Schiff: in the eye of the beholder?
Commenter “Ray” asks: “Maybe it’s just me, but does Schiff look like a pathological liar?”
The answers: no, it’s not just you. And yes, he does.
When I look at Schiff, I see the same thing. He looks – shifty. But I wonder whether I’d have the same visceral reaction to him if I didn’t also hear (or more likely, read) the words coming out of his mouth and know that he is lying so often, and about such consequential things, and with such a large audience to influence, and with so little pushback from the MSM.
And I also wonder what my Democratic friends see and hear when they look at him and listen to him. It’s a funny thing, but his name has never come up in the few political discussions I’ve had with friends and/or relatives in the past year or so. Other names have come up:
[T]he evening after the debate I was with two women who are both Democrats. They were discussing the debate, which they’d both watched. I have no idea whether their viewpoints are typical of the Democratic voter, but both agreed that it was a wonderful debate in which all the candidates sounded good and acquitted themselves fabulously.
I didn’t participate in the discussion, but being present for it reminded me once again how large the divide is between liberals and conservatives. I cannot imagine, even if I were still a Democrat, looking at that field and thinking even a single one of them was wonderful, much less all of them. I would be depressed if I were a Democrat. But whatever that difference is between me and those friends is probably a big part of the reason I no longer am a Democrat and haven’t been one for nearly two decades.
I am reluctant to bring up the subject of Schiff with any of these people, and one big reason is that I don’t want to hear them saying how wonderful he is. I’ve already heard a few people sing the praises of Nancy Pelosi, for example, a person who has made my flesh crawl for as long as I’ve known of her, and who gives me the same feeling of being in the presence of pathological lies that in her case are overlaid with a gooey and sanctimonious self-righteousness that adds to their sickening nature. When I’ve heard a friend praise her, I see – almost in the sense of a vision – a yawning gulf the size of the Grand Canyon opening up between us, and I despair that it could ever be bridged even if we were to have a long long conversation on the subject. I’ve had some of these discussions, and they rarely lead to anything other than puzzlement on both sides.
It is especially painful because some of these people are very close to me and I’ve known them nearly half a century or in some cases more. Some of them I can write off as being relatively apolitical, or as being non-analytical in terms of how they tend to see the world. But many seem to keep up with the news (the MSM, to be sure, but the news) and to be logical and intelligent in the way they approach most things. That makes it especially hard to understand the differences between them and me in terms of politics, even though I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand and analyze it. But when I confront it in actual experiential terms – in other words, if I were to hear how much they admire Schiff – that sense of dislocation, disappointment, and even at times despair becomes acute.
[NOTE: And don’t tell me “get new friends.” Much easier said than done. I tend to have more in common – other than politics – with people who turn out to be Democrats. And most of the people I’m talking about are dear friends and relatives, many of them lifelong and very precious to me. I would suffer even more from jettisoning them than from dealing with them and pretty much avoiding political discussions at this point. We’ve had many fruitless such discussions in the past and they are aware of my politics, so I’ve not been keeping it a secret.]
He looks that way – lean and hungry – because he is an marathon runner. Please do not discriminate against those who exercise.
That said, yeah – he does look like a pathological liar.
For me it’s that nervous pop-eyed look he has.
I’m reminded of this advice from a portrait photographer (with examples): Always be squinching!
https://www.fastcompany.com/3022472/always-be-squinching-and-other-tricks-from-a-portrait-photographer-for-taking-flattering-pic
There is something “off” about Schiff. His zealotry seems to guide his actions completely. He is an example of Eric Hoffer’s “True Believer.” His eye on the goal, he lets nothing stand between him and achieving that goal. His prevarications are truths to him because he so desperately needs them to be true.
He has constructed a theory of a vast illicit scheme set in motion by an authoritarian president. This scheme was to extort Ukraine to do opposition research on a possible political rival. He has constructed a scenario where the White House, NSC, DOD, Rudolph Giuliani, and State Department were all coordinating to ensure this scheme was carried out.
