Mrs. DeSantis makes a huge mistake. And it will cost them.
Lol.
They really can’t do anything right can they?
"what digby sez..."
Digby's Hullabaloo Posts
Your once and possibly future president , ladies and gentlemen:
No, you are not dreaming. That’s who half the country wants to lead it.
Oh my:
Beck asked Kelly if she thought Trump has cognitively “faded from where he was in 2020.” Kelly’s response:
“Yeah, I do … There’s no question Trump has lost a step. Multiple steps. He is confusing Joe Biden for Obama. I know he’s now saying he intentionally did that. Go back and look at the clips. It wasn’t intentional.”
“Look, any of us can have a slip of the tongue, but it’s happening to him repeatedly. The reference of how somebody is going to get us into World War Two, confusing countries, confusing cities where he is in, and it’s happening more and more. With all due respect to Trump, this is what happens when you are 77 years old … Are we really going to pretend that Trump is just as vibrant as he was in 2016?”
Worth repeating
“America is more than a country. America is an idea,” former Speaker Kevin McCarthy told an Oxford Union audience in late October. That idea is freedom [timestamp 7:35].
At the New York Times DealBook event last month, McCarthy repeated something else he’d said at Oxford about Americans who are the true caretakers of that idea (Washington Post):
“I became leader when we took the minority, and this was a turning point for me,” McCarthy said, describing having attended the 2019 State of the Union address.
“I’d just become leader and I’m excited and President Trump’s there. And I look over at the Democrats and they stand up. They look like America,” he told Sorkin. “We stand up. We look like the most restrictive country club in America.”
Robert Calhoon once wrote about colonists who supported the Crown during the American Revolution. “Historians’ best estimates,” he wrote, “put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent,” a figure not far removed from the Republican base. As many as 500,000 colonists among a population of 2.5 million never bought the founders’ “created equal” nonsense. They remained committed to a system of government by hereditary royalty and landed gentry. Powdered wigs supported by loyal subjects also carries echoes today. Even after the Treaty of Paris, most loyalists remained on these shores. Their progeny and like-minded continentals who arrived later are with us still. It is a personality type committed to maintaining the “natural” order.
Colonists who did not support the Revolution or believe in its ideals, people committed to a system of government by hereditary royalty and landed gentry, were known as Royalists. Today they are Republicans. Perhaps it takes one to know one, Kevin.
Here’s McCarthy’s statement [timestamp 3:55]:
Philip Bump draws on Daily Kos data to drive home the point.
Stop hand-wringing
People feel what they feel. Don’t tell them otherwise, suggests Dave Johnson (now blogging from across the Pond).
“Biden & Dems need to be saying, ‘We understand how hard it has been and we’ve been working on it. It is starting to turn around,’” Johnson reminds readers of Seeing the Forest. That was Bill Clinton’s message to the DNC convention that renominated Barack Obama in 2012. The economy was a wreck when Obama took over, but he’s turning it around, Clinton told the assembly:
Now, look. Here’s the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. I get it. I know it. I’ve been there. A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy. If you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again. And in a lot of places, housing prices are even beginning to pick up.
But too many people do not feel it yet.
That was two months before the 2012 election. You know how that worked out. Given the overwhelmingly good economic numbers lately, what are the chances the public will “feel it” 9-10 months from now?
Democrats’ message needs to be “Everything is in place thanks to [Joe Biden] and things are starting to get better. You will feel it, just give it a little more time.” Don’t tell them they’re wrong, that they don’t feel what they feel, Johnson offers.
I’d amend that advice with this: Focus rather on promoting how good the economic numbers really are (“Repetition is really important. And so is repetition.“). Rather than ruminating on how negatively polls say the public feels about the economy, playing the good news on repeat can shift how people feel and help them notice it. Don’t use polls to take their temperature. Change it.
Can that work? The recent flood of alarmist reports about the coming Trump dictatorship has his top campaign officials freaking out. Repetition sure changed how they feel.
Catherine Rampell suggests we’ll all feel better soon:
Americans might be loath to believe it, but on paper, the U.S. economy is doing pretty well. So well, in fact, that we’re outperforming forecasts made even before the pandemic began.
