 30 years.
Jonathan used the word decadent to describe our society in a podcast this week. The word says a lot. When I read about crises in the world, death and destruction, and then I parse the news of the day, and reflect on the news of yesterday, so much of it seems like utter nonsense. We’re a decadent people, and I have time believing that anything but a catastrophe of biblical proportions will shake us out of the decline. I think the Joan didion part shook this screed out of me.
"When I look around our public life, I see a great many people in thrall to ideas. People who, because of their ideas, have decided that liberal democracy is no longer important. Or who, because of their ideas, refuse to confront reality." This is important. This should be on The Bulwark masthead. It also ties in to Neil deGrasse Tyson's state: "that revelation that our everyday experience is not a reliable guide to the ultimate nature of reality is a major transition in thought." Far too many people are utterly incapable of making that transition.
But it takes quite a lot of thought to understand that one's experience is not necessarily the equivalent of truth...you have to be interested in becoming wiser and so pay attention to these ideas...
I would add, to Didion's observation, that for many Americans– especially on the right– we've entered into an age of slogans. Policies are not ideas and ideas are not slogans.
For example, "pro life." Pro-life isn't a policy; it's not an idea. It doesn't address abortion, or unwanted pregnancy. It's a slogan, a battle cry. One reason our political situation has become so unserious, of late, is that our conversations have become inundated with slogans.
Ideas cannot be expressed by tweets, or on TV commercials. They're best expressed in white papers and essays and treatises. Policies follow from ideas, but they're more practical. They also involve tradeoffs, and price tags and consequences. Republicans these days oppose defunding the police. They also oppose funding the police. They want Biden to implement a NFZ over Ukraine. They also don't want to send military troops abroad. They do this on pretty much every issue: no policies, no real ideas even; only slogans.
It hasn't escaped my attention that their voters have been quite miserable for many years now. If I were them, I would be, too. All talk, and no action.
Excellent as always.
Thanks for these newsletters. I like Tim Snyder’s work - he has really studied Eastern Europe and I have read Bloodlands. I plan to read On Tyranny.
I agree that we all need to pay attention to the refugees and do all we can to elevate their suffering - as best we can.
This war will end and I am hopeful that Ukraine will survive as a free, independent state. That said, the longer the war grinds on the more likely it is that more radical elements in Ukraine will coalesce around the hatred of Russia. It is conflicts like this that foster terrorist groups. In this case their focus will be on Russia and Russians but wanton terrorism is never a good thing.
I know it may be premature but I believe the western democracies should be looking at how we can rebuild Ukraine once the conflict is over. Of course we should get Russia to pay for this - confiscate property, asses tariffs on all Russian exports (especially oil &gas). However it is paid for, we need a “Marshal Plan” to rebuild Ukraine and bring them back as quickly as possible. It is clearly the right thing to do but I also believe it may help to mitigate the forming of terrorist groups in Ukraine. I hope that Biden and the other leaders in Western Europe are thinking about this.
Having found the time to read it, I found Didion's piece to be more amusing than profound. So Seventies. The first part was practical advise on how to live in a complex world, then there was her diatribe about the sixties, then she ended it with a grab the gusto paragraph. In her diatribe she complained about language use and blaming it on the sixties. I had to chuckle, I guess she never read George Orwell.
The really sad part is she was a 40 year old woman going off on the ideas in a poem written by a 17 yr old girl. When you are seventeen, you write shallow and trite stuff, it is part of being seventeen
This is not about your great newsletter choices, but I didn’t know the correct way to share this thought with the Bulwark . Anyways, how long before the FSB’s go full Martha Mitchell on Ginny?
All three excellent
Sadly, for me anyway, Didion nailed it. No gain in quibbling about the specifics. Will not change the message.
Hey JVL, correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard y'all talk about that poll showing John Fetterman with a big lead in the PA primary race. Do you think he can beat whichever Republican makes it through?
"I’m not sure if knowing that Didion saw the same pathology 50 years ago makes it more, or less, depressing."
I would say that it makes it simultaneously more depressing, and less frightening. Depressing because it's about as solid of proof as you need that this is a "humans being human" thing, and we're going to have to fight it forever. Less scary, though, because it also means that it has also *been with us forever*. Yet, we still managed to vanquish diseases, drag billions out of grinding poverty, and even make it to outer space, even as we wrangled with it. Arguably, the weaker, more moderate version of it helped make those things possible. It's misfortune and hope, walking side-by-side.
I think people like Raffensperger actually do get it and get it quite well, but for the high profile cult GOP members the trump train is a unique cash cow and for some like say MTG the only pathway to $$$. In Raffensperger’s case he is a sellout maybe of the worst type because we know he has a conscience sometimes unlike some of the more narcissistic personalities in that party. Sell outs pretty much make up the entire Republican Party of politicians save a few. They are selling out country for personal gain. That’s why Ukraine is so compelling, hopeful, and sad at the same time. The people are actually giving their lives for their country and democracy, but here we are with the worst of humanity on figurative bullhorns talking about crazy conspiracy gibberish hoping to gain their trump riches. It’s gross.
