The plucky poll slingers at YouGov, who are consistently willing to use their elite-tier survey skills in service of measuring the unmeasurable, asked 2,000 adults which decade had the best and worst music, movies, economy and so forth, across 20 measures. But when we charted them, no consistent pattern emerged.
Until they charted them by generation. “Age, more than anything, determines when you think America peaked.”
The good old days when America was “great” aren’t the 1950s. They’re whatever decade you were 11, your parents knew the correct answer to any question, and you’d never heard of war crimes tribunals, microplastics or improvised explosive devices. Or when you were 15 and athletes and musicians still played hard and hadn’t sold out.
[…]
The closest-knit communities were those in our childhood, ages 4 to 7. The happiest families, most moral society and most reliable news reporting came in our early formative years — ages 8 through 11. The best economy, as well as the best radio, television and movies, happened in our early teens — ages 12 through 15.
There are certainly marketing implications behind the research, especially for streaming music services. There is too much more to go into in detail here. See the link and enjoy your holiday.
My online friend, musician and Navy veteran Stephen Bensen, is sharing his hummingbirds with passersby this weekend. “people just walking by, see the hummingbirds and want to be a part of it. i love being able to do this.”
I’ve shared before a tale about the first Memorial Day in 1865 in Charleston, South Carolina, a remembrance of “slavery’s terrible legacy.” The focus of that ceremony and of most on Memorial Days since is on the fallen. Less featured are the stories of those left behind.
The Fayetteville Observer ran an op-ed a few days ago by Rebekah Sanderlin. She calls out Donald Trump for his dismissal of soldiers who fell in battle in Europe as “suckers and losers.” She spotlights the burdens borne by the wives of U.S. soldiers lost in Afghanistan thirteen years before Trump’s snubbing:
I started leading Care Teams in 2005, only we didn’t call them that then. We didn’t call them anything back then. We just helped. We, military spouses, showed up after the soldiers in dress uniforms notified someone just like us that the person she loved most in this world was never coming home. As the wife of an enlisted U.S. Army Special Forces soldier who spent more time deployed than home, my husband’s friends were the ones dying, and my friends were their widows.
Sometimes we were there to simply be a friend to a woman who didn’t have any friends nearby, but mostly we quietly did all the little things life requires of people, things people can’t do when they’re in shock and grieving. Because most military families live far from their hometowns, they rarely have a local network to lean on during a tragedy. We became their local network.
We vacuumed, we washed dishes, we walked their dogs. We prepared their houses for the stream of people who were about to appear. We bought groceries, arranged meal trains, picked up their family members from the airport and met their kids at the bus stop, fully aware — though those children weren’t yet — that they were having the last normal moments of their entire lives.
Early in 2005 I learned to always bring toilet paper with me. When the widow wasn’t looking, I would sneak a few rolls into her bathroom. It seems like a tiny, insignificant thing, and it was, but I quickly saw that the last thing anyone needs when their world has collapsed is to also be out of toilet paper. Some of those years, the casualties came often enough that I just kept a giant pack in my car.
Service is what Trump expects wherever he goes. It’s not a thing he does, nor is self-sacrifice in his limited vocabulary. Trump’s comments left Sanderlin and others “furious and disgusted”:
I was still leading Care Teams and still carting around toilet paper in November 2018 when then-President Trump called the U.S. Marines who died at Belleau Wood “suckers” and the American soldiers buried at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery “losers.” I was furious and disgusted even though, like everyone else, I had become conditioned to our President saying horrible things. But there were some lines that even the most ardently anti-war protestors were too decent to cross, and this man — the President of the United States — had just spit on those lines. But I didn’t have time to stay mad then. We were at war, and we were still getting new widows.
In the months following President Trump’s callous insult, my husband’s unit would lose six more soldiers in Afghanistan. I had the privilege of knowing most of them before the deployment and there was not a sucker or a loser among them. They were committed, proud, well-trained and highly competent patriots, and they were some of the greatest people I’ve ever known.
