Misinformation

[Overlander]

Why do you think going "further left" is so odd?

Because I am yet to see compelling data that supports your conclusion.

It's another one of your "gut feeling" or "eye test" type opinions.

Is this ride due to stop anytime soon?

[twocoach]

in today's edition of, Holy Fuck!

yes, maybe if dems DID coach up some young stars* then they wouldn't have lost to a 78 year old felon!

For real, I'm surprised that take is controversial. What do you think the move is otherwise, to NOT coach up some young stars and prop any old schmuck up there on the chance they'll win the messaging game anyway?








*and also give those stars a chance to shine in an actual primary, rather than doubling down on an even older 81yo candidate until it was too late, only to then have to hastily pinch-hit a never-was-popular veep as candidate instead

It's not controversial. It's just word vomit.

[DeletedUser]

Why do you think going "further left" is so odd?

Because I am yet to see compelling data that supports your conclusion.

It's another one of your "gut feeling" or "eye test" type opinions.

Is this ride due to stop anytime soon?

No end in sight.

[BiggDick]

I mean, one way it COULD end is to just like, stop engaging me.

It's pretty silly to prompt a response, then fuss about it if I respond.

[BiggDick]

Why do you think going "further left" is so odd?

Because I am yet to see compelling data that supports your conclusion.

It's another one of your "gut feeling" or "eye test" type opinions.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healt ... ystem.aspx

59% think it's the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage

78% worry a fair or great deal about the availability and affordability of healthcare

61% somewhat or very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare

81% are dissatisfied with the total cost of healthcare

69% describe the state of healthcare as either in a state of crisis or having major problems.

71% say the cost of their healthcare has gone up a little to a lot in the last year.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healt ... ystem.aspx

of course, this is just one source of polls. Lord knows there's plenty of other data out there worth discussing. And this is just on the issue of healthcare, and healthcare costs in particular. An issue which, despite what these polls indicate, was somehow hardly discussed this election BESIDES among the progressive "left."


And there's a few more gems worth discussing even within this source! I just obviously cherry picked a few I thought were most interesting. Some of the polls seem like they can be drawn along partisan lines. At least one specifically stands out as worth discussing in this particular thread. And, gee, I wonder why some of the polls didn't show any data collected since 2020?

[KUTradition]

Because I am yet to see compelling data that supports your conclusion.

It's another one of your "gut feeling" or "eye test" type opinions.

Is this ride due to stop anytime soon?

No end in sight.

y’all keep feeding him

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Why do you think going "further left" is so odd?

Because I am yet to see compelling data that supports your conclusion.

It's another one of your "gut feeling" or "eye test" type opinions.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healt ... ystem.aspx

59% think it's the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage

78% worry a fair or great deal about the availability and affordability of healthcare

61% somewhat or very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare

81% are dissatisfied with the total cost of healthcare

69% describe the state of healthcare as either in a state of crisis or having major problems.

71% say the cost of their healthcare has gone up a little to a lot in the last year.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healt ... ystem.aspx

of course, this is just one source of polls. Lord knows there's plenty of other data out there worth discussing. And this is just on the issue of healthcare, and healthcare costs in particular. An issue which, despite what these polls indicate, was somehow hardly discussed this election BESIDES among the progressive "left."


And there's a few more gems worth discussing even within this source! I just obviously cherry picked a few I thought were most interesting. Some of the polls seem like they can be drawn along partisan lines. At least one specifically stands out as worth discussing in this particular thread. And, gee, I wonder why some of the polls didn't show any data collected since 2020?

Talk to me like I am 6 years old. What does all that have to do with going "further left"?

[jfish26]

I think the point is essentially to suggest that "left" positions on health care are broadly popular. And I think the inference we're supposed to draw is that, if "left" positions are outpolling "left" candidates, then "left" candidates should be leaning harder into "left" positions.

Or something like that.

The problem is that this dichotomy is hardly unique to healthcare; go do gun control, for example.