Thank you for this. It’s rare that we read something from which the truth oozes out effortlessly.
Thank you for this. It’s rare that we read something from which the truth oozes out effortlessly.
I'm someone of, I believe, average intelligence. My formal education consists of enough college level classes to qualify for a degree, but do not have one for a couple of reasons. Beyond that, I've read a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff over a lot of years. I'm a "thinker" of sorts, I guess, but I don't think I can fairly describe myself as a "deep" thinker.
I say this because I'm having a problem understanding a small piece of Didion's words and am looking for a little help. I've got a mental flat, have opened the trunk to discover I'm missing the jack needed to make the repair and get back on my way, and am hoping some kindly motorist out there will take a moment to pull over and provide one.
It didn't take me an hour to recognize the quote from the Brazilian guerilla's book as gibberish. It struck me that way as soon as my eyes got to the period at the end of the sentence. The problem I'm having is with what comes in the next paragraph, in which three similes are proffered which are, if I'm taking Didion correctly, also devoid of meaning. I can see "culture at the crossroads" easily enough in that light, but "broken home" and "ask not..." , well they are in the depths of the well that my mind's reach is apparently unable to plumb at the moment as far as being meaningless goes.
Broken home seems to me to have a definite meaning, one which is pretty much recognized and agreed upon. And I am old enough to remember hearing Kennedy speak those words on TV, and even at that young age they had meaning for me, one that I've only more appreciated as I've grown older. So, what am I missing here? I know enough to know that Didon full well knew what she was talking about, so I'm feeling a bit inept in my efforts to put on that spare, and a hand with the jack and the lug wrench would be much appreciated.
" Brazilian guerilla's book as gibberish. It struck me that way as soon as my eyes got to the period at the end of the sentence. "
I gotta disagree. It is a very coherent statement. You do have to look at it from the eye of someone fighting against oppression with limited access to folks who write "serious" stuff. After all it is the serious people who get to create the definition, not some Brazilian peasant.
If you have noticed both Putin and Zelensky understand the Brazilian guerilla's quote.
Then there is the Vonnegut quote from Mother Night
" “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” "
Noted. And upon reflection, gibberish is probably the wrong word, though that's what came to mind in the moment. What the guerilla wrote is meaningful to him and someone with his perspective I guess, yet, if not completely meaningless to me (and apparently Didon), at best it's murky and a bit nonsensical. But I guess you can't fault the writer for that, if you consider the context and circumstances you describe. And you can't fault me either, I suppose. When words land in my ear or eye, I interpret their meaning based on my understanding of their definition and how I've experienced their common use in mental constructs. Which gets at a lot of the problem inherent in our attempts to communicate with each other. Words, despite their formal definitions, often mean different things to different people based on personal perspective and biases. Not sure if there's a solution to that, beyond perhaps what's going on right here. So, thanks for pullin' over for a minute. I appreciate it.
For "broken home," I would say that meaningless doesn't just mean "has no definition." It can also mean "so singular in meaning that it carries no substantive semantic force." What is a broken home? One might respond with "a home mired in dysfunction." Which is fine if you want to go from "orbital level" to "40,000 feet," but you're still not giving "theoretical alien me with no knowledge of human relations" anything I can use to get a handle on it. It's just a euphemism for "a family mode which I believe is harmful to those within it." Is that a kid living with a single parent? A lot of people would say so. What if dad gets drunk and beats mom half to death, or mom poisons kid so she can get attention from medical professionals? Divorce and the not abusive parent taking the kid still make it broken? Every home does damage to those within it. Deciding which ones are "broken" is, at best, four parts "weighing available options" and one part "aesthetic preference," and phrase "broken home" provides no assistance in making that determination. We still have to look. It's a handy euphemism for us to be able to set a certain assumption, but it ultimately obscures more than it illuminates. And making a euphemism the background of your conduct is a disaster.
As for the "ask not" cliche, it's meaningless because it presupposes the existence of a thing that *does not exist*. I have no country. You have no country. We have a government, with a law code, and a set of mores that guide our behavior. These things serve as the guiding principle for the 320-million odd people who live here. When I'm "asking what I can do for my country," which of those am I taking about? Ellsburg and Gravel launched an attack on the government when they released the Pentagon Papers and made sure they couldn't be hidden, but they did it in service of the people. Were they "doing for their country?" The country is a euphemism for "us and everything that binds us." You can't render service to it, because it has no existence separate from its parts. Meaning "ask what you can do for your country" is arguably just an encouragement to view "the thing I want to serve" and "the country" as being one and the same. Which can be really good, or *really, really bad* depending on what that thing winds up being.
My two cents, anyway.
Well hey, Sherm. Was beginning to wonder if anyone was gonna' pull over and lend a hand. I'd say that was about a couple of bucks worth.
