I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to hear the conversation that must have been going on when Joe Biden showed up with the Jill on his arm, smiling and waving and ostentatiously elbow-bumping. It would be like coming to a family gathering where your favorite uncle shows up after a very messy divorce, and where he got all o…
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to hear the conversation that must have been going on when Joe Biden showed up with the Jill on his arm, smiling and waving and ostentatiously elbow-bumping. It would be like coming to a family gathering where your favorite uncle shows up after a very messy divorce, and where he got all of the community property; he has a story to tell, and everyone is ready to drop everything to hear all the dirty details! And Joe Biden is an Irish storyteller of the first-order. He will tell stories about Trump and his sleazy band of crooks that will make everybody's hair stand on end, and Trump's inconceivable stupidity that brought him down. There will be lots and lots of laughter, but everybody knows that Trump and those who believe and act like him are not going away anytime soon. Trump's ridiculousness does not detract the least from his dangerousness.
But, as we well know, the points that Joe wants to make come with the story; and undoubtedly, the point of Joe Biden's story is going to be about saving democracy and having us all pull together. Everything else is secondary. He will emphasize his points to highlight his concerns about democracy's vulnerabilities, noting that Trump failed because of his own personal incompetencies. The take away will be that a more savvy scoundrel, like Vladimir Putin, would have avoided Trump's mistakes, to Western culture's collective disadvantage. As the saying goes, we can hate Trump, but we cannot hate his supporters, because they are us. Pulling together will mean having to change some of our assumptions, and taking proactive measures to ward off abuse of political rights and social norms. I am confident that Joe Biden, along with Jill Biden, will make for entertaining, as well as sobering discussion about what we need to do. Like the President and Ms. Biden, we can take the problem seriously without taking ourselves too seriously. There are reasons why these things happened, and it took decades for the rot to set in that undermined our democratic institutions. For most of us, this is entirely new territory, and it will test our strengths and ability to think outside the box before we even begin to think this might be over soon.
Historical analogies are always inexact, and it is important to clearly differentiate what we see are similarities from what are clearly differences, and that the decisions made are likely to depend on those differences. The analogy that comes to mind is the meeting between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in April 1941, aboard the USS Augusta, anchored off the Newfoundland coast, when the United States and Great Britain joined together to formulate what was called the Atlantic Charter. Recently, we saw on the news that an updated version of that statement of principle has been agreed to between President Biden and Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister. I confess to not having read the revised and updated version, but I certainly know what the original Atlantic Charter stood for: no territorial aggrandizement; respect for the rights of all people to choose the form of government under which they would live; for all states to trade on equal access and on equal terms; improving the global standard of living; and freedom of the seas. This was a unified response to an external threat back by military force. Our situation today is no less dire, but the elements constituting an existential threat to our way of life are different, and far more subtle: internal subversion; a corrosive populism that destroys trust among people; a tidal wave of disinformation and anti-democratic propaganda emanating from Russia; and the de facto declaration of war by the Trump Republican Party against our constitutional form of government. Time will tell how this will turn out, but it looks to me that President Biden is off to a good start.
So noted, but outside a professional or academic context, mentioning our academic credentials would seem to be more off-putting than not. In the political world, where personal titles ascribed to individuals in their present or former capacities tend to be more honorific than meaningful, in the sense that a former ambassador is still an ambassador in matters of address, as with former Congressmen and Senators. We do this sometimes in order to signify a heightened level of seriousness, gravitas, and authority to speak, when these individuals are interviewed for their views on public affairs. In those instances, the mentioning of the title, or former title, the relationship of the title, or former title, the purpose of the interview is self-evident and obvious. In democratic societies, the use of social titles in matters outside their professional capacities is generally considered déclassé, as in drawing unnecessary attention to oneself as a cut above the ordinary. For people of egalitarian mien, like the Bidens, who present themselves simply as Joe and Jill, I just do not see that happening.
