I'm putting this comment on the various notes today, hoping perhaps the idea could get to Team Kamala before her Ellipse speech tomorrow:
I've been trying to analyze where Harris made missteps to the authoritarian agenda that is being proposed on the other side. When she entered the race she benefitted from a narrative of "new", "joy", "not weird". That last one was critical for what has turned 100% into a "vibes" election. The funny thing is that what got Walz the pick at the near-height of the euphoria for Harris has become the last thing being discussed. I get the idea that calling them weird time-and-again would be a very delicate task to manage as that can quickly shift from calling "them" weird to "am I weird?" to "hey, they called me weird." And, an electorate that begins to take that insult personally can turn against you quicker than they gave you the opportunity to win them over.
But, what Harris/Walz got pulled into was a discussion on policy in an election entirely directed by vibes. Why? I honestly can't fathom where that became the rallying cry. Not only did this cost Hillary the election in 2016, but it is the only reason Biden won by 44,000 votes in 2020. So, abandoning the "weird" mantra for "price gouging corporations", "tax breaks for homeowners, parents, new business start ups", "border legislation", etc. was the worst thing she could do. Why? Because it gave Trump-world something to stick on her. It made her a flip flopper. It also exposed that she doesn't know how economics works, which is not something every President has understood, let alone any president. But, in a fight where Trump was on the ropes (becoming more weird), she was stuck playing defense on the "it's the economy, stupid" policy discussion.
Now, how she can close this campaign ahead of the final week (on the Ellipse) is hopefully by bringing back the "they're weird" point. How she does that can be easy given the diatribe Trump and Tucker (previously) discussed: Trump is the deranged, angry grandpa at the end of the Thanksgiving table yelling about the minorities in the neighborhood, screaming about when he was around and saying the worst things. We've all been there. We've all seen an elder relative yell about how everything negative that has befallen them is someone else's fault. And, America is sitting at the table looking forward to the time when they can turn the page and talk like a real family should. At the same time, crazy, creepy Uncle Tucker is in the corner eyeing the teenage niece and saying the most disgusting things about what should happen to her. It's time to move past these creeps and angry old men and be the American family from all corners of life that it should be. And it's time to let Grandpa and Creepy Uncle Tucker move on to the home and whatever hole Creepy Uncle Tucker needs to go to.
This is a scene we've seen characterized in National Lampoon's Christmas. It's the same scene that many Americans see today around the Thanksgiving Table. And, it's something everyone knows to be true. They just need someone who can tap into that vibe and use it to make the family wake up and realize that Grandpa is crazy and Uncle Tucker and his friends are not welcome any more.
It's too close for comfort, and it's time for the honest vibes to overwhelm the policy hiccups.
JVL, do you consume the Dispatch much these days? Curious to get your take on their political coverage. Seems they've taken the strategy of being overly neutral and simply aggregating talking points from either side, without providing any relevant context for the reader. Frankly, it's getting harder to justify subscribing...
I just saw that the Post has had 200,000 cancellations, likely to reach 10% of its digital subscribers when all is said and done. I know there are good reasons to stay with the Post and this doesn't impact Bezos at all. But that has to resonate elsewhere. Let Bezos make up the revenue loss from his Blue Origins contract.
I am bothered by a second "sin" the WaPo is committing: I don't think any of them are willing to lay the blame for the debacle directly on Bezos. The letter signed by 20 Post writers disagrees in the passive voice with the decision without naming the decider. Will Lewis, the publisher, has sworn that Bezos was not involved. If that is so, then why is he still the publisher, after triggering a collective protest from his staff and mass defections of subscribers?
I understand that it's tough to write a story naming names - "Our owner, Jeff Bezos, forbade the publication of the Harris endorsement and told the publisher, Will Lewis, to take the blame," - but that's apparently what happened. And the Post is withholding that information, along with any investigation of what Bezos's motives are. One lie is leading to another - and we are apparently go to have to take their word for it that it won't go any further.
I still subscribe to the Post, at least until election day, but then I'm going to rethink that subscription.
I did cancel my WaPo, although entirely symbolic because my annual subscription was renewed two weeks ago. I have a year to reconsider, and will do so only when the Murdoch guy is let go. I do not use Amazon, so I have no impact there. You can survive without Amazon.
