Matt Taibbi is alarmed at the Democrats’ trampling on liberty, but he doesn’t quite get it
Taibbi’s only halfway to getting it. But it’s the second half of the mountain, the part he hasn’t climbed yet, that’s the steepest and most difficult to traverse.
Here’s Taibbi [emphasis mine]:
One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious, i.e. that Sullivan’s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to say Sullivan’s move could “could create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants.”
Whatever one’s opinion of Flynn, his relations with Turkey, his “Lock her up!” chants, his haircut, or anything, this case was never about much. There’s no longer pretense that prosecution would lead to the unspooling of a massive Trump-Russia conspiracy, as pundits once breathlessly expected. In fact, news that Flynn was cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller inspired many of the “Is this the beginning of the end for Trump?” stories that will someday fill whole chapters of Journalism Fucks Up 101 textbooks…
Warrantless surveillance, multiple illegal leaks of classified information, a false statements charge constructed on the razor’s edge of Miranda, and the use of never-produced, secret counterintelligence evidence in a domestic criminal proceeding – this is the “rule of law” we’re being asked to cheer.
Russiagate cases were often two-level offenses: factually bogus or exaggerated, but also indicative of authoritarian practices. Democrats and Democrat-friendly pundits in the last four years have been consistently unable to register objections on either front…
…I also recognize the [COVID] crisis is also raising serious civil liberties issues, from prisoners trapped in deadly conditions to profound questions about speech and assembly, the limits to surveillance and snitching, etc. If this disease is going to be in our lives for the foreseeable future, that makes it more urgent that we talk about what these rules will be, not less — yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don’t understand why.
Please read the whole thing. Taibbi is struggling with what is known as cognitive dissonance, which is a painful thing in a person who is inclined to want the truth.
I find Taibbi’s dilemma fascinating, and I think I understand it. A mind is a difficult thing to change. When you’ve supported a party your entire life and you’re an idealist who believes it stands for certain things that matter to you, and you see that was only a pretense and in fact a lie and the party stands for the opposite and yet you see friends and colleagues turning them selves into pretzels to defend it, it’s shocking on many levels. To assimilate that knowledge – and not turn away and rationalize, as so many do – is hard enough. Taibbi has accomplished that. But then there’s the effort to understand its deeper meaning, and what it means about your own beliefs and the errors you yourself have made in perceiving what was going on.
I know about that. I’ve been there. It took me only a year or two, but then again I never was previously so deeply into politics. And yet, it was difficult and tremendously disillusioning as well as an exercise in humility, and the social consequences have been hard as well. Taibbi has a lot more visibility and a lot more to lose. I don’t know how far he’ll go with this. But I wish him well.
[NOTE: I had composed the bulk of this post in draft form before I noticed that commenter AesopFan had written:
This is a prime example of how blinders work – Taibbi can see what the Left has done to civil liberties (one of the few on that side of the aisle that does) but still claims he doesn’t understand why.
I wouldn’t call it blinders, exactly, although I suppose it’s a form of blinders. I would call it profound inner turmoil. There’s a lot of information to reject and then a whole other load of information to accept before any sort of “understanding” of such a bitter fact can come.]
These types of articles by progressive writers remind me of that scene from Forrest Gump where Jenny’s loser boyfriend attempts to excuse his physical abuse by blaming ‘this damn war and that bastard Johnson’. James Taranto built a recurring feature out of it in his old Best Of The Web (I miss that) feature.
The current version of that requires some comment about how awful Trump is and all that.
Taibbi is not an idealist. He wants to bang hookers and expose the establishment. He had a particular dislike of standard-issue Anglo-American reporters in Russia during his sojourn there 25 years ago, as he thought they had completely and stupidly misrepresented what was going on there. He also critiqued (on commission at Rolling Stone) the government’s response to the financial crisi – though I don’t think he has the sort of background to do that without filing terribly misconceived mistake-laden stories. (Megan McArdle is the journalist who has the background). I can’t say as I’m an admirer, but I will say that how he and Greenwald have distinguished themselves in this is that nobody owns them. That is unusual in today’s cultural environment.