Yes, the familiar is welcome, such as Joe and Jill. But you referred to her with a title of Ms., in a context when the title of Dr. was appropriate, and Ms. was diminishing.
“In those instances, the mentioning of the title, or former title, the relationship of the title, or former title, the purpose of the interview is self-evident and obvious. In democratic societies, the use of social titles in matters outside their professional capacities is generally considered déclassé, as in drawing unnecessary attention to oneself as a cut above the ordinary.”
Dr. Biden intends to return to teaching, in addition to her duties as First Lady. Her credentials and title, in that context, are still appropriate.
Agreed, you and several others have made your point. I apologize for the omission, and my sole excuse would have to be the late hour I was writing that comment. Thank you all for reminding me.
"[B]iden will tell stories about Trump and his sleazy band of crooks that will make everybody's hair stand on end, and Trump's inconceivable stupidity that brought him down".
Biden may be a story teller in the grand tradition. But he is also a decent human being and a savvy politician with brains, dignity and self respect. He won't be the favorite uncle telling knee slapping tales about Trump and his sleazy band of crooks. He has nothing to gain and much to lose by doing so. Biden understands that that sort of story telling tends to blow up in one's face somewhere down the road. Nah, the favorite aunt and uncle will surely be there, and with twinkles in their eyes, but Joe won't be telling the tales..
And another elephant in our democratic living room is the conflict between our First Amendment and a television network that spews unabated propaganda and disinformation.
Hmmm. I hope this is a “chapter book”, as young readers call it, and that you have just entered the first chapter. I’ll be waiting for the next, artsilen. Fascinating story. Thank you.
"As the saying goes, we can hate Trump, but we cannot hate his supporters, because they are us."
They are also his victims. Thay will need our support to recover from his manipulations. It will take a while for them to ba able to accept it, though.
No. They are not us. They are 42% of us, consisting primarily of the most willfully ignorant elements of the population, or, to put it another way, 60% of white Americans (80% in the South) and almost nobody else. We can hate them, dislike them, ignore them, talk to them, invite them to dinner, do with them whatever we’re comfortable with. Doesn’t matter. They will not change. The only thing that matters, the only thing we must do, is to outvote them. And that monumental task will require all the able citizens among us to work our tails off for, probably, the rest of our lives.
And direct our energy to where it will be more effective: the 40% independent voters in the middle. Moneyed far right groups are aggressively going after them. So must we.
People who don’t name a political party in their voter registration are predominantly people who usually vote for Republicans and are mostly unconvertible. Our most effective opportunities are in making sure Americans with non-European ancestors get registered to vote, get to the polls, and cast votes. Depending on the demographic, 70% to 90% of Americans with non-European ancestors vote for Democrats.
Party stats are about 30% Republicans + 40% Independents + 30% Democrats. Stacey Abrams’ secret to success was going after traditionally perceived unreachable or unlikely voters.
Stacy Abrams accomplished the miracle in Georgia by getting an unprecedented voter turnout among the 44% of the Georgia electorate who have non-European ancestors. She did not waste her time trying to convince white voters, Independent or not, to vote for Democrats. White voters in Georgia with even a remote inclination to vote Democratic did so with no encouragement from Stacy Abrams. Many of those voters helped her with her project. The same miracle can be accomplished through energetic, well financed, Abrams-style efforts in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. It cannot be accomplished in Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Idaho, or Wyoming.
If you look back at our recent history from the New Deal to the 1980 presidential election, and the beginning of the Reagan Revolution, most working-class whites voted Democratic.
I think the tipping point was a bit earlier (1968), but that's just a quibble. Your observation is correct. The difference is that after 1954 (Brown v Board) and especially after 1964 (Civil Rights Act) and 1965 (Voting Rights Act), working-class white voters realized that Democrats were trying to do their best for the entire population, not just the white population. The New Deal passed because of concessions to Dixiecrats that limited benefits for black citizens. Same goes for the GI Bill, which had no racial disparity in its language (unlike Social Security, which limited benefits for black people by excluding occupations they were likely to be employed in), but the Dixiecrats demanded that people from their ranks be allowed to administer GI Bill benefits, and they administered the project in a way that severely limited the dispersal of GI benefits to black GIs. American politics is mostly about race. Has been since 1789. Still is.