He has used selective parts of witness statements, documents, and MSM articles to tell his story. Along the way he has ignored any exculpatory material, and the basic facts that contradict his theory of the case. No skullduggery or shady legal practice is off limits as far as he is concerned. As long as it advances his cause, it’s all good.
He has been shown to be wrong about the Steele Dossier, about FISA Court abuses, and about his “solid evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet, he has not acknowledged those errors or even shown a tiny bit of shame/regret about his egregiously false, partisan pronouncements on those issues.
If I was making a movie about a corrupt lawyer, I couldn’t go wrong by using Schiff as an example.
Neo: “I tend to have more in common – other than politics – with people who turn out to be Democrats.”
Man, I sure relate to this. It’s a double problem for me: politics and religion. And it goes back to the late ‘70s. Like huxley and I think one or two others here I’m an ex-hippie, only I changed a long time ago. Most people who share my interests don’t share my beliefs, and vice-versa. Luckily my wife does, and I’m something of a loner anyway.
Mac:
Yes, that’s a big problem for me. I don’t fit into any group – except bloggers and changers. And I’m not really a loner, although I’ve adapted to being in that position a lot.
J.J.:
The biggest problem is that the Democrats have put him into this influential position despite (or because of?) his lies, and the MSM supports the whole rotten edifice. That gives him a stamp of approval and validity.
“It is especially painful because some of these people are very close to me and I’ve known them nearly half a century or in some cases more.”
The people you’ve known are still there. They are simply in the grip of a mass hysteria/delusion. Like many others, Trump’s election and continued existence (let alone success) is an attack on their sense of self-worth and worldview. You can compare it to something like 9/11, aliens landing on the White House lawn, or an angel showing up on an atheist’s doorstep.
If the thought-leaders your friends look to had behaved like responsible grownup citizens and properly counseled them on how to deal with such an epic shock, they might have recovered the bearings by now. But that’s not what happened. Instead your friends were force fed an endless stream of overreactions, exaggerations, lies, and fantasies both paranoid and monomaniacal.
Unfortunately, it seems like it’s going to take another epic shock to shatter this deranged zeitgeist. Whether that is Trump’s re-election or what horror eventually follows him is hard to predict.
Mike
When I look at Adam Schiff am I the only person who thinks Andy Kaufman, aka Latka Gravas? I found most of his roles a little on the creepy side.
Not just Schiff, and like Neo, Pelosi strikes me as really bizzare, and then add Nadler to the mix! I just can’t understand how any normal person would not be totally repelled by such people, let alone vote for them.
Then there’s Warren laughing at an Iowan who worked two jobs so his daughter could graduate from college debt free. He asked if he could get his money back from her student loan cancellation. OF course she said no. He was so put off by her attitude that he disgustedly walked away. WTF is up with these Dems? Is it their God complex?
I’ve already heard a few people sing the praises of Nancy Pelosi,
If you don’t mind an unsolicited opinion: this is a piece of information you have about your friends to go with all the other pieces of information. Pelosi is who they admire. Now, you have to ask what they’re admiring (or what they think they see).
Nancy Pelosi is a lapsed schoolteacher with a husband and five children. That’s the agreeable part.
Her husband has a net worth in eight digits. I’ve seen some suggestions that their careers were synergistic (and the same in re Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum), but do not know the angles there. Both Pelosi and Blum are real estate developers, and political connections are a tool in your box in that trade. NB, in each case, it’s his business. (Richard Blum was already wealthy from his business when he married Feinstein).
She is where she is because she crossed paths with Phillip and Sala Burton. You could say she had some background having grown up in her father’s house, but note that Thos. D’Alesandro had eight children and only two got into electoral politics (and one of those two held p/t offices for five years and f/t offices for just four, returning to private law practice at the age of 42). For ten years she was their protege, and when Sala Burton fell ill with terminal cancer, it was her protege she anointed as her successor. Nancy Pelosi has fought one (1) competitive election since she made the Democratic Party her vocation 40-odd years ago. What she’s had to do to keep her seat in deep blue San Francisco is not antagonize potential challengers and keep the local Democrats on her side with favors. If she were an episodic independent thinker (as Dianne Feinstein has been) or had to make executive decisions (as Feinstein once did and has Jane Byrne did), she might have pissed enough people off to provoke a challenge.
