699 Comments

You are such a good writer, Matt Taibbi. AS a total Hillary wonk and asshole Democrat in 2016 (I do have my reasons, climate change is the main one) something fundamental has shattered this year. I'm not sure when it happened, when I left one room and entered another - now I can't unsee it. I don't want Trump again in 2020 but I also don't think the left, as at exists today, what it is, what it represents, should not be allowed to take power either. Censorship, puritanism, fear - that's all on the left. Journalists will not tell the truth about anything now for fear of being fired. I just saw an entire community of linguists -- LINGUISTS! Coming together to target one of them who referred in the past to some skepticism on subjects of race and rape. We've lost our minds. I've been a democrat all of my life but whatever is going on with us - we need brave voices to confront it. Thanks for being one of those.

Expand full comment

If policy issues are not decided the way you like, or personalities get elected whom you find distasteful, you live to fight another day. These things ebb and flow.

But if we lose our civil liberties, they're gone forever, and our future is in clutches of malevolent forces we can never hope to control, at least without massive bloodshed.

You correctly note that "censorship, Puritanism, and fear" are all coming from the left. Respectfully, you need to follow this to the logical conclusion and vote for the lesser evil that leaves you free to fight another day.

Expand full comment

The promotion of "Censorship, Puritanism, and fear" is what is driving me nuts. Even in my workplace this is an issue. It's an international company with many worldwide offices and there is a very small noisy group trying to impose those things on the company as a whole.

We had a big blow up because one office had event services provided by a "problematic company". The issue was raised by someone in a different country who often uses their protected status to shout down more reasonable voices in the company.

The concept of censorship/Puritanism is just foreign to me. In the early 90's music artists fought against this, even so far as winning a Supreme Court case. Then by the late 90's the internet reached the mainstream despite being "anything goes".

Part of why I like Matt is that I don't agree with everything he says, but he provides content that is outside of the now homogeneous views of media. However, there seems to be a rising number of people that want that homogeneity, perhaps because their ideas can only stand up in that structure.

Expand full comment

I can relate to this so much. I was part of the left that defended the piss Christ against NEA defunding. But the fear to have a different opinion or a contrary one - or that thoughts are threats to some sort of utopia - that anyone who is offended by something means that thing is offensive and must be dealt with.

Expand full comment

I’m neutral of piss Christ being funded by tax payer dollars (eh, not a tragedy if it isn’t, but so what if it is?)

What I object to is the idea that Mapplethorp would have been deplatformed and dozed by the mob and then had clients or customers cancel showings or events because he had “problematic”.

I kind of feel like the NEA should serve at the pleasure of the taxpayers in aggregate. But if a gallery wanted to show piss Christ and then the outrage mob mobilized to silence him globally—that is abominable to me. And I feel like that’s were we are headed.

Expand full comment

I was a liberal in the 90s because I saw the religious right as the major threat to civil liberties. Now the left is the major threat. I will vote accordingly.

It's a two-party system. If A has become dangerous to liberty, you need to vote for B to stop it. Anything else is a cop out.

Expand full comment

I was a liberal in the 80s, turned conservative in the 90s and early 2000s, now I'm just all over the map. But as a general rule I'm always going to vote against the folks advocating censorship, NewSpeak (I resent the effort to redefine words in order to piggy-back on our previous emotional understanding and experience of them as much as anything), political violence.

What turned me conservative in the 90s started with encountering a non-trivial number of leftists in college who were big on redefining words so nothing could mean anything, silencing speech they disagreed with, opposed the teaching of any kind of history that wasn't through a lens of western and patriarchal oppression etc. I had considered myself a liberal, the idea being the free speech and free expression was sacrosanct, not an obstacle.

Having seen this new side of "liberalism", over the next few years I changed my mind and embraced conservatism and the Republicans and in the past decade have regretted that. And I still don't care for the career politicians in either party for the most part--but will voting only for politicians with a reasonably clear support for free speech, free expression, equality under the law (not regarding church attendance and progressive protesters differently, for example) and a respect for the democratic, rather than hyper-emotional revolutionary, process.

Expand full comment

The religious right continues to be a threat. Sex Ed in many schools now is abstinence-only, despite a sky high rate of teen pregnancies. The teaching focuses on slut-shaming GIRLS, primarily. More than 26 states have made #BDS ILLEGAL!! There are several lawsuits against them for this reason. Our 1st A rights are being trampled on....and, in regard to #BDS, it is coming from the right, primarily...the Israel Lobby, specifically! #USSLiberty!