Or, look at states like Missouri, which somehow - schizophrenically - just voted in favor of abortion rights AND an increase in the minimum wage AND and legally-protected paid leave...AND...

...you know where I'm going...

...AND Donald Trump.

Yes, one of the lessons to learn from all this is just how doggone effective Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts have been.

But at least as important a lesson is that, well, cults are powerful. And they're powerful because they overwhelm reason and rationality.

(It is here I will just sigh, deeply, reflecting on the fact that our Constitution provides for a guardrail that seemed tailor-made for the exact situation we found ourselves in...and the hold Trump has on our system is so strong that we just sort of shrugged aside the Constitution.)

[KUTradition]

but, didn’t you hear about Cornell West’s policies?

[BiggDick]

I think the point is essentially to suggest that "left" positions on health care are broadly popular. And I think the inference we're supposed to draw is that, if "left" positions are outpolling "left" candidates, then "left" candidates should be leaning harder into "left" positions.

Or something like that.

this isn't a bad take. Folks tend to be further left on many issues than they'd say out loud, depending on how it's phrased and such...and bear in mind, much of "the left" is rooted in the sort of "treat others the way you wanna be treated" sort of basic decency we learn in like kindergarten (then are basically taught to unlearn as we get older)

But at least as important a lesson is that, well, cults are powerful. And they're powerful because they overwhelm reason and rationality.

I'm sitting here wondering if it ever occurs to a cult member that they're even in a cult.

[jfish26]

I think the point is essentially to suggest that "left" positions on health care are broadly popular. And I think the inference we're supposed to draw is that, if "left" positions are outpolling "left" candidates, then "left" candidates should be leaning harder into "left" positions.

Or something like that.

Folks tend to be further left on many issues than they'd say out loud, depending on how it's phrased and such...

I think you're right on top of a fundamental truth about our politics: for lots and lots of reasons, voters are much more willing to associate themselves with progressive policies than they are with progressiveness.

[Shirley]

President Harry Truman began the Democratic Party's effort(s) to provide health care to the American people over three-quarters of a century ago, and he failed. Democratic President LBJ somehow managed to overcome the charges of "socialized medicine" and predictions that "all the physicians will stop practicing medicine", to pass Medicare and Medicaid benefits for the elderly, disabled, and poor, in 1965. Democratic President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

During that same 3/4ers of a century, Republicans did everything they could to stop them. "Everything", multiple times, in multiple ways.

If health care is a panacea for getting Democrats elected, whence* Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GHWB, GWB, and Trump?

In addition to the previous mention of gun control being a popular leftist policy, the right of a woman to choose is also "leftist" and polls favorably by a large majority.

Considering how those popular leftest policies, including national health care, have nonetheless failed to elect Democrats on a number of occasions going back decades, I think your analysis and recommendation could use some tweaking.


*"whence"

adverb
from what place or source.
"whence do they derive those powers?"

adverb
from which; from where.
"the Ural mountains, whence the ore is procured"

[zsn]

Have you read “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” - therein lies the answer. Still relevant 20 years later, if not more so!!

[BiggDick]

I did read that in college, but don't recall much...something about how heartland economic progressivism got hijacked by the conservative culture war issues?

[zsn]

Pretty much. Basically, rural people will vote against their own interests in order to stick it to the “elitists”.

As far as healthcare goes, we’re the only “civilized”** nation that hasn’t figured this out. But not because we can’t; it’s because there are many people who don’t want it fixed. Similar to immigration.

**not sure how much longer we can use this term to describe the USA

[BiggDick]

President Harry Truman began the Democratic Party's effort(s) to provide health care to the American people over three-quarters of a century ago, and he failed. Democratic President LBJ somehow managed to overcome the charges of "socialized medicine" and predictions that "all the physicians will stop practicing medicine", to pass Medicare and Medicaid benefits for the elderly, disabled, and poor, in 1965. Democratic President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

During that same 3/4ers of a century, Republicans did everything they could to stop them. "Everything", multiple times, in multiple ways.

If health care is a panacea for getting Democrats elected, whence* Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GHWB, GWB, and Trump?

