Over at Salon’s War Room, Alex Pareene has just finished counting down his Hack Thirty. These are the American pundits that make the Sunday morning political shows – AKA the sabbath gas-bag circuit – such a bore.
Purveyors of conventional wisdom disguised as politically incorrect insight, these are not your Glenn Becks or Limbaughs – or your Olbermanns or Maddows. They’re not that interesting. They fill the same role in the editorial page that Family Circus plays on the comics page: not funny, not insightful, but someone somewhere would object if it was taken way.
Of particular interest to us is Pareene’s take on S.E. Cupp:
On cable she plays the hip, young Republican girl-about-town — who also loves hunting! There’s nothing a booker loves more than an attractive young woman with the mind of Fred Barnes. After years as a nonentity, Cupp is now inescapable on Fox and even the liberal MSNBC. When Tucker Carlson launched his serious new news website, he picked up Cupp as a regular contributor. Her “diary” is some of the laziest P.J. O’Rourke-indebted humor writing you’ll find outside a college newspaper. You are a dumb coastal elite liberal wimp, but she drinks bourbon and shoots shotguns! And lol France! They’re all gay! Her “I watch NASCAR” shtick is a degree of magnitude more insulting to Middle America than the usual confused befuddlement with which coastal liberals view the hinterlands. She, not Katrina vanden Huevel, is the one who thinks every resident of a flyover state is a beer-swilling moron. (Cupp was born in California, raised in Andover, Mass., and has degrees from Cornell and New York University. She lives in New York. She totally “gets” Real America way better than you!)
Cupp is proof that being a Young Conservative — especially a TV-ready one willing to cynically tell the rubes that ignorance is noble — is a much easier way to make a living than legitimate journalism.
Why is anyone still calling the depopulated central states “The real America?”
They vote the “right” way, so that makes them real. Any time Republicans lose it’s because of votes from phantom Americans living on the coasts. They cannot fathom that actual, real human beings might disagree with them.
Though, to be fair, I cannot fathom that anyone with a genuine human conscience could fight tooth and nail against socialised medicine, unemployment benefit extensions, equality legislation, requiring the banks to provide evidence that they are entitled to foreclose a house rather than just stealing people’s homes at will, and allowing more capable and able-bodied people to serve in the military and still claim the moral high ground. We have a problem here in that neither side sees the other as real, but as cartoon villains, twirling their moustaches and trying to figure out what to do next in their imagined quest to destroy America.
Could this be an unfortunate developmental stage? A side effect of being a young nation?
Could be, America does seem to have issues from growing up too fast, in a sense. I do see a similar issue in the UK though, split along the lines of Daily Mail readers and Guardian readers. It is not quite as antagonistic, and not entirely spilling into Parliament, but the main reason for that is neither side sees anyone in politics as representing them. The Republicans have each other, the liberals have the Democrats at least somewhere in the same ballpark, but in the UK the liberals have been stabbed in the back by Lib Dem and Labour and despise the Tories, and the conservatives hate that the Tories aren’t Tory enough.
Maybe we’re being too influenced by the shrill discourse in US politics that seeps into our own media, but I think we’ve had the idea of “Tories want to steal milk from children and sell every asset we have” vs “Liberals want to see us overrun with immigrants and give criminals comfy pillows” for a fairly long time. We just didn’t used to blog about it.
The problem with the Lib Dems is not that they’re more conservative than the Tories or more socialist than Labour – rather, it’s that they lack a definite identity. People in general tend to seek belonging in a group; we’re tribal creatures by nature: I’m English, I’m a Leeds United supporter, I’m a Liberal, I’m an atheist – these are all, in their way, tribes to which I belong – and I’m probably less tribalistic than some. To most people the Lib Dems are just…. Meh. The centre ground always looks too liberal to the conservatives and too conservative to the liberals (incidentally, I vote Lib Dem).