Since I posted that distress flag, I'd been thinking a little along the lines of the definition and meaning of individual words, and the accuracy and usefulness of the euphemisms and other constructs that we build with them, and how those meanings can and do vary depending on one's point of view and life experience. And your insight helps with a little better mental articulation on that for me. One man's "country" may in fact exist for him as simply a geographical land mass with borders on a map and a population within those lines, and another's more along the lines of what you wrote.
Appreciate you lengthening the rope on my bucket a bit. As I continue to drop it down this particular well, at least it will come back with a bit more water in it than before. So, thanks for that.
Yes, but... one might also suggest that your original insight/perspective is not without value. To say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," is certainly not without specific and profound meaning. We tend to go through our lives thinking about how a system of government -- which is really just a way of framing how the totality of a community the size of a country -- is serving our needs. But it's an important flip at key moments to think in the other direction: how our daily choices, values, priorities, etc can serve to make that totality better, stronger, more able to stand up to its existential obstacles. It's difficult to see that as cliche or mundane or, as didion puts it, as having "no meaning at all".
Hello, B... Kennedy's words do have a specific meaning for me. Perhaps those more cynical than I (and I have a fairly healthy dose of that these days) may find those words cliche, but I don't. However one parses them out, they impart a specific idea in my mind, and I happen to agree with it. But what Sherm had to say does help my understanding of how other people with other perspectives / experiences might take a different meaning from them (or other such statements), or even find them meaningless, as Didion apparently did. Likewise, I found Jack B's take on the line from the guerilla's book also useful in this regard.
I'd say you're dead on in what you said about how we spend most of our time thinking about how "government" serves us, so when someone proposes a reverse in the direction of that thought it would no doubt be harder for some to assign meaning than others. Just as physical habits are hard to break, so it is with some mental ones as well. And I think that's also a part of the problem of "meaning" differing among people who are reading / hearing the same words.
I've found all of this quite interesting. I've always liked our language and the words it consists of, and how we use them to communicate with each other in both mundane and profound ways. Thanks for taking the time to give me some more input. As with the others who did, I do appreciate it.
The problem here is that people like Raffensberger see no other lane but the party they belong to. The real problem is the party structure and it’s hold on otherwise rational human beings.
Do any of these people have mirrors?
Lesson Three is the main reason I can’t go all in with the Democrats. During the recent redistricting here in Virginia, I’ve been moved from a conscientious moderate Democrat’s district, Spanberger’s 7th, to an amoral, hack, machine Democrat’s, McEachin’s 4th. On the bright side, I’ve been removed from a white populist social justice warrior’s House of Delegates’ district, VanValkenburg’s, to a district held by a moderate African-American Democrat, Lamont Bagby. Finally, I’ve been redistricted from the district of a moderate, conscientious Republican to that of a moderate, conscientious Democrat, so that’s a wash. Going forward, I will be happy to vote for Del. Lamont Bagby, where I couldn’t pull the lever for his fellow Democrat, Del. Schuyler VanValkenburg. I will continue to support both my old senator, Republican Siobhan Dunnavant, as well as new senator, Democrat Jennifer McClellan, because they are both genuine people actually working on behalf of their constituents and across the aisle. I appreciate their desire to see government function, instead of grandstanding. However, I cannot in good conscience pull the lever for Rep. Don McEachin, despite the fact that the Republicans lining up to challenge him are a clown show, because I know he’d be just as willing to tear the country apart to advance his political career as any MAGA Teahadist Trumpshevik. I will miss not being able to vote for Abigail Spanberger. As much as we have to stop the Trumpist authoritarians, we also have to work to maintain a two- (or more) party system, and that means continuing to support the few sane Republicans left out there.
Don't feel bad. Throughout my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood, Maxine Waters was my state Assembly rep. When I moved 25 miles away, guess who got herself elected to the House in my district? Maxine Waters! And so she has been my Congresswoman, always running virtually unopposed, for nearly 30 years.
Jonathan, I'm glad you were able to track down a digital copy of the Didion piece. Anything she writes is pure gold.
Jonathan used the word decadent to describe our society in a podcast this week. The word says a lot. When I read about crises in the world, death and destruction, and then I parse the news of the day, and reflect on the news of yesterday, so much of it seems like utter nonsense. We’re a decadent people, and I have time believing that anything but a catastrophe of biblical proportions will shake us out of the decline. I think the Joan didion part shook this screed out of me.
"When I look around our public life, I see a great many people in thrall to ideas. People who, because of their ideas, have decided that liberal democracy is no longer important. Or who, because of their ideas, refuse to confront reality." This is important. This should be on The Bulwark masthead. It also ties in to Neil deGrasse Tyson's state: "that revelation that our everyday experience is not a reliable guide to the ultimate nature of reality is a major transition in thought." Far too many people are utterly incapable of making that transition.
But it takes quite a lot of thought to understand that one's experience is not necessarily the equivalent of truth...you have to be interested in becoming wiser and so pay attention to these ideas...