Now, look at her legislative record. Absolutely soporific and all devoted to accommodating someone in Frisco with a bee in their bonnet about something. She’s not educated, her accomplishments outside politics are all in the realm of family life (where she did better than most of her brothers), she’s not a leader in the sense Feinstein is, and she’s not a policy wonk. However, she’s fairly adept at politicking in the Democratic caucus. That’s her skill set.
She doesn’t need the pension. In any case, she was vested for a satisfactory pension a dozen years ago. She is 16 years past the median retirement age. She is bar one the oldest person ever to occupy the Speaker’s chair. She’s due in a matter of weeks to break the record set by Sam Rayburn, who died in office at age 79. (Rayburn was a childless bachelor). What do you figure makes her tick? And why do figure it’s that your friends admire?
I can appreciate Melania Trump. I can admire Carly Fiorina (keeping in mind, though, that Clayton Cramer actually worked for her and had no use for her). I can admire the younger Dianne Feinstein. I can admire Meg Whitman. I can admire Eydie Gorme and Dinah Shore. I can admire Grace Hopper. I can admire Barbara Rosenkranz (Austrian politician and mother of ten). I can admire Margaret Thatcher. I might admire Elizabeth Anscombe if I knew philosophy from tiddlywinks. You’re not admiring the same thing in each of them, of course. Pelosi? I don’t get it (beyond the five kids)….
I’m beginning to think that the Russian interference in our elections had something to do with injecting a Russia-dominating virus into the brains of Schiff, Hillary, and other Dems who can’t talk about anything else. Schiff is even now talking about a Russian invasion. These are not normal brains.
Schiff is a lawyer. If he’s ever worked for a private firm, it was for a period of time of less than three years. He’s been on public payrolls with scant interruption since 1985. He’s the exemplary Democratic elected official.
What being a Democrat has done to people has approached “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” level. It’s really frightening to see how many hitherto-normal people are now in the grip of a hysterical mass delusion. And they are so *determined* to believe that Trump is evil incarnate. During Obama’s presidency, if someone could have offered me convincing evidence that, no, he was a good person doing good things for the country, I would have been hugely relieved. I would have *welcomed* the idea. With Trump-haters, it’s just the opposite.
What you say reminds me of a person I knew for very many years. We were quite close at one time. Cathy was a very nice, fun, easygoing sort. She was leftist in a vague way, and thought Democrats were the good “for the people” party, and Republicans just for “the rich,” but she wasn’t political at all. I’m not sure she even watched the news or read the papers.
During George II’s presidency something…happened to her. She suddenly was obsessed with leftist politics, climate change, and hatred of Bush and everyone who supported him. She became this perpetually angry person who could talk about nothing but her loathing for Republicans. It was like she became a completely different person. When she learned that I voted for Bush and, in fact, was now a strong Republican, she sent me a furious e-mail saying she never wanted to have any contact with me again. There was no way she could be friends with someone who had *those* opinions. So, that was that.
A while ago, a friend of mine who still talks to her occasionally told me that the last time they were on the phone, she (Cathy) suddenly–out of nowhere–went on a nearly-incoherent tirade about how evil Trump was, and how they have to use the emoluments clause to throw him out of office, and that she was now supporting a campaign to deny liquor licenses to all the Trump hotels so they would go out of business…and on and on and on.
My friend was stunned. She told me, “Cathy used to seem so intelligent, and now everything she said didn’t even make any sense. It was like talking to a cultist.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if Cathy has a poster of Adam Schiff on her bedroom wall.
Neo’s comment, “I tend to have more in common – other than politics – with people who turn out to be Democrats” is fascinating. She may have stumbled upon a truism that merits (but how?) further exploration.