Soon-Shiong's instructions to his staff are absurd. Trump proved in his first term that he has no policies that he actually cares about, except destroying those who resist, or merely disagree with, him, and feathering his own nest. It you can't mention Trump's racism, fascism, misogyny, disrespect for the military, ignorance, stupidity, and early dementia, then the case against him is not much, because no one, even Trump, know what his policies will be.
I canceled both my NYT and WaPo subs in the last year. I was not getting value for my dollar. Part of it was editorial policy, part of it was they didn't seem to be doing anything or providing anything that I could not get cheaper or free elsewhere.
Most of my subs have shifted to venues that I find useful or entertaining or both. These are all non-legacy media venues.
WRT the Bulwark, we (we meaning myself and the editorial;/writing team) share certain principles and the writing is usually pretty good. There are also some important differences--and it is those differences and the conversations that those differences spark that makes things interesting.
I am not lookng to be told things I like. I am looking to be told things that are interesting or provide a different perspective (while respecting difference).
The media has always been a partisan affair since the beginning. It invariably represents a particular point-of-view. Sometimes it is that of the owner. Sometimes it is that of a particular group/organization, sometimes it is the view of the people footing the bills.
True neutrality is not possible if people are involved in the process. The search for objectivity is usually a vain one and so one must look at many things to tease out something approaching the truth, recognizing where things comes from and why--the viewpoints being expressed, the bias that (invariably) exists.
It is akin to putting a puzzle together.
I DO hope for and expect some honesty. I can respect the honesty even if that is engaged in something (idea/principle) that I disagree with. Own what you do and say.
Even when I disagree with a choice I can still support a good faith explanation. No one even wants to have that discussion though. They want to give us smoke and mirrors to hide their reasons.
I believe it would be helpful for the Bulwark to make a list of the 🍊🤡 possible cabinet members. Everyone acts like people know who’s around him. I also think Harris should come forward with some of her proposed members. Presidents don’t really make policy. Those cabinets help shape it. Thx for your continued excellence at the Bukwark
The loss of the Post has simply removed one more guardrail of democracy… of the free press and the duty to inform its readers about the facts, truths and reality of what is important in our society.
My outrage and deep sorrow about the WaPo situation are two sides of the same coin. I am just a speck of the consumer base in this new journalism/information hellscape. The only teeny option for civil disobedience and to communicate my concerns on this matter is via my WaPo subscription. The Bulwark and other curated substacks are today's WaPo, NYT, Weekly Standard, etc. I hate that talented voices (established and new) are scattered throughout Substack, YouTube, podcasts and becoming harder to find. My limited time to find and digest information as well as a shrinking budget to pay for information - $100 for Bulwark, $170 for WaPo, $11.99 Spotify, Puck $100, local paper, etc. now means decisions have to be made. My cancelled WaPo subscription runs into next year so that gives me time to calm down. I am sure I will re-evaluate and hopefully re-subscribe at the much lower rate they offer me when the time comes. Glad to know that others are finding their own ways to express their upset and discomfort with the WaPo situation.
JVL I completely agree - I'm not going to cancel my WaPo subscription. I do plan on canceling Amazon Prime - unlike WaPo, Prime actually makes money for Bezos. I wish more people were smart enough to realize that depriving Bezos of WaPo subscription money is not helpful. But I do wonder if enough subscribers cancel WaPo, might it hasten the day when Bezos sells it to someone else? - likely someone equally heinous, like one of the hedge funds that keep buying up and killing local newspapers. Would that be better? I don't know.
My friend cancelled her Amazon Prime and plans to not use Amazon. This comes at some sacrifice since she lives away from a lot of retailers like Costco, but she is, in fact, hitting Bezos where he does make money.
I do take the Atlantic and various publications. I will have to ponder the WaPo as your argument is persuasive. Its the billionaires and the leadership at the post that I have a problem with
Well I did cancel my subscription. I’m so disappointed that the owner of the WP threw aside its long tradition of endorsement of a candidate running for President especially when Trump has said such treasonous remarks. I guess when you’re an Oligarch you’re much easier to manipulate since they are in the game for the “money.”