In addition to the previous mention of gun control being a popular leftist policy, the right of a woman to choose is also "leftist" and polls favorably by a large majority.

Considering how those popular leftest policies, including national health care, have nonetheless failed to elect Democrats on a number of occasions going back decades, I think your analysis and recommendation could use some tweaking.


*"whence"

adverb
from what place or source.
"whence do they derive those powers?"

adverb
from which; from where.
"the Ural mountains, whence the ore is procured"

good post!

I enjoy the historical context provided.

I'd like to respond to a couple of your points in particular:

- if health care is a panacea for getting Democrats elected, whence President McCain? Oh wait, that's right, he lost the election to a dood who campaigned on more progressive ideals such as, among other things, universal healthcare.

(contrast that with Kamala's campaign, which was largely just "moving to the middle" AKA largely just rebranding conservative positions but in blue.)


- "Considering how those popular leftest policies, including national health care, have nonetheless failed to elect Democrats on a number of occasions going back decades, I think your analysis and recommendation could use some tweaking."

I'm tempted to expand, but for now, let's just contrast Kamala's campaign with Barack's.

So with that said, I think this one is more like, considering how democrats have failed to leverage any momentum by actually pursuing otherwise-popular "leftist" policies, I think your analysis and recommendation could use some tweaking.

[BiggDick]

Pretty much. Basically, rural people will vote against their own interests in order to stick it to the “elitists”.

As far as healthcare goes, we’re the only “civilized”** nation that hasn’t figured this out. But not because we can’t; it’s because there are many people who don’t want it fixed. Similar to immigration.

**not sure how much longer we can use this term to describe the USA

yea!

Re: "rural people will vote against their own interests" and the whole culture war thing - I can't find the exact stat. now, but in the early 20th century, some significant portion of U.S. preachers identified as socialist. I think one big thing that since changed, maybe, is the Cold War?

Re: healthcare, yea, it's another one of those "no way to possibly fix this says the only nation where this happens" sorts of Oniony headlines.

[jfish26]

Not sure there's a better way to put any of this.

Why I Just Resigned From The Los Angeles Times

https://harrylitman.substack.com/p/why- ... om-the-los

I have been a contributor to the Los Angeles Times op-ed page in some fashion for more than 15 years. For the last three years, I have been the Senior Legal Columnist, writing regular weekly columns about Trump’s legal troubles, the Supreme Court, and a wide range of other topics. The Times also permitted me to cover Trump’s trial in New York and the 2024 Democratic convention.

My editors have been skilled, quick, and fair. I have been able to write whatever I like, including blistering criticism of Donald Trump.

I’ve been proud of my work and proud to be part of the Times, the most prominent and storied newspaper west of the Mississippi. It’s got gravitas—and 45 Pulitzers to show for it—combined with a California flair that complements the constant variety and zaniness of my adopted state.

But I have written my last op-ed for the Times. Yesterday, I resigned my position. I don’t want to continue to work for a paper that is appeasing Trump and facilitating his assault on democratic rule for craven reasons.

My resignation is a protest and visceral reaction against the conduct of the paper’s owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. Soon-Shiong has made several moves to force the paper, over the forceful objections of his staff, into a posture more sympathetic to Donald Trump. Those moves can’t be defended as the sort of policy adjustment papers undergo from time to time, and that an owner, within limits, is entitled to influence. Given the existential stakes for our democracy that I believe Trump’s second term poses, and the evidence that Soon-Shiong is currying favor with the President-elect, they are repugnant and dangerous.

Soon-Shiong’s most notorious action received national attention. The paper’s editorial department had drafted an endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Soon-Shiong ordered them to spike it and make no endorsement in the election. (Soon-Shiong later implied he had just ordered up a factual analysis of both candidates’ policies, but that’s at best a distortion: he plainly blocked an already drafted Harris endorsement.) It is hard to imagine a more brutal, humiliating, and unprofessional treatment of a paper’s professional staff. Three members of the editorial page resigned in protest and 2,000 readers canceled their subscriptions.