I am almost immediately comfortable in new acquaintanceships that turn out later to have conservatism in common.
However, perhaps she simply is at home where she is at home, me likewise; cultures and politics in our two states differ, and regional culture is likely primary.
I can see I’m not alone in looking across at the D side of things & wondering just what alien force has seized these folks…I wouldn’t trust one of them to look after my dog for a weekend.
Schiff? Nope. Pelosi? No way! Waters? Hirono? AOC? Nadler? Schumer? Hank Johnson? Sheila Jackson-Lee? Pick one of the Presidential candidates at random…Not a chance. Every one a new low…but every one keeps getting re-elected & at least one is going to be going for the POTUS brass ring come November. If you weren’t one to pray, this could send you there.
with so little pushback from the MSM
To steal a line from InstaPundit: If you think of the MSM as democrats with by-lines, you won’t go far wrong.
Cicero:
I think it’s also worth mentioning that, although I get along best socially (if you leave politics out of it) with liberals, and nearly all my relatives are liberals, I think it’s probably of interest that there is one group of conservative with whom I tend to get along best of all: left-to-right changers! If you think about it, they’d be the people with whom I’d have the very most in common.
“I don’t get it.”
Well, maybe not; but it would be hard to deny that she has the support of spiritually-inclined decapitators pretty much sewn up (which probably goes a long way to explaining her popularity in CA and like-minded locales):
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/readers-respond/bs-ed-rr-nancy-pelosi-catholic-education-letter-20191024-3joq7h3cknb7dn5e4yibd34my4-story.html
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/423482-pelosis-daughter-my-mom-will-cut-your-head-off-and-you-wont
DB:
I have long thought Schiff reminded me of Andy Kaufman. I don’t think I’ve ever written about that on this blog, but I’ve said it in real life to a number of people.
Whether or not one dislikes Schiff’s bug eyes, the fact that he blatantly lied for three years before the Mueller Report was published should make him a pariah.
If you cannot talk to them, and come away with any real understanding of the grounds and justifications upon which they base their political views, or even come to an understanding of their moral “tastes”, then what hope has anyone else, not as close, of reasoning with them?
Apart from, that is, finally saying, “Get your goddamned face out of mine, and your hands out of my pocket or I’ll kill you” … if that can be counted as contributing to some kind of calculus that can then be called reasoning.
Given all of the effort put into answering that question that has been expended by you and others here, I’d have to say that reading this blog has been one of the more enlightening, if grimly sobering, events in my entire “on-line” experience.
Perhaps your past posts on autonomy, and the antipathy some have toward it, or at least toward others possessing it, may justify another of my visits.
It is clear that progressives will declare what it is that you must believe and command what they say you must do; and I have read and dealt with plenty of those pronouncements in my life.
But as far as ever really getting to the “reasoning” they have employed, more than say one utilitarian “because” layer or assumption down, I’ve never seen it. Not in any way that parallels the way that conservatives or libertarians attempt to, and within reasonable limits succeed in, deducing general moral principles from teleological observations.
But then, with those whose morality is based on dreams, emotional fulfillment, uncritical desires, and a view of reality which reduces human existence at a fundamental level to a will to power or appetite exercise, there may be no possibility of extracting that kind of an answer to someone who in the final reduction just “wants because they want” … full stop.
One recurring difference I have noticed in discussing (and this relates to the autonomy question) the moral limits to politically justified coercion, centers on the question which progressives have more than once asked me. It concerns the morally incontinent and life incompetent. Not those who are maimed or wounded, orphaned or innocent victims of violence; but the malevolent who are victims of their own redounding malevolence and the like. Thus the difference between those who Shaw mocked as the “deserving poor” on the one hand, and the run of the mill obnoxious, drunks, drug addicts, child molesters, slatterns, cheats, con men and frauds of various kinds, on the other.
The question put to me more than once has been: “What are you going to do about them, when they fall into need?” And my answer is: ” F88k ’em. I don’t intend to do anything about them other than to keep them at arms’ length and from causing trouble to innocent others.”