I'm putting this comment on the various notes today, hoping perhaps the idea could get to Team Kamala before her Ellipse speech tomorrow:
I've been trying to analyze where Harris made missteps to the authoritarian agenda that is being proposed on the other side. When she entered the race she benefitted from a narrative of "new", "joy", "not weird". That last one was critical for what has turned 100% into a "vibes" election. The funny thing is that what got Walz the pick at the near-height of the euphoria for Harris has become the last thing being discussed. I get the idea that calling them weird time-and-again would be a very delicate task to manage as that can quickly shift from calling "them" weird to "am I weird?" to "hey, they called me weird." And, an electorate that begins to take that insult personally can turn against you quicker than they gave you the opportunity to win them over.
But, what Harris/Walz got pulled into was a discussion on policy in an election entirely directed by vibes. Why? I honestly can't fathom where that became the rallying cry. Not only did this cost Hillary the election in 2016, but it is the only reason Biden won by 44,000 votes in 2020. So, abandoning the "weird" mantra for "price gouging corporations", "tax breaks for homeowners, parents, new business start ups", "border legislation", etc. was the worst thing she could do. Why? Because it gave Trump-world something to stick on her. It made her a flip flopper. It also exposed that she doesn't know how economics works, which is not something every President has understood, let alone any president. But, in a fight where Trump was on the ropes (becoming more weird), she was stuck playing defense on the "it's the economy, stupid" policy discussion.
Now, how she can close this campaign ahead of the final week (on the Ellipse) is hopefully by bringing back the "they're weird" point. How she does that can be easy given the diatribe Trump and Tucker (previously) discussed: Trump is the deranged, angry grandpa at the end of the Thanksgiving table yelling about the minorities in the neighborhood, screaming about when he was around and saying the worst things. We've all been there. We've all seen an elder relative yell about how everything negative that has befallen them is someone else's fault. And, America is sitting at the table looking forward to the time when they can turn the page and talk like a real family should. At the same time, crazy, creepy Uncle Tucker is in the corner eyeing the teenage niece and saying the most disgusting things about what should happen to her. It's time to move past these creeps and angry old men and be the American family from all corners of life that it should be. And it's time to let Grandpa and Creepy Uncle Tucker move on to the home and whatever hole Creepy Uncle Tucker needs to go to.
This is a scene we've seen characterized in National Lampoon's Christmas. It's the same scene that many Americans see today around the Thanksgiving Table. And, it's something everyone knows to be true. They just need someone who can tap into that vibe and use it to make the family wake up and realize that Grandpa is crazy and Uncle Tucker and his friends are not welcome any more.
It's too close for comfort, and it's time for the honest vibes to overwhelm the policy hiccups.
JVL, do you consume the Dispatch much these days? Curious to get your take on their political coverage. Seems they've taken the strategy of being overly neutral and simply aggregating talking points from either side, without providing any relevant context for the reader. Frankly, it's getting harder to justify subscribing...
I just saw that the Post has had 200,000 cancellations, likely to reach 10% of its digital subscribers when all is said and done. I know there are good reasons to stay with the Post and this doesn't impact Bezos at all. But that has to resonate elsewhere. Let Bezos make up the revenue loss from his Blue Origins contract.
I am bothered by a second "sin" the WaPo is committing: I don't think any of them are willing to lay the blame for the debacle directly on Bezos. The letter signed by 20 Post writers disagrees in the passive voice with the decision without naming the decider. Will Lewis, the publisher, has sworn that Bezos was not involved. If that is so, then why is he still the publisher, after triggering a collective protest from his staff and mass defections of subscribers?
I understand that it's tough to write a story naming names - "Our owner, Jeff Bezos, forbade the publication of the Harris endorsement and told the publisher, Will Lewis, to take the blame," - but that's apparently what happened. And the Post is withholding that information, along with any investigation of what Bezos's motives are. One lie is leading to another - and we are apparently go to have to take their word for it that it won't go any further.
I still subscribe to the Post, at least until election day, but then I'm going to rethink that subscription.
I did cancel my WaPo, although entirely symbolic because my annual subscription was renewed two weeks ago. I have a year to reconsider, and will do so only when the Murdoch guy is let go. I do not use Amazon, so I have no impact there. You can survive without Amazon.