Owners participate in setting overall editorial direction. But it’s a grave insult to the independence and integrity of an editorial department for an owner to force it to withdraw a considered and drafted opinion. And of course, this was no ordinary opinion. The endorsement of a presidential candidate is an editorial department’s most important decision, so the slight was deep.

It was also a deep insult to the paper’s readership. Like any major paper, the Times has a coherent and consistent line of reasoning to its editorial decisions. That can include idiosyncratic departures on particular issues. Where Trump was concerned, the paper had presented to its readers a long series of opinions that set out, with force and nuance, the great dangers of his return to office. That line of analysis culminated logically in the endorsement of Harris. For the Times to lead its readers to the finish line only to step off the track was bizarre and disrespectful.

By far the most important problem with Soon-Shiong’s scrapping of the editorial was the apparent motivation. It is untenable to suggest that Soon-Shiong woke up with sudden misgivings over Harris’s criminal justice record or with newfound affection for Trump’s immigration proposals. The plain inference, and the one that readers and national observers have adopted, is that he wanted to hedge his bets in case Trump won—not even to protect the paper’s fortunes but rather his multi-billion-dollar holdings in other fields. It seems evident that he was currying favor with Trump and capitulating to the President-elect’s well-known pettiness and vengefulness.

Trump has made it clear that he will make trouble for media outlets that cross him. Rather than reacting with indignation at this challenge to his paper’s critical function in a democracy, Soon-Shiong threw the paper to the wolves. That was cowardly.

And his decision had a sort of force multiplier effect with the similar conduct by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, who rammed a similar non-endorsement decision down the throat of his editorial staff. There as well, there was no argument that the intervention was based on sensible policy contrast between Trump and Harris. History will record it as a self-serving protection of other holdings, which, as in the case of Soon-Shiong’s, dwarf the newspaper itself.

Before joining the Times, I was a contributing commentator for the Post. We used to say there, tongue-in-cheek, that our billionaire was better than their billionaire, meaning Bezos was more aware of his public responsibility and more hands-off in his oversight. As it turns out, both billionaires flinched when the chips were down, choosing to appease, not oppose, a criminal President with patent authoritarian ambitions.

Before he has even taken office, Trump has faced down two of the country’s most prominent newspapers, inducing them to back off longstanding, well-reasoned editorial opposition. That is terrifying.

As a commentator, especially one dedicated to constitutional norms and the rule of law, I have spent much of the last couple of years arguing that Trump is a genuine menace to our constitutional system. November 5 showed that a narrow majority of Americans who voted disagree or don’t care.

Yet here in Southern California and in Washington, D.C., we have evidence of tangible erosion of social guardrails in real time. Trump is in the process of commandeering and corrupting institutions of government and civil society that we have always counted on to nurture our democracy.

Look closely at this already deeply eroded landscape: all the electoral branches are not only Republican but firmly within Trump’s fist and dedicated to loyalty to him over any principle of governance. The Supreme Court has assisted his authoritarian initiatives in ways that the legal profession and society as a whole have condemned. His current nomination process is seeking openly to cut the Senate, even its Republican members, out of their constitutional advice-and-consent role.

For the moment, the best hopes for desperately needed pushback lie with federal law enforcement, the lower federal courts, the military, and (an economically weakened) mainstream media. All this is material for another Substack, but Trump has taken dead aim at imposing loyalty to him as the defining feature of the first three, including a proposal to permit him to discharge generals who are not, as he put it, sufficiently like “Hitler’s generals.”

So the role and responsibility of the media have never been greater. And if major outlets can be bought off and made to cower, the impact on our liberty—and freedom of thought—is in grave jeopardy.

Thus far, I have analyzed only Soon-Shiong’s most notorious and visible action of scuttling the endorsement. That put him in lock step with Bezos. But he has combined it with a general program of cozying up to Trump, especially since the election. Soon-Shiong ordered the shelving of a multi-part series, intended to run with the endorsement but broader and of a piece with the editorial page’s opinion over the last several years, which had been entitled, “The Case Against Trump.” His spiking of the series was part of the explanation given by the editorial board members who resigned.