Those who ask me this cannot seem to process it. And I, cannot process why they cannot.
And so our conversions usually end there.
I have long thought Schiff reminded me of Andy Kaufman. I
Sorry, I’m not seeing Adam Schiff here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wRoyA8qj94
Socialism has now become a “Leisure class belief”, like prior expensive elite clothes, to show one is better than the common person.
https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/
It’s important to find out more about what is driving so many mostly nice, college educated folk, to hate Trump — even more than they hated Bush, and maybe even more than they WILL hate Pence or other 2024 Rep nominees.
How to even talk to them about politics. I’m very interested in Neo’s actual experiences, both attempts to talk with her close friends who hate Trump, and their responses.
“Trump is Hitler”. “Trump is creepy” (at least this one’s sort of true). “Trump is a racist”. The Trump haters know that Trump IS BAD, so always agree with others that he’s bad.
And they compete with each on how bad he is.
But how to make them more sane? TDS Dems winning the House was NOT a good sign. Trump winning re-election will be good, necessary, but it’s not sufficient.
It’s not at all clear what would be sufficient.
In the meantime, the Christian Democrats in Slovakia are expecting about 6% of the vote, they are the party most like Christian-oriented Republicans. Again some 8-10 parties will have representation in the 150 one chamber Parliament, and the largest party, the (very corrupt but) popular Social Democrats, is claiming the “opposition” can’t agree with each other. Which has some truth to it. Winning politics means compromises, many strong willed characters reject such compromises.
Trump-haters seem to reject any compromises with Trump, or even giving him any credit.
It’s possible to get a new “friendly acquaintance”, and spend enough time with that person so they become a friend — but they’ll never be a friend from college. I preferred to not argue rather than be in deep disagreement, during my limited physical time with real-time friends.
DNW – you have no heart.
The socialists – have no brains.
(Neo has both! I’m trying to, too.)
Art Deco:
Pelosi net worth is probably 9 digits. In her 2015 mandated wealth disclosure, she and her husband estimated their personal net worth to be between $43 million and $202 million.
Please give them 9 digits! And rising!
The threshold to 8 digits is not very high today; it’s only $10 mill, after all.
Look how Harry Reid did: became a multimillionaire on a career of public service.
Nancy and her savvy businessman husband together have vigorously outpaced him. The difference between a beach buggy and a NASCAR.
A man who lived in Germany during the Nazi and pre-Nazi eras had some interesting observation about people who have previously shown little interest in politics but change and become political obsessives:
“It often happens nowdays…that young technicians, engineers, and so forth, who have enjoyed an excellent university training as specialists, will completely devote themselves to their calling for ten or fifteen years and without looking either to the right or to the left will try only to be first-rate specialists. But then, in their middle or late thirties, something they have never felt before awakens in them, something that was never really brought to their attention in their education–something that we would call a suppressed metaphysical desire. Then they rashly seize upon any sort of ideas and activities, anything that is fashionable at the moment and seems to them important for the welfare of individuals–whether it be anti-alcoholism, agricultural reform, eugenics, or the occult sciences. The former first-rate specialist changes into a kind of prophet, into an enthusiast, perhaps even into a fanatic and monomaniac. Thus arises the type of man who wants to reform the world.’
@ Tom Grey
That’s a pretty good article, and recapitulates some important points we all more or less know; but, in a comprehensive and sociologically integrated way.
It may help to explain [ as they are insulated from the effects of their conceits or indulgences, which consequently (usually) cost them nothing personally] why among those pathologically driven status seekers, little issues such as economic liberty or the indifferent application of the law mean so little to them in practical terms. They don’t believe that the rules of the material universe which they manage to deflect for a time, ever will really catch up to them, if they can just keep bathing in self-regard, the support of cronies, and the imagined approbation of everyone else.
And no matter how wealthy or insulated they are, it, this drive or neediness does – and often enough to be regularly amusing – kill off some of the more prominent and frantic practitioners in spectacularly humiliating ways.