Rex, voters in states with open primaries, like Georgia, are limited in the primaries to those candidates who have also not declared a party affiliation. That results in precious few choices. My firstborn learned that the hard way. Had he only asked his mother …. I also learned it the hard way. When I registered to vote in NYS, many moons ago, I registered Independent. Same result. Now, in GA, we are asked which ballot we want when we vote. That’s our declaration.
Those may be our private judgments with regard to that hard core of unteachables within the Trump voter base. You may recall Hillary Clinton's reference to Trump supporters as 'deplorables', and how that appellation played out in the states that Clinton lost. You cannot merely dismiss these people; and therefore, you need to at least try to see the world as they do, because how they see the world will pretty much dictate how they respond to it. Our job is to reframe the conversation in ways that reinforce common goals and values. People invent conspiracy theories because they are scared to death of what they do not know; and ridiculing them, and condemning them is a waste of breath, and self-defeating. Finding some sort of common ground, no matter how small, is the place we need to start, and we start by lowering the temperature of the conversation.
There is no common ground. They prefer a white autocracy to a democracy without a systemic bias favoring the white population. Every hour or dollar spent trying to convince white voters to vote for Democrats would get ten times as many Democratic votes if it were applied to the task of getting Americans with non-European ancestors registered to vote and to the polls to cast their votes. We have enough votes to outvote them but just barely. Hardly a vote to spare and no time or money to spare in the long process required to convince white people with Republican inclinations to change their minds.
I disagree, vehemently. There is common ground if you're willing to look for it. We didn't always have these divisions, until we allowed social media companies to monopolize the conversation. Your post assumes facts not in evidence, that white people uniformly are in a state of insurrection and rebellion against what our nation stands for. That unfounded echo chamber amplifies noise over dialogue. There is nothing that cannot be negotiated to serve the common good. We have always adhered to the principle of majority rule, even where local practices fell short from time to time. Except for a tiny minority, whites are not single issue voters, neither are other social groups. Sixty years ago, biracial families and interracial marriage was almost nil, and prohibited by law in 31 states. Now, as President Biden observed recently, you cannot watch an hour of television without seeing advertisements of consumer products that feature biracial social groups and families. That's progress that goes totally unacknowledged in your comment. The advertisers have gotten it right, and are betting large sums of money that don't care all that much about racial groupings.Bill Maher's commentary last Friday, when he chided those whom he called out as 'progressophobics' for pretending that no social progress has been made. That assertion is demonstrably false, and watching Woke heads explode added to the satisfaction of them having to admit to themselves that they were wrong was immensely satisfying. Bottom line, being both stubborn and stupid in a good cause is just as wrong-headed as doing it in a bad cause. I'm more inclined to call out nitwit claiming to be progressives because their immediate goal is a self-satisfied emotional thrill. Sorry, guys, that's not on our agenda. We need to operate on the assumption that some significant fraction of those opposing us are ambivalent and not entirely sold in their opposition to measures and policies we are proposing. Everything can be improved, and the more people who get involved, the better the outcome tends to be. So apply some calculus to your method and break the problems down into solvable modules, and work from there. Reframe problems. When problems are resolved, there's more than enough credit to go around.