Sanderlin’s story evokes We Were Soldiers, the 2002 Mel Gibson film, sure to be streaming this Memorial Day weekend. Based on the Battle of la Drang on November 14, 1965, first major battle of the Vietnam War, the film’s depictions of battle are brutal. So brutal that unlike most war films this one is thought with caveats to “get it right.” Although it lays on the patriotic symbolism pretty thick, scenes that flash back to the wives comforting each other as news of their husbands’ deaths arrives as the battle rages are a gut-punch. Sanderlin’s Care Teams have lived it.
Unlike in the film, the practice today is for uniformed soldiers to deliver death notices.
In military communities, and in most civilian communities, we revere the people who gave their lives for our country. We honor them and we take care of their families. Not because there’s something in it for us, but because it’s the right thing to do. We do it because when they saw a need, they stepped up, and we owe them at least that much. We do it because we know our large, diverse country is held together only by an understanding of shared sacrifice.
Trump’s “what’s in it for me” nation
Sanderlin concludes:
How did we get to a place where mocking our nation’s war dead is not an immediate disqualifier for a Commander in Chief? Why would any young person agree to wear a military uniform knowing that even their President does not honor their service? And why would anyone who has served in our military ever forgive Donald Trump for denigrating their brothers who were killed in action?
The irony in Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan is that, in the years since Trump entered politics, he has remade our country in his own image, a what’s in it for me nation where mocking the very concept of sacrifice carries no political repercussions.
If we elect him again, we are the suckers and losers.
Donald Trump likes to tell anyone who will listen that he’s absolutely convinced he will win his 2024 rematch against President Joe Biden. And, according to people who’ve spoken to the ex-president about this, Trump also seems convinced that if he wins another four years in the White House, stateprosecutors will still be waiting for him on the other side of his term — ready to put him on trial, or even in prison, just as they are now.
To avoid such risks, the former and perhaps future president of the United States wants Congress to create a very specific insurance policy that would help keep him out of prison forever, two sources familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone. Trump vaguely alluded to this idea last week outside his New York criminal hush money trial, when he said he has urged Republican lawmakers to pass “laws to stop things like this.”
In recent months, the sources say, Trump has spoken to several GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill, attorneys, and other associates about the possibility of Republicans passing legislation in a second Trump term that would shield former presidents (i.e. Trump) from non-federal prosecutions. In recent conversations with closely-aligned lawmakers, Trump has pressured them to do so, describing it as imperative that he signs such a bill into law, if he again ascends to the Oval Office.
[…]
The former president himself has hinted at a legislative push to limit his exposure to such criminal charges. In an improvised press conference outside the Manhattan courthouse on Tuesday, Trump said he’s been telling the Republican lawmakers who want to attend his trial and show solidarity to focus on legislation instead.
“We have a lot of ’em. They want to come. I say, ‘Just stay back and pass lots of laws to stop things like this,’” Trump told reporters.
Right. He also seems to think that a law to allow former presidents to remove any state trials to federal court. I guess he thinks his Supreme Court majority will always save him. (He may be right about that.)
I assume if he wins and has a congressional majority that he will have no problems getting this through almost immediately. It will be at the very top of his list. The Senate will end the filibuster for this. Whatever it takes.
He is terrified of going to jail and that is now the top motivation for his candidacy. Sure, he wants revenge and needs to prove that he’s not the loser he so obviously is. But staying out of jails is job one and he will do anything to avoid accountability for his crimes wherever they are.
This is a good idea, especially if you live in a swing state. From Simon Rosenberg:
The Importance of Voting on Day 1 – Our elections have changed a lot in recent years. Most voters can now vote early in person or with no-excuse mail ballots. This has made it far easier for people to vote which is one reason we’ve seen such a big increase in turnout in recent years. It also has forced our campaigns to move away from Election Day focused get out the vote programs, and begin our work to get our folks to vote much earlier. The recognition that our Election Day is now as Tom Bonier calls it “just the last day of voting” is central to why Team Biden asked to move the debates up this year. People start voting on September 20th, and it was smart to move the debates to before people started voting.