The nation’s employers added another 199,000 jobs in November, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday. This is slightly better than Wall Street expectations. More significantly, it means that overall employment is now 2 million jobs higher than was expected by now in forecasts made way back in January 2020 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:
This is pretty astounding. When the pandemic hit, many economists feared it would leave lasting scars. After the 2007-2009 Great Recession, after all, it took a long time for the job market to heal and for displaced workers to regain their footing. Yet, somehow, following a once-in-a-century public health crisis that led to record-breaking job losses, American workers didn’t just recover all the ground they’d lost. They’re doing better than ever, better than had been imagined even before this traumatic global shock.
Soon enough (and with help), people’s mood will catch up with their consumption and investing. Perhaps the public is not ready to hear “Happy Days Are Here Again” (1929), but wringing hands over public opinion polls (Democrats’ default freakout) is not helpful either.
Oh, here’s what Wikipedia says about that song:
Closely associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s successful presidential campaign in 1932, the song gained prominence after a spontaneous decision by Roosevelt’s advisers to play it at the 1932 Democratic National Convention: after a dirge-like version of Roosevelt’s favorite song “Anchors Aweigh” had been repeated over and over, without enthusiasm, a participant reportedly shouted: “FOR GOD’S SAKE, HAVE THEM PLAY SOMETHING ELSE”, which caused the band to play the new song, drawing cheers and applause, and subsequently becoming the Democratic Party‘s “unofficial theme song for years to come.”
Quote Investigator offers more about this classic advice: Tell ’em what you’re going to tell ’em; then tell ’em; then tell ’em what you told ’em.
Chris Hayes is on that:
Update: Knew I’d seen this somewhere.
Surprise: Americans are starting to feel better about the economy and inflation
The University of Michigan said Friday that its consumer sentiment index jumped 13% to 69.4, as people became less worried about inflation and more optimistic about a number of issues. That not only ended the downturn but reversed the decline, returning the sentiment index to where it was in August.
No lad who has liberty for the first time, and twenty guineas in his pocket, is very sad, and Barry rode towards Dublin thinking not so much of the kind mother left alone, and of the home behind him, but of tomorrow, and all the wonders it would bring.
-from Barry Lyndon
Oh man, oh God…we’ve lost another one:
Ryan O’Neal, the boyish leading man who kicked off an extraordinary 1970s run in Hollywood with his Oscar-nominated turn as the Harvard preppie Oliver in the legendary romantic tearjerker Love Story, has died. He was 82.
O’Neal died Friday, his son Patrick O’Neal, a sportscaster with Bally Sports West in Los Angeles, reported on Instagram. He had been diagnosed with chronic leukemia in 2001 and with prostate cancer in 2012.
“As a human being, my father was as generous as they come,” Patrick wrote. “And the funniest person in any room. And the most handsome clearly, but also the most charming. Lethal combo. He loved to make people laugh. It’s pretty much his goal. Didn’t matter the situation, if there was a joke to be found, he nailed it. He really wanted us laughing. And we did all laugh. Every time. We had fun. Fun in the sun.” […]
Patrick Ryan O’Neal was born on April 20, 1941, in Los Angeles, the older son of novelist-screenwriter Charles “Blackie” O’Neal (The Three Wishes of Jamie McRuin) and actress Patricia Callaghan. He competed in Golden Gloves events in L.A. in 1956 and 1957 and compiled a boxing record of 18-4 with 13 knockouts, according to his website.
In the late 1950s, O’Neal and his family moved to Munich, and he became infatuated with the syndicated TV series Tales of the Vikings, which shot in Europe and was produced by Kirk Douglas‘ company.
According to a 1975 newspaper account, he wrote to another producer, George Cahan, on the show: “I am six feet tall, and with a false beard I will look as much like a Viking as any actor on the set … I may be the Gary Cooper of tomorrow.”
O’Neal went on to perform as a stuntman on the series.
After appearing on such shows as The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, The Untouchables, Leave It to Beaver and My Three Sons, O’Neal co-starred opposite Richard Egan on Empire, a 1962-63 NBC Western set in New Mexico.
O’Neal would go on to land a choice role on the drama series Peyton Place, appearing in 500 episodes from 1964 to 1969. His big screen breakout was starring alongside Ali MacGraw in Arthur Hiller’s 1970 tear-jerker Love Story; not a personal favorite of mine, but a huge box office hit that assured him movie star status for the remainder of that decade.