Well, by the time we “get it”, it wont be worth “getting”.
Knowing more is not knowing (enough).
This is true even less, that we want to do it with incomplete information discarding what we dont want to look at or pay attention to (for whatever reason, as the reason does not make up for the loss – any more than knowing why someone died, brings them back to life)
A sample of what we are up against
(take some time to compare it with what the ladies improved/turned American education into vs the evil old days… and then wonder, how we will survive):
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/jrmWD6WmeSW2/
“When people begin to lean toward and rejoice in the reduced use of military force to resolve conflicts, war will be reborn in another form and in another arena, becoming an instrument of enormous power in the hands of all those who harbor intentions of controlling other countries or regions.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
“As we see it, a single man-made stock-market crash, a single computer virus invasion, or a single rumor or scandal that results in a fluctuation in the enemy country’s exchange rates or exposes the leaders of an enemy country on the Internet, all can be included in the ranks of new-concept weapons.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.” Handmaids Tale
Art Deco:
Banging hookers and idealism about what liberalism stands for are not incompatible. He certainly was way too idealistic about his fellow journalists, despite his own skepticism. He was also too idealistic, I think, about the general propensity of human beings to follow the group’s dictates, and too idealistic about how many people will break from the group.
He is truly puzzled, I think, as a result.
“I wouldn’t call it blinders, exactly, although I suppose it’s a form of blinders. I would call it profound inner turmoil. ”
As above so below: “Follow the money.” He’s not puzzled he’s just afraid that he stands on the cusp of losing a LOT of work and a lot of pay and an entre into the “big advance for your next book that sells 10 copies” book deal.
He knows he’s on the edge of his lucrative writing career getting canceled. He doesn’t understand why that will happen (I been looking for only the truth) but he understands that it will.
LIke the force of gravity.
Matt Taibbi was 22 when Bill Clinton was elected President and 24 when Clinton led the Democrats to their worst political defeat in two generations. The party that rose from those ashes is the one he’s known almost his whole adult life. How can he not understand?
Let’s help Matt out a bit:
Don’t worry. We understand. The Obama administration was actually trying to HELP Trump:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/the-cockamamie-blackmail-theory-of-the-flynn-case/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=most-popular&utm_term=first
That’s right, Matt.
And it’s just another perfect reflection of Obama’s MO. A perfect fit! Here’s how it goes:
– You gotta screw ’em TO HELP ’em.
– You gotta break laws….TO BENEFIT the people.
– You gotta shred that Constitution…FOR THE GOOD of the country.
– You gotta flat out lie and connive and plot and spy and destroy people and institutions and then cover up because, because….how else are we gonna be able to do what’s right for—sorry, TRANSFORM!—America?
Do don’t worry Matt.
It was all done for the best of reasons.
And with the best of intentions.
Oh, and you gotta ally with Iran in the interests of WORLD PEACE.
(How could I have forgotten….)
MBunge:
Clinton seemed quite moderate in those days.
And what’s the Democratic defeat in Congress in the mid-90s got to do with it?
Taibbi’s been going his own way, at least somewhat, for a long time. The events of the last year or so, though, have stunningly revealed the Democrats’ hypocrisy in a way that is even more evident than before, and so he can’t help but notice.
Other Democrats, however, seem to manage to avoid noticing.
Gerard Vanderleun:
I disagree. Taibbi isn’t afraid to march to a different drummer, at least he hasn’t been afraid in the past. I think he truly doesn’t understand.
Would his gig dry up if he connected the dots? Look at the article; he’s already calling the Democratic Party out in very negative terms. How much worse would it get if he “understood” why they’re so hypocritical? I don’t think it would be all that worse, and as a changer he could get jobs on the right.
I think his inability to understand is quite sincere.
I wonder how strong his bubble is? Is there a friend or relative who’s is more conservative and respected by him that could point him out some avenues to explore?