This new early vote electoral system is important for Democrats, who traditionally have more episodic and new voters in our coalition. This extra time to do GOTV allows us, if we have the money and the volunteers, to reach down and touch more less likely voters than we could in the past, and this increases our turnout and helps us win.
Practically, the faster our voters vote the quicker our campaigns can reach and turnout these less likely voters. Every night campaigns get the list of people who voted that day, so when you vote early you come off the campaign GOTV rolls (and you stop getting canvassed and called!!!!) allowing the campaign to move on to other people who have not voted yet. So having Democrats vote as early as possible, on Day 1 as a I call it, is something that increases turnout for us and helps us win.
All of this is why I want to encourage everyone in the Hopium community to become an advocate for Voting on Day 1. Make sure you do it yourself. Educate your networks about why it matters:
Voting on Day 1 increases Democratic turnout and helps us win
Voting on Day 1 has other benefits. A heavy early turnout leads to stories about “hey everyone is voting” putting social pressure on people to go vote, which also increases turnout. Voting early in big numbers also becomes a very public affirmation that our democracy and election system is working as intended, which creates a greater incentive for people to vote and makes it far harder for the Republicans to cheat, disrupt or contest the election.
We have four months to develop an understanding among Democrats that Voting on Day 1 is a vital new tool we have to help us win and make it far more likely the 2024 election comes off without interference. There is a reason Trump hates non-Election Day in person voting so much – it makes our democracy work better and far harder for him to cheat or challenge the election results.
I had not realized how useful it would be to vote the minute you get the chance. This is worth spreading around. I doubt most people understand this.
"They've got all these blockbusters still to hand down and I think Justice Sotomayor is telling the public 'you better brace yourself because this is going to be a disaster of epic proportions'" @mjs_dc reacts to Justice Sotomayor's frustration with the court #SaturdayShowpic.twitter.com/C0Di0UnCaO
— The Saturday/Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart (@weekendcapehart) May 25, 2024
Former Washington Post editor Len Downie sounds a warning to the American press:
“I say up front, openly and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” Donald Trump posted on Truth Social in September in an attack on NBC News. “The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country.”
What could Trump do to the news media and their ability to inform the American people? Judging by what he did in his first term, plenty.
As president, he habitually attacked the news media and individual journalists as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people,” undermining public trust in the fact-finding press.
The irony of him saying that when we now have testimony under oath that he was personally involved in manufacturing dirt on his opponents in collusion with the owner of the National Enquirer is too thick to slice. He literally concocted fake news about Marco Rubio. Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton. And the first two are enthusiastically endorsing him for president.
Anyway, Downie goes on to lay out all the ways in which trump assaulted the free press during his term and it is lengthy, from his endless verbal abuse to attempting to use the DOJ to punish media companies he believed were politically hostile to him. And he contrasts that with the Biden administration’s restoration of respect for the press and traditional norms. (Not that that has stopped the elite media from whining like little twits over “access” which they always do.)
And there’s worse to come:
“Trump will do everything he can” to restrict press access to the White House and the executive branch, [executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Bruce D. ]Brown, told me. He is also concerned about more Trump-inspired libel suits against the news media, IRS reviews of the tax-exempt status of nonprofit news organizations, a return of Justice Department investigations of reporters and news sources, and federal regulatory pressure whenever there is a major change in media ownership.
In a second Trump presidency, the Justice Department could also punish reporters for refusing to name confidential sources or prosecute them under the Espionage Act for reporting about classified information. The IRS could audit journalists’ taxes and remove the tax-exempt status of the growing number of nonprofit national, regional and local news organizations. The Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FCC could investigate news media owners.
Trump and his political allies could harass reporters and news organizations with expensive nuisance libel suits. Justice Department guidelines for police treatment of reporters covering demonstrations could be rescinded.