Honestly, I wouldn’t call him a method actor…but O’Neal was undeniably a movie star, in the old school sense; I might even venture, “laconic”, much like “the Gary Cooper of tomorrow” that he once aspired to be. A toast to a fine career, and all the wonders that it brought him.
Here’s some recommended viewing:
Barry Lyndon – Stanley Kubrick’s beautifully photographed, leisurely paced adaptation of William Makepeace Thackeray’s rags-to-riches-to-rags tale about a roguish Irishman (Ryan O’Neal) who grifts his way into the English aristocracy is akin to watching 18th-century paintings sumptuously spring to life (funnily enough, its detractors tend to liken it to “oil paintings” as well, but for entirely different reasons). The cast includes Marisa Berenson, Patrick Magee, Leonard Rossiter and Leon Vitali.
This magnificent 1975 film has improved with age, like a fine wine; successive viewings prove the stories about Kubrick’s obsession with the minutest of details were not exaggerated-every frame is steeped in verisimilitude. Michael Hordern’s delightfully droll voice over work as The Narrator rescues the proceedings from sliding into staidness.
The Driver -Walter Hill’s spare and hard-boiled neo-noir about a professional getaway driver (Ryan O’Neal) who plays cat-and-mouse with an obsessed cop out to nail him (Bruce Dern) and a dissatisfied customer who is now out to kill him. “Spare” would also be a good word to describe O’Neal’s character (billed in the credits simply as: The Driver), who utters but 350 words of dialog in the entire film. O’ Neal is perfectly cast, exuding a Zen-like cool. Also with Isabelle Adjani. One of my favorite 70s crime thrillers, and an obvious inspiration for Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2011 film Drive (my review).
Nickelodeon -Peter Bogdanovich’s love letter to the silent film era, depicting the trials and tribulations of indie filmmakers, circa 1910. It leans a bit heavy on the slapstick at times, but is bolstered by charming performances by a great cast that includes Ryan O’Neal, Stella Stevens, Burt Reynolds, John Ritter, and Tatum O’Neal. It’s beautifully photographed by László Kovács. Anyone who truly loves the movies will find the denouement quite moving.
Paper Moon -Two years after The Last Picture Show, director Peter Bogdanovich had the audacity to shoot yet another B&W film-which was going against the grain by the early 70s. This outing, however, was not a bleak drama. Granted, it is set during the Great Depression, but has a much lighter tone, thanks to precocious 9 year-old Tatum O’Neal, who steals every scene she shares with her dad Ryan (which is to say, nearly every scene in the film).
The O’Neals portray an inveterate con artist/Bible salesman and a recently orphaned girl he is transporting to Missouri (for a fee). Along the way, the pair discover they are a perfect tag team for bilking people out of their cookie jar money. Entertaining road movie, with the built-in advantage of a natural acting chemistry between the two leads.
Also on hand: Madeline Kahn (wonderful as always), John Hillerman, P.J. Johnson, and Noble Willngham. Ace DP László Kovács is in his element; he was no stranger to road movies (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces). Alvin Sargent adapted his screenplay from Joe David Brown’s novel, “Addie Pray”.
Tough Guys Don’t Dance – If “offbeat noir” is your thing, this is your kind of film. Ryan O’Neal plays an inscrutable ex-con with a conniving “black widow” of a wife, who experiences five “really bad days” in a row, involving drugs, blackmail and murder. Due to temporary amnesia, however, he’s not sure of his own complicity (O’Neal begins each day by writing the date on his bathroom mirror with shaving cream-keep in mind, this film precedes Memento by 13 years.)
Noir icon Lawrence Tierny (cast here 5 years before Tarantino tapped him for Reservoir Dogs) is priceless as O’Neal’s estranged father, who is helping him sort out events (it’s worth the price of admission when Tierny barks “I just deep-sixed two heads!”).
Equally notable is a deliciously demented performance by B-movie trouper Wings Hauser as the hilariously named Captain Alvin Luther Regency. Norman Mailer’s “lack” of direction has been duly noted over the years, but his minimalist style works. The film has a David Lynch vibe at times (which could be due to the fact that Isabella Rossellini co-stars, and the soundtrack was composed by Lynch stalwart Angelo Badalamenti). A guilty pleasure.