One would think disillusion with this game might ensue upon seeing idiot family members ski downhill into fatal encounter with a tree; dying of a drug O.D.; driving a wife to suicide; or, in a bit of hubristic vainglory, crashing a private plane into the sea and killing themselves, their wife and their sister-in-law. Yeah you would think it might give them pause to reconsider … but apparently not; their “need” is to great.
And for the type at the lower end of the order, the idea that they are not admired, apparently causes them to become poisoned by their own production of cortisol.
That is what the right to own, control, and dispose of property was supposed to immunize mankind against. That is what Americans were once famous for … that immunity. But for some there is this “tribal” need.
And as concerns that type of mentality more broadly , we see this quote, which echoes Marx’s idea of human needs:
At what point will they be satisfied? Never.
When viewed from the perspective of the values of the American founding, this attitude is pathological, as I mentioned.
But somehow, this craving, always insecure, morally labile, termite-like peasant appetite class, is NEVER satisfied, no matter how objectively secure or comfortable, financially independent or even dominant, they are.
It’s a puzzle in itself, the etiology, that is.
But as a phenomenon per se, it explains to some degree the appeal to both ends of an economic spectrum of Bill Clinton’s puzzling declaration that “I feel your pain”.
How did the ancestors of these shitty-types ever screw up the courage and independence of mind to cross the great wide ocean in little wooden boats in the first place?
And if, they once had it, what then became of it in their heirs?
I have some friends and relations who fit neo’s description. One woman I went to high school with unfriended me because I said that a woman whose primary concern is that somebody said something negative about yoga pants was pretty lucky.
“You don’t know what it’s like to be told what to wear all the time.”
True. But, then, have you not had worse things happen to you? Apparently not that she recalls.
I know folks who cannot possibly believe what they want others to believe. One keeps posting left wing reproaches of various folks–Trump supporters, white conservatives, etc. Always condemning masses of people she never iwill meet. When I say, for example, that Michael Brown didn’t have his nands up, crying don’t shoot, she complains she’s too emotionally fragile to hear it. She can dish it out but she can’t take it.
Nick Sandmann really was hassling Phillips.
They can’t possibly believe this, but they want others to think they do. I have no idea….
Neo, you need to come up with some quips to *slay* these friends.
Why should you have to endure the stress & rising levels of cortisol? It s very bad for your health. Can cause increase in BP, acidic stomach secretions, increased heart rate.
So when they get all gushy over Schiff (impossible for me to imagine THAT) say, “Please I ‘m eating you re gonna make me vomit” ” What s going on with that guy’s eyes? I ve never seen anything like it!”
When they brag on Pelosi say “did you know she has been around since JFK? She needs to retire & let somebody new become a multimillionaire in politics instead of grabbing all the cash for herself!” “Pretty unfair behavior if you ask me! ”
It will be a very positive health behavior for you, Neo.
Back around 2007-2008 on Big Lizards Blog, the usual conservative hate-fest of Pelosi was in full blower, but I will always remember one post by Dafydd, where he pointed out that the people who voted for and liked Pelosi simply did not see her as being the rabid partisan that we did. She literally made a different impression on them.
You can say the same thing about left and right views of Obama and (in reverse) Trump.
We are not only watching different movie screens (Scott Adams), we are watching different actors.
Yes, me too:
DB-“When I look at Adam Schiff am I the only person who thinks Andy Kaufman, aka Latka Gravas? I found most of his roles a little on the creepy side.”
Kaufman was a lot on the creepy side a little excerpt below and this kind of fits Schiff too, I don’t exactly know why but it does, I remember the way Kaufman hearted women.
https://groovyhistory.com/andy-kaufman-the-lady-wrestler ( In the late 1970s, Andy Kaufman issued a challenge to any woman who wanted to try her luck in a wrestling match with him. Not a full-blown wrestling match, but a mere 3 minutes. He declared that he would bow to any woman that could beat him. To egg on the female population, he poked fun at women’s liberation and issued a statement that women were “meant to be in the kitchen… washing the potatoes, scrubbing the carrots, raising the babies”.
