I respect the intelligence and, I think, understand the fears of the coal miners. Granted that Hillary wasn't the generational political talent and world-class bullshitter that Bill was, the substantive message in Hillary's speech, no different, except aesthetically, from the hypothetical AJ or Jaybird speech, or the one I would have given myself, was a predictable No Sale to fearful, desperate men watching their jobs disappear (and what they care about, George, is employment, not production) as their industry dies because of forces beyond anyone's control. They want their remembered way of life and the realistic alternatives do not appeal to them. They cannot be bullshat. Some of the miners know their bleak long-term future, and have said as much, but many of them ran to a transparent charlatan in the hope that he might cobble together some short-term expedient, kick the can down the road, and maybe stall the inevitable until they can retire, if they live that long. Sad and desperate, but sad and desperate men often prefer false hope to unpalatable reality. That is a much bigger issue than aesthetics.
At the very least, I could get people to discuss how what was said was true
Which "people" are you talking about? Lots of folks here have been talking at length about what's true and what's false about what can be done about the coal miners. Lots of people in the real world have discussed it as well. Nobody here, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere else, has suggested anything that would have been both true and substantively satisfactory to the coal miners, even if better phrased. Not to mention that no Democrat could have won West Virginia, no matter how they phrased the unpalatable truth.
If the question is whether Hillary was inept, I don't think anyone disputes that. I certainly don't. But you might want to watch your own video. Some of us watched it at the time.
Do you really think that any actually existing Democrat could go to West Virginia, make the very minor tweaks that would transform Hillary's comments into AJ's speech or yours, and be better received?
People have tried. They have said, in substance, pretty much what you and JA said. They will do it again, because, as you say, it is low cost and easy. Most professional politicians know how to do it. I'm pretty sure I could do it. Still, the people who have, supposedly, heard these things have insisted they were being told something else. Or they have rejected what they have been told. Or they have rejected the teller. For reasons that may or may not withstand examination.
To say that we should try to show solidarity is certainly "uncontroversial." It is also useless. There is more going on.
And if it’s possible to communicate “we know that this situation sucks and it can’t be changed but it can be mitigated” then that’s a hell of a lot better than “look at the big picture!”
I’m vaguely surprised that this is vaguely controversial.
That's not what's controversial. What's controversial is whether it means a damn when the reality being communicated is bleak and the hearer is, for various reasons, predisposed to reject, or even refuse to hear, what certain kinds of people say because of who is saying it rather than what they are saying or how they're saying it.
I spent several years doing hard, manly physical work, alongside men who had far less chance than I of getting out of it. (I'm glad I did; otherwise I'd be a wreck, if not dead, now.) Even now, and largely as a result, I spend a fair amount of my working time figuring out how to pitch my clients' interests to people like those I worked with. If I must say so myself, I'm pretty good at projecting solidarity with working class jurors. But there are limits to what I, or anyone else, can sell them. It isn't just marketing failures.
Indeed you did. And when I pointed out that lots of politicians have made substantially that very speech, and the hearers didn't go for it, you fell back on whether the speakers communicated solidarity. I have an idea what that means, which has "ugly implications," but I'll leave it to you to say for yourself what you mean.
Sounds like much that I, and the miners if they have listened to what they were told, have already heard, including with concrete plans. Why it hasn't worked so far may well have "ugly implications."
We already know that as a matter of short-term political success lying works better than the truth. What we haven't figured out is an alternative to lying that can address reality without sending reality's victims into the jaws of the liars.
Just a little human interest. The person who beat out my former office mate to become Miss West Virginia was Patty Ramsay (that may not be the name under which she won), now better known as the mother of Jon-Benet Ramsay.
As to your larger point, no disagreement. From what I've seen, red-state types spend a lot more time thinking about and disparaging blue-state sophisticates than blue-state sophisticates think about and disparage red-state types. And when blue state sophisticates object to red state types, they object to certain unfortunate folkways. When red state types object to blue state sophisticates, they object to us, period.
Some years ago, I had an office mate who had come in second in the Miss West Virginia contest. We constantly engaged in consensual banter that, even in those days, would have had HR coming down on our heads like a ton of bricks. Her filthy jokes were filthier than mine, and she had city-slicker jokes to match or top any of my fairly obvious West Virginia jokes. Her West Virginia jokes were better than mine, too.
In many parts of the country, for much of the 20th century and continuing today, large numbers of folks support people who are screwing them because of their resentment of people they think are laughing at them. Whether those people are actually laughing at them is largely beside the point. H.L. Mencken was particularly good on this.
So when I said "name three" and you named five or six, and I suggested that you were fooling either yourself or us, and Jaybird got all bent out of shape, the issue was one of timing?
Why should I make it easy on myself? And I'm perfectly willing to accept an answer. I have laid out why I don't accept the one I got. No one has to accept my reasons, but I gave them.
I don't know that you're a liar. In fact, I don't think you are. I think that you think you think what you say you think. It's just that, for reasons I've already laid out, I don't think that you do think what you think you think.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “My Class, Their Class, Our Class”
I respect the intelligence and, I think, understand the fears of the coal miners. Granted that Hillary wasn't the generational political talent and world-class bullshitter that Bill was, the substantive message in Hillary's speech, no different, except aesthetically, from the hypothetical AJ or Jaybird speech, or the one I would have given myself, was a predictable No Sale to fearful, desperate men watching their jobs disappear (and what they care about, George, is employment, not production) as their industry dies because of forces beyond anyone's control. They want their remembered way of life and the realistic alternatives do not appeal to them. They cannot be bullshat. Some of the miners know their bleak long-term future, and have said as much, but many of them ran to a transparent charlatan in the hope that he might cobble together some short-term expedient, kick the can down the road, and maybe stall the inevitable until they can retire, if they live that long. Sad and desperate, but sad and desperate men often prefer false hope to unpalatable reality. That is a much bigger issue than aesthetics.