Neo, you seemed to have made the change on your own. That’s a statement to the strength of your character. I doubt many could do such without a bit of guidance.
“Would his gig dry up if he connected the dots? Look at the article; he’s already calling the Democratic Party out in very negative terms.”
I think that he published this screed for free on his Medium page. So right there he’s out of pocket. And he’s been making these baby steps for quite some time. Indeed, he seems to have seen that his paying gig at Rolling Stone was down the drain when he writes:
“From now on, my online writing will be published on Substack. This is my full-time job now.
“I first started writing for Rolling Stone in 2003 and will continue a relationship with my good friends there, contributing print features and also maintaining the Useful Idiots podcast with Katie Halper. I love Rolling Stone and have been proud to represent the magazine over the years. If anyone cares to know, I wasn’t asked to leave.”
But probably knew his contract was not going to be renewed as in “Stand not upon your going but go at once.”
And yes, perhaps he will have the odd blatherfest in RS but that isn’t the same as having a contract with a magazine that pays you x dollars every week.
He does retain a cohost on Useful Idiots but his RS blog is now gone.
And he did publish a recent RS piece on the bailout and may do others. Early innings yet but overall he’s sliding towards the exit.
If his protestations now are “quite sincere” than he deserves to retain his cohosting of “Useful Idiots”
Thank you for posting this link. The comments in Taibbi’s piece led me to this great podcast segment of Greg Greenwald’s. Definitely with the 20 minutes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB26jj0jrjc&t=5041s
I think Taibbi (and Greenwald) have other irons in the fire and have more independence from the income sources on which leftoid journalists draw. Also, and I know this from family members, there’s a bernie-bro constituency that just does not care about whatever hooey the press is promoting. They have their own projects in mind and find it’s all static.
physicsguy:
Or maybe my naivete. I had no idea what the social repercussions would be. At the time, I thought liberals respected differences of opinion. Ha!
Also, it happened when I was socially isolated for other reasons, some of them health-related (I was recovering from surgery for a serious injury, and the recovery took a long time).
But I have always tried to get at the truth of things as best I can. So it might have happened anyway, even if I wasn’t so naive and so isolated at the time.
And Thomas Sowell was my guide. Finding his books was a real turning point for me.
I’d be interested in his “what have I done?” moment.
His reporting has helped motivate and move and influence issues he now finds problematic.
Neo, for all her thinking and wisdom about it, did not cause political and social things to happen before she came over.
This guy MADE things happen, or at least put his shoulder to the wheel in coordination with others of his type.
He and his cohosts and guests still fear Trump winning so I don’t think he’s got it.
” I have always tried to get at the truth of things as best I can.”
Now that is an utterly admirable life goal.
Maybe this will “help” Taibbi?
https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1261447227127599106
Maybe not.
H/T Lee Smith Twitter feed
Can Taibbi be helped? Shall Taibbi be helped? How can Taibbi be helped?
By no agent or agency outside of Taibbi can Taibbi be helped.
MACBETH
Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,
Raze out the written troubles of the brain
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart?
DOCTOR
Therein the patient
Must minister to himself.
Taibbi’s writing and speaking often impress me. He speaks more honestly and sincerely than most Journalists and seems less idealistic than most. I too have thought he may be nearing a conversion, like Tim Poole went through and, I suppose, Gavin McInness*. At times I do get the impression that Taibbi wants to find the truth. I hope Taibbi comes around.
Where I think neo gives Taibbi too much credit is a statement like:
“— yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don’t understand why.”
What serious adult, let alone adult journalist, would let such a phrase flow from his or her pen? If you’ve been doing journalism for more than a week and haven’t already figured out that 90% of everyone is on the take you are a buffoon. There are myriad corruption scandals and scoundrels in the history of both parties; Chicago, Boston, Ohio, Kansas City, Detroit, Miami, D.C. Federal, state, local… Hell, I bet you couldn’t research any schoolboard extant more than three decades that hasn’t had a scandal involving embezzlement, adultery, or both.