That challenge was more than enough for women express their outrage and come forward to accept his invitation. The challenge promised that any woman who could pin Kaufman would walk away with $500.00… cold, hard cash. Women were coming out of the woodwork to take him on! It was somewhat of a carnival mentality. Just like a train wreck, it was unpleasant and disgusting, but people couldn’t look away. It was quite the spectacle, physical comedy without the comedy — unlike anything people had ever heard of.)
Those creepy shifty, Schiff Eyes were probably made for entertainment and not politics and I just read his Wiki Bio, Stanford BA, Harvard Law, he punched all the right tickets and represents his goofy Californians to the best of his ability and I am sure that in their eyes he is fantastic. It is probably best to not underestimate him, this is all a performance and he might be thinking about running for president in few years since now we know being goofy looking sometimes works.
Neo:
I’ve said this before, so I know how you feel. On this issue, we disagree, but so what?
Even so, I’ll say it again: get new friends. Those people aren’t really your friends. You’re hiding who you are from them. A solitary life is better. If you’re afraid of that, then open yourself up to people whom you’d otherwise ignore. In my experience, this is a worthwhile change.
Change? It’s a hard thing to do. Sounds familiar, somehow.
Cornflour:
But you’re ignoring what I’ve said.
First of all, I’m not hiding from them. Did you notice the last sentence in the post? “We’ve had many fruitless such discussions in the past and they are aware of my politics, so I’ve not been keeping it a secret.”
So it is incorrect when you say “You’re hiding who you are from them.” Where do you get that idea? I explicitly said I wasn’t, because in the past, people have sometimes incorrectly assumed that I am. Not having constant conversations about a contentious topic, when you know it’s not going to lead anywhere except conflict and a stalemate, is not “hiding yourself.”
In addition, I can’t get new relatives. These are people I love, some of whom are the closest and most meaningful people to me in the world. I think it’s truly bizarre to tell a person to dump their loved ones because of politics.
Thirdly, the same for friends. Why would you say these are not “real” friends? For starters, they are almost all my friends, some of whom have been friends for essentially all my adult life (or even longer). Many have stood by me, and I them, in difficult emotional times. We mean a great deal to each other. So this idea that they are not “real” friends because we disagree on politics, even profoundly, is very bizarre to me as well. Does one have to march in lockstep on every detail in order to retain a lifelong friend as a friend? That seems a really bad idea, really bad, that leads to sorrow and pain and just about nothing else.
Fourth, one can make new friends and keep the old. It’s not mutually exclusive. But as I think I made clear in my post, when I meet conservatives in real life – for example, at a political meeting – we tend to have little in common except our politics, and even then we don’t agree on every single point. Political agreement and nothing else in not a basis for friendship. I’m not closed to new people; I’m just reporting what happens when I spend much time with them. I don’t “otherwise ignore” them. And I certainly don’t hate them. We just don’t click as friends, that’s all. Not everyone is going to be your friend, and not every type of person is a good fit for friendship.
You also write “A solitary life is better.” Than what? Than avoiding political discussions with good friends, and with your loved ones? Excuse me, but that seems like a very strange thing to assert. For those who are not hermits and don’t want to be, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Art Deco on January 23, 2020 at 4:08 pm said:
I’ve already heard a few people sing the praises of Nancy Pelosi,
If you don’t mind an unsolicited opinion: this is a piece of information you have about your friends to go with all the other pieces of information. Pelosi is who they admire. Now, you have to ask what they’re admiring (or what they think they see).
* * *
For the Democrats in general (and her own district), they see that she (1) supports the party line; (2) delivers earmarks; (3) stokes the ego of hard-line feminists; (4) delivers legislative wins even if she doesn’t author them;
(5) bounced back after losing the majority.
That’s not a bad track record IF you happen to support the same policies and ideology she does.
“Nevertheless, she perseveres.”