What’s Up, Doc? – Peter Bogdanovich’s 1972 film is a love letter to classic screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s (the most obvious influence being Bringing Up Baby). Ryan O’Neal and Barbara Streisand have wonderful chemistry as the romantic leads, who meet cute and become involved in a hotel mix-up of four identical suitcases that rapidly snowballs into a series of increasingly preposterous situations for all concerned (as occurs in your typical screwball comedy).
The screenplay was co-written by Buck Henry, David Newman and Robert Benton. The fabulous cast includes Madeline Kahn, Kenneth Mars, Austin Pendleton and Michael Murphy. In his second collaboration with the director, cinematographer László Kovács works his usual magic with the San Francisco locale.
The Wild Rovers – Blake Edwards made a western? Yes, he did, and not a half-bad one at that. A world-weary cowhand (William Holden) convinces a younger (and somewhat dim) co-worker (Ryan O’Neal) that since it’s obvious that they’ll never really get ahead in their present profession, they should give bank robbery a shot. They get away with it, but then find themselves on the run, oddly, not so much from the law, but from their former employer (Karl Malden), who is mightily offended that anyone who worked for him would do such a thing. Episodic and leisurely paced, but ambles along quite agreeably, thanks to the charms of the two leads, and the beautiful, expansive photography by Philip Lathrop. Ripe for rediscovery.
More reviews at Den of Cinema
— Dennis Hartley
Baby monkey!
There is a new, tiny face at the San Diego Zoo. A De Brazza’s monkey was born Oct. 28 to parents Lillie and Augustus, and it is the first De Brazza’s monkey born at the Zoo in 26 years. The little primate, whose gender has not yet been determined, can be seen holding tightly to its very attentive mother’s chest while they bond. In the next few weeks, the infant is expected to start walking and climbing. It will stay close to its mother until it is weaned, at around 1 year old.
The DC Circuit speaks
The gag order in the January 6th case stands. Trump will be allowed to personally insult and threaten Jack Smith and the Judge but witnesses and federal employees are off limits. They write:
“We do not allow such an order lightly. Mr. Trump is a former President and current candidate for the presidency, and there is a strong public interest in what he has to say. But Mr. Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants. That is what the rule of law means.”
Here is his response:
Waaaaaaah!!!
There was more good news about the economy today:
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Friday showed the unemployment rate was 3.7% for the month, down from 3.9% in October. The US economy added 199,000 jobs in November, an uptick from 150,000 the previous month as striking auto workers and Hollywood actors came back to the workforce.
Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected job gains of 185,000 with unemployment holding steady from the prior month at 3.9%.
Wages, a closely watched indicator for inflation and a gauge of how much leverage workers have in the labor market, increased 0.4% on a monthly basis and 4.1% over last year; economists had expected wages to rise 0.3% over last month and 4% over last year.
Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate ticked higher to 62.8%, up from 62.7% the month prior, while average weekly hours worked moved up slightly from 34.3 to 34.4.
The largest jobs increases in Friday’s report were seen in healthcare, where 77,000 jobs were added. Employment in government rose by 49,000, reaching its pre-pandemic level. Leisure and hospitality rose by 40,000.
Labor market data released earlier this week had reinforced a narrative in the market for a so-called soft landing where inflation reaches the Fed’s 2% goal without a full blown economic slowdown.
And yet, Americans are still saying the economy is terrible. In fact a majority say we are in a recession! Now, some of that is just partisanship. Republicans will say it regardless. But it isn’t just them. Democrats are telling pollsters the same thing.
However, take a look at the public’s actions if you want to see how they really feel. Here’s economist Justin Wolfers on twitter:
There’s no question people are telling pollsters they’re miserable about the economy. But riddle me this: Why can’t we find evidence of this pessimism in anything other that public opinion polls? Every non-poll based indicator of confidence suggests folks are optimistic.
Take consumption. If folks were worried about their economic future, you might think they would be squirrelling money away for the hard times coming. But they’re spending like they expect ongoing economic strength.
Or investment. If our future were grim, businesses wouldn’t want to invest to serve a shrinking market. But they’re investing at robust rates.