“His first term would prove to be a warm-up act,” said Frank Sesno, a George Washington University professor and press expert who covered the White House for many years. “A second term would be a wild ride. I’m expecting a no-holds-barred approach. They could shut down the White House press office and throw the reporters out. There could be retribution if you do a tough story about the president. Trump and his people,” Sesno added, “don’t accept that a fundamental function of the press is accountability. They don’t want to be held accountable.”
[…]
Gabe Rottman, director of RCFP’s Technology and Press Freedom Project, said the Department of Homeland Security could again step up its screening of reporters at border points, questioning them about their activities, news sources and notes. Adam A. Marshall, an RCFP government transparency lawyer, said he worries that it could become even more difficult to obtain federal government information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Downie was famous for saying he never voted because he wanted to maintain his objectivity. Granting his sincerity, that was always a bit unrealistic. But if what a journalist cares about is objectivity, there is no greater time than now to tell the full truth about what Trump is, what he’s done and what he’s doing and repeat it relentlessly. There is nothing biased about simply telling the truth. It’s their job. It’s also a matter of their own survival.
Prime minister Viktor Orbán, whom Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has deemed a “press freedom predator”, has built a media empire in the last 12 years since 2010 whose outlets follow his party’s orders. They are owned by the Kesma Foundation, which consists of around 500 outlets and gets approximately 85% of the state advertising revenue. Independent media maintain major positions in the market, but they are subject to political, economic, and regulatory pressures.
The chilling effect is very strong, leading to self-censorship among journalists and editors, even though independent journalists are used to being subjects of governmental smear campaigns. The government regularly accuses critical media of disseminating false information and of receiving funding from George Soros, a billionaire of Hungarian and Jewish origin. In addition to this, journalists critical to the government are often harassed online by ruling party supporters. They are attacked by trolls, flooding them with comments with many personal elements, especially to female journalists.
Representatives of the government do not speak to independent journalists, sometimes they are even forbidden from events. This situation has slightly developed since the elections.
Four years ago today, Trump vowed to “override” states that wanted to protect their citizens from the raging pandemic: “We have many different ways to override them” pic.twitter.com/gmhqBScKFO
So you think polling skepticism is a fool’s errand? Maybe. But it does pay to remember our most recent election in 2022. Here’s the opening of the NY Times recap of what happened (gift link):
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, had consistently won re-election by healthy margins in her three decades representing Washington State. This year seemed no different: By midsummer, polls showed her cruising to victory over a Republican newcomer, Tiffany Smiley, by as much as 20 percentage points.
So when a survey in late September by the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group showed Ms. Murray clinging to a lead of just two points, it seemed like an aberration. But in October, twomore Republican-leaning polls put Ms. Murray barely ahead, and a third said the race was a dead heat.
As the red and blue trend lines of the closely watched RealClearPolitics average for the contest drew closer together, news organizations reported that Ms. Murray was suddenly in a fight for her political survival. Warning lights flashed in Democratic war rooms. If Ms. Murray was in trouble, no Democrat was safe.
Ms. Murray’s own polling showed her with a comfortable lead, and a nonprofit regional news site, using an established local pollster, had her up by 13. Unwilling to take chances, however, she went on the defensive, scuttling her practice of lavishing some of her war chest — she amassed $20 million — on more vulnerable Democratic candidates elsewhere. Instead, she reaped financial help from the party’s national Senate committee and supportive super PACs — resources that would, as a result, be unavailable to other Democrats.
A similar sequence of events played out in battlegrounds nationwide. Surveys showing strength for Republicans, often from the same partisan pollsters, set Democratic klaxons blaring in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Colorado. Coupled with the political factors already favoring Republicans — including inflation and President Biden’s unpopularity — the skewed polls helped feed what quickly became an inescapable political narrative: A Republican wave election was about to hit the country with hurricane force.
Democrats in each of those states went on to win their Senate races. Ms. Murray clobbered Ms. Smiley by nearly 15 points.
Not for the first time, a warped understanding of the contours of a national election had come to dominate the views of political operatives, donors, journalists and, in some cases, the candidates themselves.