As for Daily Fail versus Grauniad… The truth is, both papers are full of crap. Both hit the target of self-righteous stupidty, but from different directions. As an example, The Mail would have us shoot all migrants at the border, the Gaurdian would have us give them all free houses, cars, chauffers and gold-plated toilets. Neither of them live in the real world, but both of them think that they do. It’s a symptom of deep-seated stupidity in my opinion: The adoption of a position on every issue in the absence of knowledge or thought, based solely on their position on other, unrelated issues – a total inability to just say “we don’t yet know” or to dare to say anything that their readers might instinctively disagree with.
Agreed. Especially about the inability to say “we don’t know” or “we’re not sure”. Finding a middle ground or a nuanced response to something seems to be very difficult for many of us, and I suppose it comes at least in part from that tribalism and need to belong (and by extension, have someone or something else you can say does NOT belong). When a newspaper or political party says something along the lines of “yes, we are happy to have immigrants coming in here and we’d like to help them find their feet and get started in our society, but we can’t go overboard and end up swamping a fragile system”, who does that sell to? They seem to feel that one must pick a side on everything and stick to it. Changing your mind is political death.
Though in a somewhat related but encouraging note, David Cameron (of Section 28 fame) has released this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2GBmqtOOmw
Nope, it isn’t a teenager issue. Your country has always been brutal and individualistic from its foundation. The only thing that could make you feel solidarity for one another is a war in your own soil, not “Over there”. A real blast in which millions of Americans died and hundreds of towns were completely destroyed.
Since it isn’t happening because you have way too many atomic bombs for any other country on the planet to declare war against you guys (and I don’t think another civil war is possible), nothing will change the American notion that they don’t have to pay for someone else’s life. Even liberals have that sensation of “taking care of oneself”. Your country deeply believes that every individual writes his or her own future. That you can arise above your past and be free from it if you work twice as hard. I’ve heard Obama saying it a lot of times. A complete lie for most, of course, but nobody can make you realize it the hard way–which is the only way it can really be seen.
It makes sense once you understand that in this context “real” means “agrees with me politically.”
And why would people even care what is the ‘Real America’?
That’s your country, you make it the way you want.
*YOU* are your country.
Sometimes I think that the US are some sort of nationalistic fundamentalist nation, living to its untouchable dogmas.
The level reaches idolatry towards the constitution and the founding fathers.
You guys make a religion out of your country.
I’m telling you this with all my best intentions, as an outsider.
This sort of rigidity has the very same problems of religious doctrines facing changes in the moral and social codes.
It does not cope well with changing times, and hampers constructive criticism.
It’s true though. Worship of the flag and worship of the constitution (or each person’s interpretation of the constitution) seem to be standard issue.
Being keenly aware of our rights is not the same thing as worshipping them, is it?
I always get uncomfortable when people from some other country point out the flaws in the U.S. as if they are a major factor, as if we live a life boringly conscious of every infraction, attentive, living our lives like we are at war with ourselves and constantly on pins and needles about everything. We do have rights and we have to protect our rights by not letting human nature trample them, or our government, where they have no right to. I don’t necessarily worship the Constitution, but try to be educated about it, and try to notice if someone tries to get something past me or someone else. You make that seem so horrible. People from foreign countries always make the U.S. sound a lot more heinous to live in than it is. It’s a nice place to be. You may be paying too much attention to your media outlets and be looking for things to complain about, or to criticize. It is like how I look at this atheist blog and see things that don’t affect me personally, that it moves and stirs feelings of activism in me that I just don’t get walking around outside. Over-stimulation? Lack of exposure due to location? People in foreign countries to the U.S. often say the stupidest things about the U.S. out of over-exposure to very specific elements.
It’s not ubiquitous but there’s plenty of it. The Right’s obsession with originalism and flag burning borders on a quivering religious frenzy.
It is too bad the rest of the world sees us this way but it’s at least partially our fault.