Expand full comment

I agree with that but I was just making the more general point that the left used to stand up for freedom of expression. Now, everything is being filtered through the offense lens. Does it reflect the utopian ideal or doesn't it? Shocking how easily people have gone along with this.

Expand full comment

I tend to think of it as the people who stood up for freedom of expression were also mostly the people who were liberals. One of the biggest problems that used (as regards our tendency to identarianism and identifying with large ideological groups) as we—as humans—see patterns in the randomness. There is little inherent in left or right that dictates they would also embrace or eschew freedom of speech or be repelled by censorship. Which is why I think you are right—align with those who embrace specific ideals not a particular ideological label. And always be suspicious of those claiming the moral high ground, left or right—they are almost always coming for your rights!

Expand full comment

What is piss Christ????

Expand full comment

“Piss Christ” was an art project that stirred national debate over what is and is not art and further led to major $$ cuts st the NEA. I was way younger - hated the work (not a Maplethorpe fan to start) but i believed giving an artist public funds does not give the government control of the art.

Expand full comment

Maplethorpe did not create “Piss Christ”. The artist was a man named “Serra” or “Serrano” or something like that. The controversy over Maplethorpe’s photos was a different one, as was the dung-filled painting of the Madonna. All had NEA implications, though.

Expand full comment

Art??? In the way Jackson Pollock is considered art. So really lame but some douchee rich people think it is something so it gets talked about.

Expand full comment

You're not wrong :)

When you look at the level of execution of Renaissance painters, it far exceeds most of today's art. Not to say there aren't things to like about some of today's art. There are also hyper-realist painters and sculptors who'd blow your mind. The competition not only with other artists, but with technology makes this a pretty hard gig. Of course, anyone who can get a wealthy patron will be sitting pretty, so yeah, money talks.

Expand full comment

Photographer Andres Serrano did the Piss Christ. He was big on a lot of controversy, though I'd say not nearly as good in technical talent. Maplethorpe's controversial stuff was related to gay/naked portraits and one self portrait with a bullwhip in his ass. However, the vast bulk of his work was mainstream acceptable and with superior skill (I was a fan in art school). I remember one of the NEA controversials was Karen Finley, a performance artist who stuck a yam up her bum as an allegory to rape. Of course, any politician would have a field day with chopping up the NEA after that.

Expand full comment

Interested to know thoughts of an art student on the work of those artists? Im a clean slate not sure where i stand. As i said if the govt is going to use tax $ to fund the endowment i lean toward this doesnt come w the right to control what constitutes art. should they have a say? Should/do artists have to submit proposals to apply for $?

Expand full comment

This is how fascism takes root and grows into "labor camps" and pogroms.

Germany didn't start off gassing Jews... they sort of grew into it after being divided and driven by fear and self-righteousness.

To them it was all a "new" way of governing and for the first few years, (before Poland was invaded,) people rejoiced to be looked after by such a far-reaching and "effective" new system of national socialism.

You mention this to even Jews that can't see past the NYT propaganda and get blank stares.

Yup. History doesn't repeat exactly but it sure does rhyme.

Expand full comment

"If policy issues are not decided the way you like, or personalities get elected whom you find distasteful, you live to fight another day. These things ebb and flow.

But if we lose our civil liberties, they're gone forever, and our future is in clutches of malevolent forces we can never hope to control, at least without massive bloodshed."

^^^^^THIS

That's where we are as a country. The lunatics are willing to let it all hang out at this very moment. It's not going to get better for those of us who are timid, not willing to step out of our comfort zones. You know what they call those kind of folks? Casualties

The bloodshed is here, just not on a huge scale--but it's coming. Don't put your head in the sand

Expand full comment

I will definitely be voting.

Expand full comment

I’m writing in Tulsi Gabbard because I know my state will go Trump so my votes are protest votes about our options.

That being said, I want to see Trump win—because I’m seeing that as a bellwether for how generally the new love of censorship, deplatforming, circumventing democratic process, hostility to reform, and complete abandonment of even the simplest of journalistic principles by the vast majority of the media ... is going over. My sense is if it doesn’t matter that much to most Americans, we get Biden. If it’s as important to them as it is to me, we get Trump, even though he is as awful as an avatar for democratic norms and honest and open dialogue. There is no ideal outcome that I can see, so I hope for what I imagine will be the best indicator. And if it doesn’t happen that way—I Hope I’m wrong and we embrace honest journalism, facts, and democratic reform once again.

But I’m not holding my breath!