I think of starting a new business as the ultimate leap of faith. You’re pushing your chips across the table to bet that you’ll be able to find willing customers. And people are starting businesses (real businesses, not just gig jobs) at near record rates.
Or look at quits, which remain high relative to pre-pandemic norms. When you’re scared that the economy is terrible, you don’t quit your job. When you think jobs are plentiful, you think that maybe it’s worth taking the risk of searching for something better.
Inflation has caused real pain for lots of families. But take a look at inflation expectations and you’ll see that, on average, most folks understand that inflation is returning to normal rates.
What’s another forward-looking indicator of our future economic health? Say, stocks? They’re a bet on future corporate earnings, and so should rise only when we become more optimistic about our economic future. The S&P 500 is up 40% over its pre-pandemic level.
“If the economy were as good as many economists say, wouldn’t you expect Democrats to have done well in midterm and off-year elections?”
Heck, one might even look at election results for evidence that folks were unhappy…
None of this is to deny that some folks are feeling pain. I’m describing broad macroeconomic averages, and there are always some folks doing a bit better and some doing a bit worse. But note: Inequality is also falling, so these broad gains are going to those who need them!
Lemme conclude with a challenge: Polls suggest Americans are miserable about their economic future. But actual misery would also shape a range of other behaviors. Is there any evidence—outside of polls— consistent with the hypothesized pessimism?
No, there is no evidence. This is all about vibes not reality. It’s possible that if the media continues to report the good news that over time people will begin to match their personal actions with what they think about the economy. But I don’t know. There has been decades of propaganda that only Republicans can have a good economy even though the literal opposite is almost always true.
Here is a quick reality check. Feel free to send it around to your relatives and friends who think old Joe is a miserable failure:
The whole point of the Hunter scandal is to make Joe Biden cry
Right wingers are saying that the new prosecution of Hunter Biden on tax charges proves that the Justice department is doing Joe Biden’s bidding. I’m not kidding:
It’s completely daft. Obviously, the Special Prosecutor has been stung by the right wing accusations of being in the tank which is why he’s bringing these new tax charges against Hunter Biden, replete with all the salacious details the wingnuts love to drool over. You’d think that would be enough to placate them but of course it isn’t.
Everyone on TV today is talking about how the White House isn’t worried about the legal ramifications for Biden but rather the emotional toll this is taking, That is, after all, their intent. I wrote about that a couple of years ago:
The right has attempted to turn Joe Biden’s care and concern for a son who was going through a major life crisis, which included substance abuse, wild partying and a range of self-destructive behavior, into a corruption scandal. No one can possibly read the emails from father to son that have been extracted from Hunter Biden’s laptop and see anything but compassion and love. In fact, I’m sure Republicans understand that: What they are really trying to do is push Joe Biden to break down and cry in public.
Seriously: It’s an old ratfucking trick from the Nixon years whose dastardly crew famously goaded Sen. Edmund Muskie, the Democratic frontrunner early in the 1972 campaign, into getting emotional over a fake letter impugning his wife. I have no doubt that the right-wing dirty tricksters of today are believing their own propaganda that Biden is a feeble old man who is overly sentimental about his family, and they think they can push him into doing the same thing.
We are a long way from 1972 and I suspect that even if Biden did cry about his son, the country would feel kinship with him, not disdain. There is hardly a family in America that is not touched by similar trauma.
But mostly what the Hunter Biden laptop “scandal” is about is the dirty pictures. Sex scandals are where the dirty tricksters and ratfuckers of the GOP really shine. Think about 1987, when a picture of Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, Democratic heir apparent at the time, with a woman who wasn’t his wife derailed his presidential ambitions. There is evidence, which emerged many years after the fact, that Hart was set up by none other than Lee Atwater, the Republican Party’s most notorious political operative of the 1980s.
Bill Clinton was known to be a womanizer before he ever ran for president, and offered an irresistible target for the right in that respect. And did they ever. The GOP’s sex-scandal industry of the 1990s produced nonstop prurient rumors so relentless and over the top that by the time Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was revealed, the public was disgusted with the president’s behavior — but even more repulsed by the sanctimonious gossips who could not stop chattering about it like a bunch of horny teenagers.