There is more: Soon-Shiong went on Fox News after the election to talk about the paper’s editorial direction. He advocated “diverse perspectives” in the editorial pages and voices from across the political spectrum to avoid creating an "echo chamber." Most alarmingly, and escaping the notice of no one, he pandered to Fox and Trump by saying he wanted to make the Times more “fair and balanced.”

Soon-Shiong followed up by hiring a noted pro-Trump commentator, Scott Jennings, for some as yet ill-defined role of “balancing out” the views on the editorial page. Then most recently, during an interview on CNN in which he was asked about the Jennings hire, the normally mild-mannered Soon-Shiong went full Trump, labeling the CNN correspondent a "so-called reporter" before abruptly ending the interview.

Soon-Shiong’s argument for all these moves is to create “balance” on the editorial page, which still remains unstaffed and in chaos, and a neutral, “just the facts” approach to news. It sounds banal, but in fact, it is pernicious; and it goes to the heart of my reasons for leaving.

First, the idea of balance is fundamentally misplaced when on one side of the balance is a sociopathic liar like Donald Trump. The media has struggled for years to figure out how to call out Trump’s incessant lies while still covering the contentious issues of the day. There’s good reason to think that the propagation of those lies, some of which Trump simply picks up from fringe social media sites and Fox News, influenced the results of the election. The people who voted for Trump were fed a relentless false account of issue after issue, including Trump’s signature distortions about immigrants (eating pets, committing a disproportionate number of violent crimes), which Fox News and right-wing social media parroted relentlessly.

In that context, the bromide of just being balanced is a terrible dereliction of journalists’ first defining responsibility of reporting the truth. Soon-Shiong apparently would have the Times deliver an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand presentation to readers. But there is no “other hand.” Trump is an inveterate liar, and journalists have a defining responsibility to call that out.

These are not normal times. Look around. We are in the political, cultural, and legal fight of our lifetimes. Trump’s conduct since winning the election only reinforces his determination to replace constitutional rule with some form of authoritarian rule. That needn’t be 1933 Germany, an analogy that typically draws counter-charges of excessive drama (though the existence of certain overlapping features is inescapable). There are other models of democratic demise, ones that Trump obviously wants to emulate, such as Hungary’s slide toward authoritarianism over the last 20 years.

So the neutral posture that Soon-Shiong uses to justify his violence to the paper is exactly, fundamentally wrong. This is no time for neutrality and disinterest. It’s rather a time for choosing. And a choice for true facts and American values is necessarily a vigorous choice against Donald Trump.

I don’t pretend that my resignation is any kind of serious counter-blow to the damage of Soon-Shiong’s cozying up to Trump. And I see, and I thought about, the argument that my most constructive role would be to stay on and continue to use my one voice as forcefully as I could to explain to Times readers the grave dangers on the horizon.

But the cost of alliance with an important national institution that has such an important role to play in pushing back against authoritarian rule, but declines to do so for spurious and selfish reasons, feels too great. And Soon-Shiong’s conscious pattern of détente with Trump has in fact recast the paper’s core identity to one of appeasement with an authoritarian madman. I am loath to affiliate with that identity in any way.

My growing misgivings about the Times are one of the reasons I started this Substack two weeks ago. I’ve been blown away by the response and the number of followers and subscribers in just the first two weeks: thank you to everyone. Having this outlet for my thoughts about where Trump 2.0 is taking us makes it easier to leave.

I’m not going anywhere. I will continue to do my best to identify and analyze the dangers that might be hard to see, but for now, here on Substack. I may surface elsewhere, too. Stay tuned! I hope you will follow me here and think about becoming a subscriber.

I’ll close by quoting admiringly my former colleague and the former editorial editor at the Times, Mariel Garza: “I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up."

[Shirley]

Thanks for sharing that jfish, an excellent, if sad, read.

[jfish26]

Like so many, victim AND vector.