Very well written, thank you. I do hope that the updated Atlantic Charter includes provisions for the protection of the planet and its natural resources as a top priority consideration in "all states to trade on equal access and on equal terms". That was certainly not a consideration in the last 100 years and it needs to be.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall to hear the conversation that must have been going on when Joe Biden showed up with the Jill on his arm, smiling and waving and ostentatiously elbow-bumping. It would be like coming to a family gathering where your favorite uncle shows up after a very messy divorce, and where he got all of the community property; he has a story to tell, and everyone is ready to drop everything to hear all the dirty details! And Joe Biden is an Irish storyteller of the first-order. He will tell stories about Trump and his sleazy band of crooks that will make everybody's hair stand on end, and Trump's inconceivable stupidity that brought him down. There will be lots and lots of laughter, but everybody knows that Trump and those who believe and act like him are not going away anytime soon. Trump's ridiculousness does not detract the least from his dangerousness.
But, as we well know, the points that Joe wants to make come with the story; and undoubtedly, the point of Joe Biden's story is going to be about saving democracy and having us all pull together. Everything else is secondary. He will emphasize his points to highlight his concerns about democracy's vulnerabilities, noting that Trump failed because of his own personal incompetencies. The take away will be that a more savvy scoundrel, like Vladimir Putin, would have avoided Trump's mistakes, to Western culture's collective disadvantage. As the saying goes, we can hate Trump, but we cannot hate his supporters, because they are us. Pulling together will mean having to change some of our assumptions, and taking proactive measures to ward off abuse of political rights and social norms. I am confident that Joe Biden, along with Jill Biden, will make for entertaining, as well as sobering discussion about what we need to do. Like the President and Ms. Biden, we can take the problem seriously without taking ourselves too seriously. There are reasons why these things happened, and it took decades for the rot to set in that undermined our democratic institutions. For most of us, this is entirely new territory, and it will test our strengths and ability to think outside the box before we even begin to think this might be over soon.
Historical analogies are always inexact, and it is important to clearly differentiate what we see are similarities from what are clearly differences, and that the decisions made are likely to depend on those differences. The analogy that comes to mind is the meeting between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in April 1941, aboard the USS Augusta, anchored off the Newfoundland coast, when the United States and Great Britain joined together to formulate what was called the Atlantic Charter. Recently, we saw on the news that an updated version of that statement of principle has been agreed to between President Biden and Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister. I confess to not having read the revised and updated version, but I certainly know what the original Atlantic Charter stood for: no territorial aggrandizement; respect for the rights of all people to choose the form of government under which they would live; for all states to trade on equal access and on equal terms; improving the global standard of living; and freedom of the seas. This was a unified response to an external threat back by military force. Our situation today is no less dire, but the elements constituting an existential threat to our way of life are different, and far more subtle: internal subversion; a corrosive populism that destroys trust among people; a tidal wave of disinformation and anti-democratic propaganda emanating from Russia; and the de facto declaration of war by the Trump Republican Party against our constitutional form of government. Time will tell how this will turn out, but it looks to me that President Biden is off to a good start.
As I love what you have so cogently written, may I offer one correction? Jill Biden, Ed.D., has earned the title of Dr. Biden.
President and Dr. Biden. I’ve seen it in headlines, and I like it, very much!
👍🏻❤️🤍💙
So noted, but outside a professional or academic context, mentioning our academic credentials would seem to be more off-putting than not. In the political world, where personal titles ascribed to individuals in their present or former capacities tend to be more honorific than meaningful, in the sense that a former ambassador is still an ambassador in matters of address, as with former Congressmen and Senators. We do this sometimes in order to signify a heightened level of seriousness, gravitas, and authority to speak, when these individuals are interviewed for their views on public affairs. In those instances, the mentioning of the title, or former title, the relationship of the title, or former title, the purpose of the interview is self-evident and obvious. In democratic societies, the use of social titles in matters outside their professional capacities is generally considered déclassé, as in drawing unnecessary attention to oneself as a cut above the ordinary. For people of egalitarian mien, like the Bidens, who present themselves simply as Joe and Jill, I just do not see that happening.
Yes, the familiar is welcome, such as Joe and Jill. But you referred to her with a title of Ms., in a context when the title of Dr. was appropriate, and Ms. was diminishing.