Hunter Biden’s laptop has the right in the throes of ecstasy. They don’t care about Trump crapping on the Constitution. They care about the dirty pictures on that laptop, and want the whole country talking about them.
Years later, when Hillary Clinton ran for president, the right’s hit men tried it again with a whisper campaign about her and her assistant Huma Abedin. They had long since planted rumors that Hillary was a closeted lesbian who was only with Bill to power her ruthless ambition. (Why do you think they wanted so desperately to get hold of all those personal emails?)
The mainstream media has always jumped right into these scandal stories with enthusiasm — and if they hadn’t done so, it’s unlikely such narratives would have gained traction with the broader public. For instance, the New York Times actually published a front-page story headlined “Huma Abedin, a Clinton Aide, Is Back in Spotlight as Republicans Seize on Emails” in 2015, which began with this suggestive lead:
“Among the trove of emails released from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was this instruction to a trusted aide who needed to brief her on a matter that could not wait: “Just knock on the door to the bedroom if it’s closed,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in November 2009 to Huma Abedin, then her deputy chief of staff.”
The Times wasn’t the only publication pushing this line.
The pseudo-scandal surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop is yet another chance for right-wingers to embarrass and harass their political enemies by talking incessantly about their sex lives. The laptop — which, by the way, has been handled by so many people with dubious intentions that it can’t be authenticated — would be their October surprise, something like Anthony Weiner’s laptop back in 2016, which arguably cost Hillary Clinton the presidential election. They seem to be trying to convince people that pictures of Hunter Biden with lots of drugs and various different women would have shocked people into voting for Donald Trump over Hunter’s dad, which is patently ridiculous. They are delicately choosing not to mention that he’s the guy who has been accused by dozens of women of sexual assault and who paid off a porn actress during his 2016 campaign.
I don’t know if conservatives really believe that the laptop would have turned the tide or they just get off on sharing naked pictures of the president’s son and talking about his problems. But they expected the media to jump on that story and for the most part it didn’t, largely because of all the hacking and ratfucking and foreign interference on the Republicans’ behalf that had gone on during the 2016 campaign. I wish I were confident that the national media has finally learned its lesson about right-wing scandal-mongering in general, but that may be too much to hope for.
The Special Prosecutor is promising to use the tax case to get this same sort of salacious material into a court of law by using it to show that Hunter improperly deducted personal expenses on drugs and women at the height of his drug addiction. Maybe they can eve call in some hookers and drug dealers to describe Hunter’s degradation. But if Weiss hope to appease James Comer and the GOP scandal mongers he’s in for a rude awakening. Nothing will appease them except Joe Biden crying on national TV.
And even then. That brain damaged lunatic Alex Jones is spreading the lie that Biden is so completely addled that he’s wandering around the White House naked not knowing where he is so I’m guessing Comer won’t be satisfied until he does that on national TV. I think we can be sure that he’ll keep pushing for it.
She trapped those college presidents and they fell for it
Michelle Goldberg has a very astute observation about this brouhaha over the Ivy League presidents allegedly failing to condemn antisemitism in a congressional hearing this week. As she points out, if you only see the highlights that have been circulating you would agree they they were expressing tolerance for hate speech against Jews but when you view the whole thing it’s obvious that there was more to it:
In the questioning before the now infamous exchange, you can see the trap Stefanik laid.
“You understand that the use of the term ‘intifada’ in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?” she asked Gay.
Gay responded that such language was “abhorrent.” Stefanik then badgered her to admit that students chanting about intifada were calling for genocide, and asked angrily whether that was against Harvard’s code of conduct. “Will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say, ‘From the river to the sea’ or ‘intifada,’ advocating for the murder of Jews?” Gay repeated that such “hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me,” but said action would be taken only “when speech crosses into conduct.”
So later in the hearing, when Stefanik again started questioning Gay, Kornbluth and Magill about whether it was permissible for students to call for the genocide of the Jews, she was referring, it seemed clear, to common pro-Palestinian rhetoric and trying to get the university presidents to commit to disciplining those who use it. Doing so would be an egregious violation of free speech. After all, even if you’re disgusted by slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” their meaning is contested in a way that, say, “Gas the Jews” is not. Finding themselves in a no-win situation, the university presidents resorted to bloodless bureaucratic contortions, and walked into a public relations disaster.