The misleading polls of 2022 did not just needlessly spook some worried candidates into spending more money than they may have needed to on their own races. They also led some candidates — in both parties — who had a fighting chance of winning to lose out on money that could have made it possible for them to do so, as those controlling the purse strings believed polls that inaccurately indicated they had no chance at all.
Read the whole thing. The. Media. Learned. Nothing.
That doesn’t mean the polls are wrong this time. Maybe they’ve fixed the problems (although the continued over-performance by Democrats in the off-year and special elections does give one pause.) And no matter what, the race is close so there is no basis for complacency.
But one of the biggest dangers of this ongoing media narrative that Trump is winning hands down is the consequences if these people lose having been convinced that Biden is toast for months by the press inexplicably pushing the horse race so hard and framing the election entirely around it. It’s dangerous.
Ken Burns suspends “long-standing attempt at neutrality”
This clip is a week old, but it’s flying around the internet this weekend.
Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns addressed graduates at Brandeis University and warned about the threat to America’s “fragile, 249-year-old experiment.”
Wow, Ken Burns is crystal clear on the period ahead of us. “[this] brings me to a moment I’ve dreaded and forces me to suspend my long standing attempt at neutrality…do not be seduced by easy equalization…we are at an existential crossroads in our political and civic lives.” pic.twitter.com/FagC3Aw0Pr
Reflecting on his nearly fifty-year career making films about the U.S., Ken examined the intimacy and complexity of our shared history. He reminds us that there is no "them," only "us". pic.twitter.com/SbDIXLfK7C
Burns cites Lincoln’s Lyceum speech (Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838) on “the perpetuation of our political institutions.” Lincoln was 28:
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Lincoln continued:
I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country;
Burns’s point was that while history never repeats, it sometimes rhymes. And the rhymes are unmistakeable now.
The speech in its entirety is here and worth your time.
I’ve begun “reading” historian Erik Larson’s “The Demon of Unrest” about the six months between Lincoln’s election and the first shots of the Civil War fired against Fort Sumter. For its flaws, Larson’s tale provides cultural context beyond the usual North and South grievances we know. Southern planter-aristocrats had a kind of pop-cultural fascination with their own supposed nobility, a duel-enforced obsession with honor, and novels celebrating bravery and derring-do. They referred to themselves, Larson tells us, as “The Chivalry,” and deluded themselves that they would swiftly win a war between states.
Characters Larson introduces bear an uncanny resemblance to players today. So do the imminent dangers. Except we know how the Civil War played out.
First, big props to Dave Weigel (now with Semafor) for covering the messiest. most tedious parts of political conventions for years. How he can stand to live-blog Democratic platform committee meetings is beyond me. This weekend, Dave is covering the Libertarian Party’s national convention in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump promised members of the Libertarian Party that he would “put a libertarian in my cabinet” and commute the life sentence of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, a top demand of a political movement that intends to run its own candidate against him.
“On day one, we will commute the sentence,” Trump said, offering to free the creator of what was once the internet’s most infamous drug clearinghouse. “We will bring him home.” His speeches more typically include a pledge to execute drug dealers, citing China as a model.
As anyone might have guessed from the motion made from the floor on Friday that “Donald Trump to go f*ck himself” that drew applause, Trump’s reception was not his warmest. The crowd, Weigel observed, “wavered between skepticism and contempt.”
Displaying his uncanny knack for winning friends and influencing people, Trump urged the hostile crowd to nominate him for president standing below a banner reading “Become Ungovernable.”
“Only do that if you want to win,” he said. “If you want to lose, don’t do that. Keep getting your three percent every four years.”
After getting booed for 20 minutes Trump finally gets pissed and snaps on them. pic.twitter.com/OuB20ksmip
Trump to libertarians: "Our rights and freedoms have never been more in danger than they are right now. That is why I have come to extend a hand of friendship to ask for your partnership to defeat communism, defeat Marxism, and defeat Crooked Joe Biden, who is destroying our… pic.twitter.com/pBUPKSAqJd