“In those instances, the mentioning of the title, or former title, the relationship of the title, or former title, the purpose of the interview is self-evident and obvious. In democratic societies, the use of social titles in matters outside their professional capacities is generally considered déclassé, as in drawing unnecessary attention to oneself as a cut above the ordinary.”
Dr. Biden intends to return to teaching, in addition to her duties as First Lady. Her credentials and title, in that context, are still appropriate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/politics/jill-biden-first-lady.html
Agreed, you and several others have made your point. I apologize for the omission, and my sole excuse would have to be the late hour I was writing that comment. Thank you all for reminding me.
"[B]iden will tell stories about Trump and his sleazy band of crooks that will make everybody's hair stand on end, and Trump's inconceivable stupidity that brought him down".
Biden may be a story teller in the grand tradition. But he is also a decent human being and a savvy politician with brains, dignity and self respect. He won't be the favorite uncle telling knee slapping tales about Trump and his sleazy band of crooks. He has nothing to gain and much to lose by doing so. Biden understands that that sort of story telling tends to blow up in one's face somewhere down the road. Nah, the favorite aunt and uncle will surely be there, and with twinkles in their eyes, but Joe won't be telling the tales..
Great analysis! I would suggest something you didn't mention. The major difference today is the presence of Social Media in our lives.
And another elephant in our democratic living room is the conflict between our First Amendment and a television network that spews unabated propaganda and disinformation.
Hmmm. I hope this is a “chapter book”, as young readers call it, and that you have just entered the first chapter. I’ll be waiting for the next, artsilen. Fascinating story. Thank you.
Great post, Artsilen. I'm in!
"As the saying goes, we can hate Trump, but we cannot hate his supporters, because they are us."
They are also his victims. Thay will need our support to recover from his manipulations. It will take a while for them to ba able to accept it, though.
No. They are not us. They are 42% of us, consisting primarily of the most willfully ignorant elements of the population, or, to put it another way, 60% of white Americans (80% in the South) and almost nobody else. We can hate them, dislike them, ignore them, talk to them, invite them to dinner, do with them whatever we’re comfortable with. Doesn’t matter. They will not change. The only thing that matters, the only thing we must do, is to outvote them. And that monumental task will require all the able citizens among us to work our tails off for, probably, the rest of our lives.
And direct our energy to where it will be more effective: the 40% independent voters in the middle. Moneyed far right groups are aggressively going after them. So must we.
People who don’t name a political party in their voter registration are predominantly people who usually vote for Republicans and are mostly unconvertible. Our most effective opportunities are in making sure Americans with non-European ancestors get registered to vote, get to the polls, and cast votes. Depending on the demographic, 70% to 90% of Americans with non-European ancestors vote for Democrats.
Party stats are about 30% Republicans + 40% Independents + 30% Democrats. Stacey Abrams’ secret to success was going after traditionally perceived unreachable or unlikely voters.
Stacy Abrams accomplished the miracle in Georgia by getting an unprecedented voter turnout among the 44% of the Georgia electorate who have non-European ancestors. She did not waste her time trying to convince white voters, Independent or not, to vote for Democrats. White voters in Georgia with even a remote inclination to vote Democratic did so with no encouragement from Stacy Abrams. Many of those voters helped her with her project. The same miracle can be accomplished through energetic, well financed, Abrams-style efforts in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. It cannot be accomplished in Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Idaho, or Wyoming.
If you look back at our recent history from the New Deal to the 1980 presidential election, and the beginning of the Reagan Revolution, most working-class whites voted Democratic.
