They’re calling it the feel-good romantic hit of the summer, or at least of the Democratic convention. Bill Clinton’s long, granular tribute to Hillary Rodham Clinton had several liberal pundits swooning. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate wrote that it was during this speech that “for the first time…most of us met” Hillary, whom “we have all been following and misunderstanding and cartooning for decades now.” Rebecca Traister of New York magazine gave Bill big props for reminiscing about how Hillary turned him on: "One of the roadblocks for women is objectification and sexualization, but when it comes to Hillary Clinton, whose ambition and brains have long rendered her bloodless in the American imagination, hearing her described as an object of desire could feel corrective and bizarrely just. So he did it."
New York Magazine
Ralph Nader, are you prepared to don a sackcloth and perform a public act of penance for your role in causing the defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 election? Who is demanding this political burning of Nader? Jonathan Chait of New York magazine who still can't get over his obsession with Gore's loss in the 2000 election. He flat out blames Ralph Nader for that loss and is now enraged that Nader won't publicly confess his role in preventing a President Gore. After all these years, Chait remains a man obsessed. It is as if he can find no final peace unless we get a confession of "guilt" from Nader.
A few days ago, Vanity Fair reported that Donald Trump is “considering creating his own media business, built on the audience that has supported him thus far in his bid to become the next president of the United States.” Jonathan Chait thinks such a venture “makes sense” since there’d be a “numerically large” ready-made audience for its fare. “Perhaps [Trump] grasps a truth the official Republican Party has refused to acknowledge: The conservative base is a subculture,” wrote Chait in a Thursday post. “It is a numerically large subculture, but a subculture nonetheless. It rejects the moral values of the larger society and wallows within its own imaginary world."
The liberal comedian Louis CK is a darling of the cultural Left. Esquire magazine hailed him for locating with few words “the awkward, painful truth of everyday life.” He explains the 2016 presidential election using a "brilliant airplane analogy.” It was simply this, the notion that Hillary is the sober, statesmanlike figure of experience, your most masterful airplane pilot:
When liberals call Republicans “deniers,” it typically has to do with climate change. Jonathan Chait alleges big-time GOP denial on a non-scientific matter. “Republican voting support is increasingly coterminous with white racial resentment even as conservatives firmly believe in their own racial innocence,” wrote Chait in a Tuesday post. “Conservatives deny the existence of racism in the Republican Party as a matter of doctrinal sanctity, just as Soviet authorities had to officially deny the existence of poverty in the USSR.”
While Chait has no use for the economic and fiscal proposals advanced by Paul Ryan and other House Republicans, he acknowledged that their ideas “have no intellectual connection to racism.” Nonetheless, “the trouble for Republicans is that building a real-world constituency for these policies does rely on racism. Conservatives stopped the momentum of the New Deal in the mid-1960s only when they associated it with support for the black underclass. Republican politics has grown increasingly racialized over time, a trend that has dramatically accelerated during the Obama era.”
As many NewsBusters readers know, a fairly common talking point on the left is that Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have consistently gotten a raw deal from the national media. Unsurprisingly, New York Magazine’s Rebecca Traister raised the issue in an 8,200-word piece on Hillary and her campaign that appears in the magazine’s May 30 issue. “If Clinton suffers from a kind of political PTSD that makes her overly cautious and scripted and closed-off, then its primary trigger is the press corps that trails her everywhere she goes. Clinton hates the press,” wrote Traister.
This piece by New York Magazine’s Claire Landsbaum made its rounds on Twitter Thursday morning, earning it ridicule from both the right and left. The reason? It’s all in the headline: “Stop Bugging Hillary Clinton About Giving a Press Conference.” In it, Landsbaum argues that the media should give Clinton a break and recognize “her forte” isn’t in talking to the press. So why can’t they just cut her some slack and stop trying so hard to ask her questions? Sadly, this isn’t satire.
Like almost everyone who has the sense God gave geese, Deadspin founder Leitch thinks O.J. Simpson is an unconvicted murderer. Unlike most of those people, Leitch also thinks Simpson’s acquittal “may have been one of the biggest civil-rights victories” of the 1990s. In a New York magazine review of the seven-hour, 43-minute documentary O.J.: Made in America, which airs in five parts next month on ABC and ESPN, Leitch remarked, “The verdict was just cause for all that national celebration from African-Americans, even if [Simpson] was guilty. Shit, especially if he was.”
To Leitch, the acquittal amounted to partial recompense for the black community of Los Angeles, given “the city’s [history of] scabrous racial politics, from the southern blacks who came to Los Angeles expecting acceptance and discovering something far different, to the Watts riots…to former LAPD chief Daryl Gates’s horrific racial attitudes…It all exploded with the Rodney King riots, which were less about King and more about the seeming impossibility that a black man could ever win anything in a court of law in the city of Los Angeles.”
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait has contempt for both Donald Trump (“his appeal operates…at a sub-intellectual level”) and those who’ve voted for him (“the Republican Party turns out to be filled with idiots”). Still, suggested Chait in a Thursday post, Trump and his supporters have unwittingly clarified something important: the Tea Party movement is not and never was truly conservative, partly because its hostility toward government spending was selective (tea-partiers had no problem with programs they benefited from, but disliked programs perceived as benefiting minorities).
In a Tuesday post, New York magazine’s Chait suggested that conservatism is driven not by an elite but by its riff-raff. Chait asserted, “Whatever [the] abstract arguments for conservative policy…on the ground, Republican politics boils down to ethno-nationalistic passions ungoverned by reason,” and remarked that Donald Trump’s supporters “have revealed things about the nature of the party that many Republicans prefer to deny.”
During the GOP presidential contest, indicated Chait, the “lunatic theories professed by most Republicans: the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a conspiracy concocted by scientists worldwide; the Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused revenue to increase; George W. Bush kept us safe from terrorism,” have lost ground to Trump’s “entirely different set of crackpot beliefs that lie outside conservative ideology.”
On Monday's Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, after New York magazine's Andrew Sullivan slammed Donald Trump's proposal for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants, host Anderson Cooper grasped at straws to suggest an equivalence with banning Jews because "Jewish extremists" have "committed acts of terrorism against Israeli leaders" as he pushed back against conservative CNN commentator Kayleigh McEnany's support for Trump's plan.
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait admires Bernie Sanders’s willingness (eagerness?) to raise taxes so as to “finance the kind of social benefits American liberals would prefer.” That’s why Chait is disappointed that Sanders opposes Philadelphia’s proposed three-cents-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, revenue from which would fund citywide pre-kindergarten and other programs.
In a Tuesday post, Chait wrote that Sanders “has received justifiable credit for breaking the taboo on middle-class taxation and asking just why it is that Americans must be denied public services taken for granted elsewhere…But where does this leave his opposition to the soda tax? His position is strange and ironic because taxes on specifically defined, unhealthy goods has long been the loophole through which Democrats escape the pressure of their own no-taxes-on-the-middle-class vise…What’s more, the proceeds of the soda tax finance a vital liberal social goal (in this case, early education).”