JVL, I never write anything here… but thanks so much 🤓
WaPo motto: “Democracy Dies in the Dark”. That click we heard was Bezos turning off the lights.
Soon-Shiong's instructions to his staff are absurd. Trump proved in his first term that he has no policies that he actually cares about, except destroying those who resist, or merely disagree with, him, and feathering his own nest. It you can't mention Trump's racism, fascism, misogyny, disrespect for the military, ignorance, stupidity, and early dementia, then the case against him is not much, because no one, even Trump, know what his policies will be.
I canceled both my NYT and WaPo subs in the last year. I was not getting value for my dollar. Part of it was editorial policy, part of it was they didn't seem to be doing anything or providing anything that I could not get cheaper or free elsewhere.
Most of my subs have shifted to venues that I find useful or entertaining or both. These are all non-legacy media venues.
WRT the Bulwark, we (we meaning myself and the editorial;/writing team) share certain principles and the writing is usually pretty good. There are also some important differences--and it is those differences and the conversations that those differences spark that makes things interesting.
I am not lookng to be told things I like. I am looking to be told things that are interesting or provide a different perspective (while respecting difference).
The media has always been a partisan affair since the beginning. It invariably represents a particular point-of-view. Sometimes it is that of the owner. Sometimes it is that of a particular group/organization, sometimes it is the view of the people footing the bills.
True neutrality is not possible if people are involved in the process. The search for objectivity is usually a vain one and so one must look at many things to tease out something approaching the truth, recognizing where things comes from and why--the viewpoints being expressed, the bias that (invariably) exists.
It is akin to putting a puzzle together.
I DO hope for and expect some honesty. I can respect the honesty even if that is engaged in something (idea/principle) that I disagree with. Own what you do and say.
Even when I disagree with a choice I can still support a good faith explanation. No one even wants to have that discussion though. They want to give us smoke and mirrors to hide their reasons.
I believe it would be helpful for the Bulwark to make a list of the 🍊🤡 possible cabinet members. Everyone acts like people know who’s around him. I also think Harris should come forward with some of her proposed members. Presidents don’t really make policy. Those cabinets help shape it. Thx for your continued excellence at the Bukwark
The loss of the Post has simply removed one more guardrail of democracy… of the free press and the duty to inform its readers about the facts, truths and reality of what is important in our society.
My outrage and deep sorrow about the WaPo situation are two sides of the same coin. I am just a speck of the consumer base in this new journalism/information hellscape. The only teeny option for civil disobedience and to communicate my concerns on this matter is via my WaPo subscription. The Bulwark and other curated substacks are today's WaPo, NYT, Weekly Standard, etc. I hate that talented voices (established and new) are scattered throughout Substack, YouTube, podcasts and becoming harder to find. My limited time to find and digest information as well as a shrinking budget to pay for information - $100 for Bulwark, $170 for WaPo, $11.99 Spotify, Puck $100, local paper, etc. now means decisions have to be made. My cancelled WaPo subscription runs into next year so that gives me time to calm down. I am sure I will re-evaluate and hopefully re-subscribe at the much lower rate they offer me when the time comes. Glad to know that others are finding their own ways to express their upset and discomfort with the WaPo situation.
JVL I completely agree - I'm not going to cancel my WaPo subscription. I do plan on canceling Amazon Prime - unlike WaPo, Prime actually makes money for Bezos. I wish more people were smart enough to realize that depriving Bezos of WaPo subscription money is not helpful. But I do wonder if enough subscribers cancel WaPo, might it hasten the day when Bezos sells it to someone else? - likely someone equally heinous, like one of the hedge funds that keep buying up and killing local newspapers. Would that be better? I don't know.
My friend cancelled her Amazon Prime and plans to not use Amazon. This comes at some sacrifice since she lives away from a lot of retailers like Costco, but she is, in fact, hitting Bezos where he does make money.
I do take the Atlantic and various publications. I will have to ponder the WaPo as your argument is persuasive. Its the billionaires and the leadership at the post that I have a problem with
Well I did cancel my subscription. I’m so disappointed that the owner of the WP threw aside its long tradition of endorsement of a candidate running for President especially when Trump has said such treasonous remarks. I guess when you’re an Oligarch you’re much easier to manipulate since they are in the game for the “money.”