I do not blame American Jews for feeling under siege in academia and elsewhere right now. This sort of thing circulates all over social media these days:
That viral videowas circulated by a notorious right wing troll named Ian Miles Cheong. (The owners apologized but naturally, most people are unwilling to accept it and want to drive the store out of business. And so it goes in 2023.)
Anyway, Goldberg continues:
…This week, when I wrote that the backlash to anti-Israel protests threatens free speech, I received many emails from people who felt I was refusing to grapple with an evident crisis. “You are worried about an overreaction when there hasn’t yet been a sufficient reaction to the antisemitism terrifying Jewish students on campus,” said one.
But it seems to me that it is precisely when people are legitimately scared and outraged that we’re most vulnerable to a repressive response leading to harmful unintended consequences. That’s a lesson of Sept. 11, but also of much of the last decade, when the policing of speech in academia escalated in ways that are now coming back to bite the left.
Amid the uproar over the campus antisemitism hearing, many have claimed that if Stefanik were asking about attacks on any other ethnic group, there would have been no waffling. But Stefanik did ask about another group. Her first question to Gay was, “A Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?” Gay started to respond, “Our commitment to free speech,” but Stefanik, perhaps realizing she wasn’t going to get the answer she wanted, cut her off and changed tack.
Yet clearly, at many universities, the defense of free speech has been inconsistent. Some elite schools now cloaking themselves in the mantle of the First Amendment to ward off charges of coddling antisemites have, in the past, privileged community sensitivity over unbridled expression. So when university administrators say, as Gay did, “We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful,” many in the Jewish community see a galling double standard.
But as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a libertarian-leaning civil liberties group, said in a statement about the hearings, “Double standards are frustrating, but we should address them by demanding free speech be protected consistently — not by expanding the calls for censorship.” Unfortunately, that is not what’s happening.
“The general point that there’s a hypocrisy around free speech and an imbalance around free speech on college campuses is right,” said Ryan Enos, a Harvard professor of government. But, he said, many of the people pointing this out “are not doing it to stand up for free speech; they’re just doing it because they want to shut down speech they disagree with.”
This was inevitable. Putting rhetorical sensitivity to the oppressed over the abstract concept of free speech sounds like the right thing to do but when two groups of historically oppressed people come into conflict the construct falls apart. And that’s where we are now:
Enos was a founding member of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, formed this year. In October he resigned, because, he said, “Some of the leadership led the charge to restrict pro-Palestinian speech on campus.” When it comes to speech about Israel, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
Like me, Enos found the hearings shocking, though not for the reasons many supporters of Israel did. At one point, Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who is the chairwoman of the committee holding the hearing, asked each of the presidents whether she believed that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. Now, I think that calls to dismantle Israel are misguided at best and often despicable, but it was wildly inappropriate for educational leaders to be asked to affirm their Zionism before a government panel. It felt reminiscent of the anti-Communist witch hunts of the House Un-American Activities Committee: “Are you now, or have you ever been, an anti-Zionist?”
“I have a real problem with questions where you think there’s only one right answer,” said Enos. “You’re not asking a true question. You’re asking for some kind of loyalty display. And I think those things are especially dangerous.”
It’s not clear that these college presidents will keep their jobs after their performance at the hearing. But whatever happens, we’re likely to see a crackdown on many forms of pro-Palestinian expression. On Wednesday, amid mounting calls for her resignation, Penn’s Magill posted an apologetic video statement online. For decades, said Magill, Penn’s policies on speech have been guided by the Constitution and the law, but going forward, a different framework may apply.
“In today’s world, where we are seeing signs of hate proliferating across our campus and our world in a way not seen in years, these policies need to be clarified and evaluated,” she said. Expect more safety and less freedom.
These cultural upheavals happen from time to time, mostly out of the necessity to upend the status quo in order to effect progress. College campuses are often the petri dishes for such experiments in social change. Now we see that the current crisis in Israel and Gaza has exposed one of the fault lines in the movement to curtail hurtful speech in academia. When your own oppressed ox is being gored with accusations of insensitivity and racism, the whole thing starts to look a little bit different.
As we can see with smarmy Stefanik and that wingnut video troll, the right is coiled to exploit it. Lefties should not fall for it.