Does he really believe a political party cannot be corrupt or corrupted? That has to be one of the most naive things I’ve heard an adult utter. I can get being fooled by a spouse, or a business partner, or even one of your children. But he doesn’t understand “why” a political party might not look out for the best interests of the citizenry?
*Interesting that all three come from ‘zines, rather than traditional publishing. As has been pointed out, Taibbi worked for Rolling Stone which employed both Hunter Thompson and P.J. O’Rourke and I think McInness and Poole both worked for Vice. McInness was one of the three founders, right?
“I thought liberals respected differences of opinion. Ha!”
The liberals back then were utter angels, compared to today’s Lefties, who nowadays lead most liberals around like lapdogs.
Moreover, a fair number of the hot issues back then (e.g., does Saddam have WMDs?) were rather (factually etc.) muddled, compared to today’s starkly clear issues, of national/ gender identity, and of mass home-imprisonment vs. Feeling Safe.
“the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability”, to talk *with any civility* about anything important.
Indeed, when well-known lifelong liberals start saying such things, this strongly suggests, that the Left nowadays is losing virtually all heartfelt public esteem, outside of places where they have towering institutional/ intimidation power.
The price that they’re paying, for their weilding the power to lead most liberals around like lapdogs, is that well-nigh everyone, to the right of such liberals, is becoming ever-more resentful and fearful.
Totalitarian ideologies, either hard or soft, seem to be fearsome edifices, but are quietly vulnerable to a stunning melting.
A slew of Durham busts, + a DJT win in Nov., have the smell of being able to spur such a melting, so that many moderate Dems start rushing to the exits, esp. if some Dersh-types publicly urge such a stampede.
He doesn’t understand because he’s asking the wrong question. He’s wondering why Democrats keep violating their principles and ideals, instead of asking whether they really hold those principles to begin with. It’s possible that he already does understand that for a lot of people in politics (and in the upper echelons of any institution), including many Democrats, the only principle is power. Maybe he gets it and doesn’t want to say it explicitly because he’s afraid of alienating too many readers, because it really is a harsh thing to say, and most people aren’t willing to accept it. Maybe he has an inkling and doesn’t want to admit it to himself yet.
When I say “outside of places where they have towering institutional/ intimidation power”, I mean esp. places like PA, MI, WI, NV, and MN.
In IL, Pritzker’s tyrannical lockdown approach could lead to secession mov’ts, outside of the “Chicago Way” areas.
“Taibbi is struggling with what is known as cognitive dissonance, which is a painful thing in a person who is inclined to want the truth.” – Neo
Thank you – much better than “blinders” – it will be interesting to see where he goes from here.
The comments thread was quite interesting, seems to be a mixed bag of lefties, liberals, and conservatives arguing with each other, but mostly civilly and with seriousness and some erudition.
Barring the one guy who just really doesn’t believe Mueller didn’t find collusion.
Ya, Truth. Fear those who claim they know it – but always search for it.
Not strawman arguments, which Taibbi and most Dems, like The Atlantic QAnon writers, usually write about. But steelman arguments, the strongest for those with opinions you disagree with.
There are 4 kinds of truth, but Dems usually only see 2 of them:
facts that hurt Reps, facts that help Dems.
The other kind of truth:
facts that hurt Dems, facts that help Reps.
Tara Reade is a fact that hurts Biden, and hurts Dems.
Trump’s economy up until March is a fact which helps Reps.
The Rep who did insider trading / before Congressional Intel reports were published, the facts of his trades hurt Reps.
The reason Taibbi “doesn’t understand” is simple. He believed the Dems wanted truth, when what they mostly want is “power to enforce a desired outcome”. Not just any power, but power to “make transgender males into real women“, and ruin the lives of any who disagree.
Dems really do want to end Global Warming, and end pollution, and end poverty, and end racism, and give health care. To all. To the whole world.
Their goals are usually good goals, tho global warming is arguable. However, the peaceful voluntary methods aren’t working, or not fast enough, so they Need Power to fix the problems Faster.