Undine on January 23, 2020 at 4:39 pm said:
What being a Democrat has done to people has approached “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” level. …
What you say reminds me of a person I knew for very many years. We were quite close at one time. Cathy was a very nice, fun, easygoing sort. She was leftist in a vague way, and thought Democrats were the good “for the people” party, and Republicans just for “the rich,” but she wasn’t political at all. I’m not sure she even watched the news or read the papers.
During George II’s presidency something…happened to her.
* * *
That movie frightened the Froot Loops out of me when I was a kid.
As for your friend, perhaps the thing that happened was that she began watching the news and reading the papers.
Low information, low passion.
Lousy information, high passion.
David Foster on January 23, 2020 at 7:31 pm said:
A man who lived in Germany during the Nazi and pre-Nazi eras had some interesting observation about people who have previously shown little interest in politics but change and become political obsessives:
* * *
That’s … scary.
Back to the topic:
Q: Just how shifty is Mr. Schiff?
A: Very.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/21/house-democrats-use-unlawful-phone-records-to-argue-need-for-more-documents/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/21/fact-check-adam-schiff-lied-to-the-senate-about-trumps-past-concern-with-ukraine-corruption/
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/01/22/adam-schiff-cites-washington-post-editorial-against-trump-in-senate-trial/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/22/tim-scott-impeachment-trial/
Couple more headlines for Schiff & the Impeachement Party
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/23/fact-check-adam-schiff-lied-about-tim-morrisons-testimony-about-ukraine-call/
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/01/23/book-bombshell-start-up-linked-to-hunter-biden-bagged-3-million-from-government-program-run-by-biden-adviser/
https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/01/23/pollak-house-democrats-accidentally-make-case-for-calling-joe-hunter-biden-as-witnesses-in-senate-trial/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/23/joni-ernst-several-democrat-house-impeachment-managers-voted-against-lethal-aid-for-ukraine/
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/23/adam-schiff-remove-trump-because-he-didnt-follow-talking-points/
David Foster,
That is exactly what I see here in Germany. Most scientists are primarily interested in their science. They vaguely follow the news via Der Spiegel and TV but never really analyze, much less stand up against the Greens or activists. They believe vaguely in AGW, but only start to fight back as they get older and don’t want to be grouped with pro-nuclear arguments or climate deniers. In the same way, they backed Obama because they thought he would help end racism in the US, but they had no idea about his community organizer career.
I am afraid I always found Andy Kaufman to be very creepy.
Two supercut video links for your amusement, both of leftist talkinghead loons on cnn and msnbc praising Schiff to the heavens. He’s their dreamboat.
Tom Elliot twitter (1:43): Adam Schiff is god (or, We’re all insane)
and
Washington Free Beacon (1:01): No, really! A god! (and yes, we’re all insane)
“It often happens nowdays…that young technicians, engineers, and so forth, who have enjoyed an excellent university training as specialists, will completely devote themselves to their calling for ten or fifteen years and without looking either to the right or to the left will try only to be first-rate specialists. But then, in their middle or late thirties, something they have never felt before awakens in them, something that was never really brought to their attention in their education–something that we would call a suppressed metaphysical desire. Then they rashly seize upon any sort of ideas and activities, anything that is fashionable at the moment and seems to them important for the welfare of individuals–whether it be anti-alcoholism, agricultural reform, eugenics, or the occult sciences. The former first-rate specialist changes into a kind of prophet, into an enthusiast, perhaps even into a fanatic and monomaniac. Thus arises the type of man who wants to reform the world.”
What an interesting observation. I do think this is what happened to my former friend. Cathy is a “trust fund baby.” Her rich dad left her a big enough stock portfolio to live in luxury the rest of her life. She’s never had a real job. She was a “professional graduate student” for many years, then took a few volunteer jobs here and there. She never married, had no kids, and never even had a serious romantic relationship. She’s estranged from all her siblings except one. It has occurred to me that leftist politics have given her the “cause,” the “meaning of life” she never had.
It may not be a coincidence that she became obsessed with politics right after her mother—the one person she was really devoted to—died. Perhaps then her “suppressed metaphysical desire” awakened.