I say this as a non- American. The U.S. constitution is an amazing and incredible document. Sometimes it seems that the people who drafted it could see into the future. It is only right that Americans should be proud of it.
Being aware of your right it means that you appreciate them because they are a good thing per se.
Worshiping your rights means that you appreciate them because they are ‘American’.
Which of these two do you see more frequently?
Do you remember all the flak that Chirac underwent after 9/11, being considered a traitor because France didn’t follow the US in Iraq?
This is what I mean with ‘hampering constructive criticism’.
Read about the Wikileaks release.
People are complaining that basically the release endangers the US and their agents, as if Wikileaks had any special obligation towards US.
Would they complain if these agents were Iranian or even Israeli?
Whatever they do, they automatically assume “we’re the good guys”.
Please look at your movies, at your propaganda.
A good half of the world, my country included and especially after WW2, has been heavily subjected to that propaganda.
Whether Italy goes to war or not, does not depend on whom I vote, but on whom YOU vote.
For good or bad, what the US do has a huge influence.
Therefore, I am especially interested that the US do good.
Ultimately, if a friend of mine does something that is very bad for me and possibly very bad for her, I tell her and do my best to convince her to change that course.
It is in MY interest.
What you say is mostly fair criticism of the majority of Americans and it does bug me. Especially the whole “we’re the good guys” assumption. I mean, that’s an assumption you tend to get everywhere, but it has to be especially bad in the U.S. and especially on the Right.
The wikileaks ordeal is fucked up and blown out of proportion, but that’s just what the media does with everything (a foreign ambassador forgot to shake a U.S. ambassador’s hand . . . could this mean war?).
But I would keep in mind that there is a very large portion of America that is not only not like you described but aware of the problems you pointed out and of America’s bad image internationally.
What worries me is that this particular indoctrination ends up sticking to many educated, definitely intelligent and well-meaning persons.
It’s not confined to right-wing nut jobs.
Still, I know (also by personal experience) that this does not apply to a significant number of US citizens.
My apologies if I ended up overgeneralizing.
I think what annoys me most of all is the weird impressions people seem to have of what it must be like to live in the U.S. I think apathy is more prevalent, it’s just not newsworthy. It’s more my impression from living here that very few people care a lot, and most people are just annoyed by it. Most people, I think, are not politically involved or only partially aware, and mostly feel that whatever needs to be done will be done without their direct attention. Living in the U.S. is pretty good, I’m not just saying that because of some fanatical nationalism. I haven’t tried other countries, but I would say that I prefer the U.S. to anywhere else, and at that, living in New England grips at me emotionally somehow. I live in a high tax state, but I like the ocean, I like the bay, I like the lighthouses and saltboxes and the local accent, and the weather. When I came to Boston for the first time, I instantly felt at home, even though it’s somewhat known for being a cold city to make friends here. I kind of like that people leave each other be like that, I prefer it to strangers meddling in your business. I like to think that’s what most people are thinking about, what they prefer about where they live.
The reason I would worship the Constitution is that our freedoms are important to us. It is something we can mostly take for granted will correct itself. I guess that sounds like a faith in god, but I know others are in business to pay more attention to infringements and address them so I don’t have to be so vigilant. It’s good of people sometimes to acknowledge how lucky we are to have a document like it, so good that it’s easy to forget to acknowledge it, which by my observation, most people do.
Well I agree that I like living in America, I just dislike much of the politics. But I am not convinced I would like the politics anywhere else much more.
Of course most people don’t worry much about politics, for good reason. Most congressional acts have a minor effect on most people’s lives.
As for The Constitution, well, it makes more sense to be obsessed with your freedoms than the letter of the document protecting them. The Constitution is pretty good, but it is hardly the ideal guarantor of our rights. So I certainly wouldn’t worship it myself. And it’s not like it doesn’t change.