The Dems have morphed into “the ends justify the means”. Which most thinking folk realize is Evil.
One can only see that if their eyes are open to see the truth. I’m pretty sure Taibbi’s cognitive dissonance will last thru this Nov. election and he’ll remain a card-carrying Trump hater. With some good complaints about some of the worst of the Dems.
Tom Grey,
But how can you* be a serious adult and think those things? I understand how a willfully ignorant or willfully naive person can think those things. Or how a narcissist or ideologue or zealot can, but a mature adult who is honestly trying to understand the nature of a political issue?
Let’s look at two things you list; end pollution, end poverty. Pollution; simply rank countries by cleanliness. Poverty; simply rank countries by material comforts held per capita. Both lists will be almost identical; the freer the economy the higher its spot in the rankings, the more government controlled, the lower.
Yet someone claims to REALLY want to end those things and cannot see this simple fact of human nature?
*Sorry, not you, Tom Grey, “you” the Dems you wrote about.
“Clinton seemed quite moderate in those days.
And what’s the Democratic defeat in Congress in the mid-90s got to do with it?“
Taibbi isn’t a moderate, yet the Democrat who was President for most of his 20s was a “moderate” who bombed Serbia, sent people to he tortured through rendition, and forced the entire party to whore itself out to defend his moral turpitude. And the 1994 defeat is important because the Democratic Party that emerged from it was pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, pro-killing anonymous brown people around the world. It was maybe just 10% less those things than the GOP, which eventually led to the rise of virtue-signaling politics to disguise how similar Democrats had become to those bad old Republicans.
Nothing illustrates the change to the Democratic Party than after 8 years of Barack Obama, it was Donald Freakin’ Trump who signed the First Step Act and renegotiated NAFTA while Bill Kristol and other neocons are not just supporting but actually influencing the Democratic establishment.
Mike
“Dems really do want to end Global Warming, and end pollution, and end poverty, and *end* racism….”
END racism?? Bull.
Most of them (esp. the activists) want to end *white* racism.
They’ve not the slightest problem with racism VS. whites, tho they’ll NEVER admit this.
And, the idea that racism could ever “end” is all-but delusional, unless the operative definition of “racism” is oh-so conveniently flexible, or unless they get to erect the Mother of all Orwellian States.
To most normal people, “racism” is, at most, one problem among many many.
To most Dems, “ending racism” (by *whites*) is a huge priority, above almost all others.
See e.g. J. McWhorter, at
http://www.theDailyBeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiRacism-our-flawed-new-Religion .
On cognitive dissonance – some people have even worse cases.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/05/15/wsj-columnist-notes-the-very-obvious-reason-why-the-left-goes-ballistic-over-anything-ag-barr-does-n2568861?utm_campaign=inarticle
And the “commenter” I mentioned could be one of the bunch.
“They’re just as delusional about this as thinking that Joe Biden could become the next president of the United States.”
Let’s not count eggs before hatching, seeing as Dems excel at stuffing ballot boxes.
.
AesopFan, aNanyMouse,
The fact that newscasters were appearing on television talking about Russia “interfering with our election” with serious, dire expressions on their faces was always a complete joke. Whether it was just a few Facebook ads or manchurian candidates inserted into campaigns. The Russians have interfered with every one of our Presidential elections since, at least, 1948, AND WE IN THEIRS! What do people think the CIA (and its predecessor the OSS) exists to do?
Rufus,
Rush Limbaugh played the Obama audio the other day from like Oct. 28, 2016 going on and on about how ridiculous it was that anyone could tamper with a US election. Of course he was right but that was when he thought Hillary was going to win.
Oh, and Matt, like the Obama administration (and all those connected to it), which ONLY DOES what it does for THE GOOD OF HUMANITY, here’s another caring group of individuals—another political entity—that takes decisions based on SUPREMELY ALTRUISTIC motives:
” China confirms US accusations that it destroyed early samples of the novel coronavirus, but says it was done for ‘biosafety reasons’ ”
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-confirms-that-it-destroyed-early-samples-of-new-coronavirus-2020-5
H/T Instapundit
Griffin,
I have heard that Obama snippet.
