Even though Donald Trump won the presidential election, thereby causing “pessimism about the liberal project,” Barack Obama is winning the post-election, and Obama’s “vision of the country…will ultimately win out,” asserted New York’s Jonathan Chait last Sunday. According to Chait, the Women’s March the day after Trump’s inauguration and last weekend’s protests over his executive order on immigration “have drawn on powerful American ideals: inclusion, social mobility, and optimism. Obamaism may have lost control of the levers of government, but it has never lost the country.”
New York Magazine
“The most important development of the last half-century in American politics,” believes New York magazine’s Chait, is “the Republican Party’s embrace of movement conservative ideology.” In a Thursday post, Chait cited six books, none of which was written by a conservative, that “help elucidate” this phenomenon. Among Chait’s choices: E.J. Dionne’s Why the Right Went Wrong; Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought (“scathingly dispatches a powerful right-wing idea that was destined to endure: the notion that the free market is a perfectly just mechanism for rewarding value and punishing failure”); and Paul Krugman’s Peddling Prosperity (“a powerful critique of supply-side economics…which Krugman aptly dispatches as simply crankery lacking any grounding in serious economic theory”).
In a rather pointless article published by New York magazine Wednesday evening, associate editor Madison Malone Kircher conducted an amateur forensic analysis of President-elect Donald Trump’s obviously staged speech writing photo, taken at his Mar-a-Lago resort, with the objective to mock it. “Live by Twitter, die by Twitter,” she declared at one point, “Or, at least, have your photographs picked apart on Twitter.” The first suspected atrocity that required Malone Kircher to conduct her “investigation” were questions regarding Trump’s writing implement.
Next Tuesday, three days before the current POTUS becomes an ex-POTUS, Jonathan Chait’s Audacity: How Barack Obama Defied His Critics and Created a Legacy That Will Prevail will be published. On Tuesday, New York magazine, where Chait is the chief political pundit, ran an excerpt from the book in which he claimed, “The truth is that Obama enacted careful, deep, and mostly popular solutions to a broad array of problems to which his opponents have no workable response.”
Donald Trump is a visceral and emotional conservative, not a philosophical conservative, but that’s good enough for government work, suggests New York blogger Chait. The main aim of Chait’s Thursday post was to slap down the argument from some righty pundits that candidate Trump was, as Chait paraphrased it, “a non-ideological figure, or even a progressive…who chose the Republican Party for no particular reason, and who shares none of its salient characteristics.” Chait indicated that in general, conservatives’ distaste for the president-elect is found among journalists and intellectuals, while “activists” have worldviews similar to Trump’s.
After nearly eight years of competing theories, the essence of the Tea Party has been determined, says Jonathan Chait. In a Wednesday post, Chait claimed that Donald Trump’s election as president verifies liberals’ explanation of what the movement stood for. The right, wrote Chait, was wrong to argue that the Tea Party was all about “timeless principles of conservative movement thought” such as “advocacy of balanced budgets [and] adherence to a strict constructionist version of the Constitution,” while the left understood that the movement was “an expression of ethno-nationalist rage centered around a black president and the belief that his coalition stood for redistribution from older, white America to its younger, more diverse supporters.”
After Donald Trump chose former presidential candidate Ben Carson to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), journalists ridiculed the choice, mocked Carson’s beliefs and labeled him a “scammer.” Squawk Box co-anchor Joe Kernen anticipated the liberal media reaction on Dec. 5, saying, "Let's see, he's not a billionaire, so how's the mainstream media going to trash him? He's a -- he's just a loyalist. He's a doctor. Doesn't know anything about housing."
On Tuesday, Zach Schonfeld, a senior writer for Newsweek, decided to mine what is "now a massive, unprecedented content graveyard of articles celebrating or analyzing Hillary Clinton's would-be historic victory," presenting "a small sampling ... of what the internet would have looked like on November 9 if Clinton beat Trump, as so many pundits forecast."
It's mildly entertaining, but it comes with heavy and offensive dose of smug self-importance.
Is the Social Network also the Electoral Network? Yes, says Max Read, who suggested in a piece for New York magazine that Mark Zuckerberg had more to do with Donald Trump’s win than did James Comey, Julian Assange, or Bernie Sanders. “It can be clarifying,” Read wrote, “to identify the conditions that allowed access to the highest levels” of politics to Trump, “a dangerous and unpredictable bigot…In this case, the condition was: Facebook.” To Read, “the most obvious way in which Facebook enabled a Trump victory has been its inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news.”
New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who’s also Donald Trump’s transition director, was not a defendant in the Bridgegate trial, in which two of Christie’s allies were just convicted on all counts. Still, argues New York’s Chait, the verdicts “would shake up an ordinary presidential election,” since Trump himself has said that Christie “totally knew about” Bridgegate, and since the Donald has made “ethical and legal propriety…the most prominent theme of [his] campaign.” But Chait acknowledges that in the “surreal” electoral atmosphere of 2016, there’ll be no such shakeup of the race. Chait explains that the Bridgegate verdicts won’t hurt Trump because “the news media has figured out that Trump’s supporters’ beliefs about his ethics, and the criminality of his opponent, are not subject to amendment on the basis of evidence.”
He was the toast of the liberal media for a few days after first hitting the national scene last Sunday in St. Louis during the second presidential debate. For a very brief time he was hailed as a cuddly bear stuffed into a tight red sweater who was so cute that it made you want to hug him. And then by Friday...he became an instant non-person to liberals due to very un-PC Thought Crime remarks from his past on Reddit.
Of course, I am referring to Ken Bone who appeared as one of the undecided voters asking a question during the presidential debate. By the next day he was fully embraced by the liberal mainstream media. To get an idea of the extent of their idolatry, here is Jake Tapper gushing over how awesome Ken Bear is on The Lead:
Liberals like to allege that Donald Trump turns the bigoted subtext of longstanding Republican ideas into text that’s about as subtle as a whoopee cushion. As Rebecca Traister put it in a Monday article, the GOP traditionally has been “covert” about “the very biases that [Trump] makes coarse and plain.” Regarding the uproar over the Access Hollywood audio, Traister wrote, "Trump…is not distinct from Republican nature or motivation; he is its slightly more unruly twin. At the debate on Sunday, two days after being revealed talking about grabbing pussies, he claimed that 'nobody has more respect for women than I do.' And there it was: the giant Republican lie about an interest in gender equality exposed as pure snake oil by their front man."