The funny thing about the American constitution, is how many people outside America assume that they have the rights enshrined in it, and are very surprised when they learn that they do not. Take Australia for instance
Our supreme court has ruled that our constitution does not mean we have freedom of religion, While the Federal government cannot directly restrict it, the states can. And even at the federal level legislation that restricts religious freedom as a side effect (but not by design or intent) is not seen as unconstitutional.
We do not technically have a right to free assembly, or free speech either, These only exist by convention. They are occasionally covered by legislation, but this can be over-ridden by the government of the day without need for a referendum.
Ah, Sunday mornings, land of air heads with opinions they’re totally unequipped to hold!
When did the conservative party get so pretty?
Seriously? That whole smug, self-satisfied look just makes me want to puke.
I think her name alludes to her bra size.
That woman frustrates the daylights out of me. Just even thinking about her makes me angry.
Standard Republican fare. Right Wing women have three options in life:
1) Brainless peroxide blondes mouthing inane exclamations over cutesy crap because they have no real opinions of their own, only opinions they’re told to have (See Gretchen Carlson).
2) Women who try to be more angry and more right-wing than even the most stridently right-wing men as a way of making themselves heard in what is a culture of incredible sexism (see Ann Coulter).
3) 1950s style housewives who wear twin-sets and pearls, bake cookies every Sunday and have their husbands pipe and slippers ready and waiting when they get home from work (imagine Barbara Bush if she hadn’t been married to a rich, powerful man).
*blorf*
I think the only real solution is rank choice voting. It would break the 2 party system over night. You would then syphon off the wing nuts into fringe third parties and leave the adults to talk.
I don’t think rank choice voting is much better or really much different. People would still rank a Republican or Democrat first since doing otherwise would be “wasting your ballot,” and there are two many third parties for any one to get a large number of second votes.
You want the Schulze Method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
It has several more desirable properties than Rank and is being currently used internally (among the others) by the German Pirate Party and by Debian (for the Linux enthusiasts…)
You may also want to associate it to the secure, verifiable paper-trail system described here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izddjAp_N4I
This still has its own problems. Because it doesn’t satisfy later-no-harm, people who want their candidate to win should always pick him number 1 and pick the ones least likely to win 2, 3, etc. In fact, the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem shows that there can be no non-strategic voting system that is non-dictatorial.
Particularly problematic in the U.S. is the fact that it the Shulze Method is not consistent. That is, one candidate could theoretically win every state but lose the election. I am willing to bet not many Americans would be happy about this.
And the fact that it fails the participation criterion is especially odd, as it is sometimes beneficial not to vote for your preferred candidate (or to rank him lower) in order to help him win.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the Shulze method is worse than our current voting method, just that it is far from a magic bullet.
I’d be pretty satisfied with the huge leap forward, while we think about a better one.
I’m not convinced it would be a “huge leap forward.” It kind of sounds like more of the same with a more complicated algorithm.
No comment on rank choice voting, since I haven’t considered it carefully, but I agree that breaking the two party system would (or could) be a good thing. Too often party members do what is in the interest of their party, rather than what is in the interest of the American people. Just one example: the obstructionism of the Republicans in Congress during Obama’s first two years. They wanted to keep him from accomplishing anything, and then hold him up as a president with no accomplishments during the midterm election, all in the interest of bringing their party back to power. It certainly didn’t do the country any good.
No hate for the USA, lived there for a while but did not care for it.
On topic: So S.E Cupp is appealing to the lowest common denominator??
Sipp E. Cupp is attractive?
She should drink a nice hot Cupp of Shutt the Fuckk Upp. Maybe it will also cure her horseface syndrome.
By the way, Sipp E. does not even merit a comparison to Family Circus — with it’s deformed demon-children and nerve-rattling cutesy malapropisms, it’s far too interesting, even if all the interest comes from it being a pile of turd. She’s more like Herb & Jamaal — no one reads it, no one understands it, and no one gives a shit.