"
At the very least, I could get people to discuss how what was said was true
Which "people" are you talking about? Lots of folks here have been talking at length about what's true and what's false about what can be done about the coal miners. Lots of people in the real world have discussed it as well. Nobody here, or, as far as I can tell, anywhere else, has suggested anything that would have been both true and substantively satisfactory to the coal miners, even if better phrased. Not to mention that no Democrat could have won West Virginia, no matter how they phrased the unpalatable truth.
"
If the question is whether Hillary was inept, I don't think anyone disputes that. I certainly don't. But you might want to watch your own video. Some of us watched it at the time.
Do you really think that any actually existing Democrat could go to West Virginia, make the very minor tweaks that would transform Hillary's comments into AJ's speech or yours, and be better received?
"
People have tried. They have said, in substance, pretty much what you and JA said. They will do it again, because, as you say, it is low cost and easy. Most professional politicians know how to do it. I'm pretty sure I could do it. Still, the people who have, supposedly, heard these things have insisted they were being told something else. Or they have rejected what they have been told. Or they have rejected the teller. For reasons that may or may not withstand examination.
To say that we should try to show solidarity is certainly "uncontroversial." It is also useless. There is more going on.
"
And if it’s possible to communicate “we know that this situation sucks and it can’t be changed but it can be mitigated” then that’s a hell of a lot better than “look at the big picture!”
I’m vaguely surprised that this is vaguely controversial.
That's not what's controversial. What's controversial is whether it means a damn when the reality being communicated is bleak and the hearer is, for various reasons, predisposed to reject, or even refuse to hear, what certain kinds of people say because of who is saying it rather than what they are saying or how they're saying it.
I spent several years doing hard, manly physical work, alongside men who had far less chance than I of getting out of it. (I'm glad I did; otherwise I'd be a wreck, if not dead, now.) Even now, and largely as a result, I spend a fair amount of my working time figuring out how to pitch my clients' interests to people like those I worked with. If I must say so myself, I'm pretty good at projecting solidarity with working class jurors. But there are limits to what I, or anyone else, can sell them. It isn't just marketing failures.
"
It was Chris Rock, but what the hell, they all look alike.
On “Trump’s Useful Idiot”
Indeed you did. And when I pointed out that lots of politicians have made substantially that very speech, and the hearers didn't go for it, you fell back on whether the speakers communicated solidarity. I have an idea what that means, which has "ugly implications," but I'll leave it to you to say for yourself what you mean.
"
From an episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show, when Ted Baxter confides his pre-wedding jitters to Lou Grant in a bar and asks for advice:
Lou: Ted, you know the way you always are?
Ted: Yes.
Lou: Don't be like that.
Equally informative and useful advice.
On “My Class, Their Class, Our Class”
If Mike wants to join your side on this, don't discourage him.
On “Trump’s Useful Idiot”
Sounds like much that I, and the miners if they have listened to what they were told, have already heard, including with concrete plans. Why it hasn't worked so far may well have "ugly implications."
"
Sounds good. What is your speech to the coal miners? In actual words.
"
We already know that as a matter of short-term political success lying works better than the truth. What we haven't figured out is an alternative to lying that can address reality without sending reality's victims into the jaws of the liars.
"
Just a little human interest. The person who beat out my former office mate to become Miss West Virginia was Patty Ramsay (that may not be the name under which she won), now better known as the mother of Jon-Benet Ramsay.
As to your larger point, no disagreement. From what I've seen, red-state types spend a lot more time thinking about and disparaging blue-state sophisticates than blue-state sophisticates think about and disparage red-state types. And when blue state sophisticates object to red state types, they object to certain unfortunate folkways. When red state types object to blue state sophisticates, they object to us, period.
"
Some years ago, I had an office mate who had come in second in the Miss West Virginia contest. We constantly engaged in consensual banter that, even in those days, would have had HR coming down on our heads like a ton of bricks. Her filthy jokes were filthier than mine, and she had city-slicker jokes to match or top any of my fairly obvious West Virginia jokes. Her West Virginia jokes were better than mine, too.
"
In many parts of the country, for much of the 20th century and continuing today, large numbers of folks support people who are screwing them because of their resentment of people they think are laughing at them. Whether those people are actually laughing at them is largely beside the point. H.L. Mencken was particularly good on this.
On “Many People Agree With Me”
It's not clear whether you and Philip H actually disagree.
On “Stating the Obvious”
The alternative to demanding actual evidence is what?
On “Bigot.”
So when I said "name three" and you named five or six, and I suggested that you were fooling either yourself or us, and Jaybird got all bent out of shape, the issue was one of timing?
"
Down to two already? How did this comment end up down here instead o?f where it belongs
On “AOC and “Squad” vs Nancy Pelosi”
Typo?
On “Oh Say, I Could See”
You really dodged a bullet, so to speak. Mine was 101.
"
Did you get a lottery number? If so, what was it? No one I know can't remember his.
On “What is the Point of Higher Education?”
What is your thesis on? Good luck with your defense.
On “Debatable: The Slog in South Beach Part 1”
Why should I make it easy on myself? And I'm perfectly willing to accept an answer. I have laid out why I don't accept the one I got. No one has to accept my reasons, but I gave them.
"
I don't know that you're a liar. In fact, I don't think you are. I think that you think you think what you say you think. It's just that, for reasons I've already laid out, I don't think that you do think what you think you think.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.