I think the tipping point was a bit earlier (1968), but that's just a quibble. Your observation is correct. The difference is that after 1954 (Brown v Board) and especially after 1964 (Civil Rights Act) and 1965 (Voting Rights Act), working-class white voters realized that Democrats were trying to do their best for the entire population, not just the white population. The New Deal passed because of concessions to Dixiecrats that limited benefits for black citizens. Same goes for the GI Bill, which had no racial disparity in its language (unlike Social Security, which limited benefits for black people by excluding occupations they were likely to be employed in), but the Dixiecrats demanded that people from their ranks be allowed to administer GI Bill benefits, and they administered the project in a way that severely limited the dispersal of GI benefits to black GIs. American politics is mostly about race. Has been since 1789. Still is.
Rex, voters in states with open primaries, like Georgia, are limited in the primaries to those candidates who have also not declared a party affiliation. That results in precious few choices. My firstborn learned that the hard way. Had he only asked his mother …. I also learned it the hard way. When I registered to vote in NYS, many moons ago, I registered Independent. Same result. Now, in GA, we are asked which ballot we want when we vote. That’s our declaration.
Well said.
I hate that I have to agree with you, but I do.
Those may be our private judgments with regard to that hard core of unteachables within the Trump voter base. You may recall Hillary Clinton's reference to Trump supporters as 'deplorables', and how that appellation played out in the states that Clinton lost. You cannot merely dismiss these people; and therefore, you need to at least try to see the world as they do, because how they see the world will pretty much dictate how they respond to it. Our job is to reframe the conversation in ways that reinforce common goals and values. People invent conspiracy theories because they are scared to death of what they do not know; and ridiculing them, and condemning them is a waste of breath, and self-defeating. Finding some sort of common ground, no matter how small, is the place we need to start, and we start by lowering the temperature of the conversation.
There is no common ground. They prefer a white autocracy to a democracy without a systemic bias favoring the white population. Every hour or dollar spent trying to convince white voters to vote for Democrats would get ten times as many Democratic votes if it were applied to the task of getting Americans with non-European ancestors registered to vote and to the polls to cast their votes. We have enough votes to outvote them but just barely. Hardly a vote to spare and no time or money to spare in the long process required to convince white people with Republican inclinations to change their minds.
I disagree, vehemently. There is common ground if you're willing to look for it. We didn't always have these divisions, until we allowed social media companies to monopolize the conversation. Your post assumes facts not in evidence, that white people uniformly are in a state of insurrection and rebellion against what our nation stands for. That unfounded echo chamber amplifies noise over dialogue. There is nothing that cannot be negotiated to serve the common good. We have always adhered to the principle of majority rule, even where local practices fell short from time to time. Except for a tiny minority, whites are not single issue voters, neither are other social groups. Sixty years ago, biracial families and interracial marriage was almost nil, and prohibited by law in 31 states. Now, as President Biden observed recently, you cannot watch an hour of television without seeing advertisements of consumer products that feature biracial social groups and families. That's progress that goes totally unacknowledged in your comment. The advertisers have gotten it right, and are betting large sums of money that don't care all that much about racial groupings.Bill Maher's commentary last Friday, when he chided those whom he called out as 'progressophobics' for pretending that no social progress has been made. That assertion is demonstrably false, and watching Woke heads explode added to the satisfaction of them having to admit to themselves that they were wrong was immensely satisfying. Bottom line, being both stubborn and stupid in a good cause is just as wrong-headed as doing it in a bad cause. I'm more inclined to call out nitwit claiming to be progressives because their immediate goal is a self-satisfied emotional thrill. Sorry, guys, that's not on our agenda. We need to operate on the assumption that some significant fraction of those opposing us are ambivalent and not entirely sold in their opposition to measures and policies we are proposing. Everything can be improved, and the more people who get involved, the better the outcome tends to be. So apply some calculus to your method and break the problems down into solvable modules, and work from there. Reframe problems. When problems are resolved, there's more than enough credit to go around.
Yes.
Very well written, thank you. I do hope that the updated Atlantic Charter includes provisions for the protection of the planet and its natural resources as a top priority consideration in "all states to trade on equal access and on equal terms". That was certainly not a consideration in the last 100 years and it needs to be.