Can anyone be so naive as to think every major nation doesn’t look at every major foreign election, determine which candidate is more likely to serve their interests, and take some action? Sometimes it’s as simple as an op/ed printed in one of the “local” country’s newspapers, but depending on the election and disparities between the candidates it can become disinformation campaigns on the ground, within the foreign country. Why is China so interested in our film studios?
“Hail Caesar,” a Coen brothers movie, does a good job of lampooning this, vis a vis the Soviet Union.
Neo:
Your post and this comment thread are clear examples of why I’m a longtime-Big Fan of your blog. I was a neocon for several years in the 80’s before a close liberal friend pointed it out accurately to me in one of our spirited jousts. That’s when our godfather Irving Kristol’s definition sank home in my heart:
“..a liberal who has been mugged by reality.”
Yep. That’s us Neo. And, gratefully so!!
Yeah, Rufus, the US is second to none, in “meddling” in other countries’ democratic processes.
Over 3 years ago, Chomsky started hammering away at this very point, referring to episodes like those of Mossadeq and Allende.
But most of today’s Lefties want to forget such things, which used to be standard fare from them.
To understand Taibbi, first try understanding Dershowitz.
Over 3 years ago, Chomsky started hammering away at this very point, referring to episodes like those of Mossadeq and Allende.
Why would you fancy Chomsky was arguing in good faith, ever?
The U.S. Government through various intermediaries helped finance Eduardo Frei’s campaign for president in 1964. Henry Kissinger wanted to do the same for Jorge Alessandri in 1970, but got caught in a bureaucratic tug of war with the Latin American Bureau at the State Department, which favored Radomiro Tomic. Per Kissinger, they ended up passing cash to both campaigns at the Latin American Bureau’s insistence, which proved to be counter-productive. Now how do you fancy communist parties finance their campaigns? Are you going to tell me there was no financial pipeline? Before you say that, pleased be advised that the name of the ‘businessman’ through whom money to the French Communist Party was laundered was a matter of public information back in the day.
As for Mossadeq, he’d prorogued the country’s parliament. His tenure in office was subject to the discretion of the head of state, whom he was jonesing to depose. He deserved bloody well what he got.
that emerged from it was pro-corporatist,
Nonsense term.
pro-globalist,
Nonsense term
pro-killing anonymous brown people around the world.
Juvenile, and, by the way, discretely false, unless you fancy Arabs are ‘brown people’.
Calling things nonsense doesn’t make it so, especially when they are easily understandable concepts like pro-corporatist and pro-globalist. You just make yourself seem stupid. And pretending that the people we’ve been repeatedly bombing and drone-striking for most of the last 20 years don’t largely share a similar hue only exacerbates the impression.
Mike
Calling things nonsense doesn’t make it so, especially when they are easily understandable concepts like pro-corporatist and pro-globalist.
Those aren’t coherent concepts at all. They are rhetorical thrusts.
MikeBunge and ArtDeco:
Islamists come in many shades of melanin, not all are Arabs either. Just sayin. Don’t let me interrupt your squabble. Some people just need killin.
“Those aren’t coherent concepts at all.”
Again, just saying that doesn’t make it so. Corporatist has both a classic definition and a more contemporary understanding that differ slightly but are not radically dissimilar. Globalist is a near-universally understood term. Slapping “pro-” on the front of them hardly renders them incoherent. Or are you just confused about how language works?
“They are rhetorical thrusts.”
Duh. You can fairly describe the bulk of political discourse as “rhetorical thrusts.” So what? Are you just trying to get “meta” because you can’t intellectually or emotionally refute the rhetoric?
Mike
Corporatist has both a classic definition and a more contemporary understanding that differ slightly but are not radically dissimilar.
You’re in a hole. Quit digging.
https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/17/the-left-is-what-it-once-loathed/
VDH — “What is the Left, then? Mostly a Jacobin party that operates ad hoc, without principle, or consistency. “