Expand full comment

I am voting Tulsi, too.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jul 15, 2020
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Agreed, alas. Still, of all the choices, that they picked Biden is fascinating. I thought Trump was a poor choice. Apparently neither party can pick the reasoned (or just kind-of-normal candidate). Not that I miss the Mitt Romneys or John Kerrys that much.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Pavan. I agree. She should have run under the Green Party. What US Americans get is what they want. We could have Jill Stein as president. We could have Tulsi Gabbard, but the Duopoly will never permit a good president to be in the White House. Our country us run by the Pentagon, big corporations, big pharma, the bankers, but especially the MIC. God forbid we ever have a peacemaker.

Expand full comment

you're not alone. There are many on the left waking up to this...

Expand full comment

Sasha, I empathize with everything you wrote. I think a lot of Democrats are having an identity crisis right now. What broke me was when violent riots were described by the media as "mostly peaceful protests" -- an Orwellian lie -- and vandals demolishing public property (a felony) were described as benign "protesters" apparently engaged in public service. I had never considered voting for Trump or any Republican until now.

Expand full comment

Sasha, let's try and change both parties by changing the people we elect. Both parties have few good people. The Founders could not have foreseen how despicable politicians would become.

Expand full comment

I disagree sir. They had the forsight to invent the electoral college, so I think they knew politicians were POS back then

Expand full comment

You are probably right...after all as Cicero noted....politicians are not born they are excreted....

Expand full comment

There are two aspects of these protesting "vandals". First, is rage against continuous racist oppression as seen in the murder of Black people by police; second, is the very real occurrence of false-flag attacks by agent provocateurs. The latter is very real, which I know from personal experience during the 60s. COINTELPRO has not gone away.

Expand full comment

The simple truth that you are now seeing is that the Left has always been a totalitarian movement, but it just takes time for them to acquire sufficient power over the instutitions of a society so that they can feel comfortable "taking off the mask". The Left haven't "lost their minds" and there is nothing unusual "going on with [them]" --- they are following the exact same program of totalitarian socialist advancement that they have been for your whole life being a Democrat. They are now simply further advanced into their program of totalitarian control than they were previously. That is the next thing you have to see if you want to understand what is going on.

Expand full comment

Yes, I've slowly come to this realization. I remember debating your exact point 25 years ago, with my best friend's 'rabidly right-wing' brother - I thought he was an outrageous fascist. Oh dear. I see things very differently now.

Expand full comment

Pendulum shift!

Expand full comment

The truth sets us free. Doesn’t it?

Expand full comment

They've already successfully taken over almost every aspect of life here in America. Infiltrating our education system--Check. Infiltrating our Government--Check.

Question is...what are we willing to do about it. Elections aren't enough

Expand full comment

And privatizing everything which is a right wing wet dream form way back.

Expand full comment

I have tried lately to see other points of view, since I grew up being taught to hate all conservatives, for instance, just on principle. That has gotten much worse in the past decade. Now that I have broken out of that I have understood more why there are opposing viewpoints. I don't want to belong to any tribe that tells me how or what to think or believe. So I've tried to figure out - what matters and what doesn't. What is worth fighting for and what isn't. I know what I'm seeing now is something I think is dangerous - a kind of puritanical mass hysteria of the Salem kind. I grew up in the 80s under Reagan and I didn't much like that either. I have a fairly bleak world view overall and especially of humans. I care about the natural world, the Great Barrier Reef, the plight of honeybees, large mammals. But if we're headed for a great mass extinction is there any stopping it? I don't know. Honestly, I just feel lost.

Expand full comment

That is interesting. You say that you "grew up being taught to hate all conservatives, for instance, just on principle". Think more about what that implies about the philosophy and general mentality of those who were teaching you. Ask yourself, is it *normal* healthy behaviour to teach a child/adolescent to reflexively hate this (quite innocuous) group of people? What type of person would operate that way? What does it say about their approach to personal thought, freedom of conscience, and power?

Re the Reagan era: The Soviet dissident Yuri Bezmenov defected to Canada in the 1970s, and during the Reagan era he was frequently interviewed about the process by which communists subvert and destroy the norms of freedom in the West. You can watch videos of his lectures on YouTube. He explained all of what is happening right now about forty years in advance, and noted that it is an inevitable result of a couple of generations of Leftist control of the universities. (The only thing he got wrong is how long the process takes; he underestimated the time it would take for the Left to get to this point by about a generation.) So for at least forty years, we have had a clear explanation of the present process, straight from a defector with intimate knowledge of this form of social subversion.

Expand full comment

THANK YOU! I direct EVERYONE i know to these YouTube videos and ive been hoping that Matt would comment since he is an expert on Soviet politics. Its chilling that the timeline outlined by Bezmenov has so far aligned with what has been happening in this country. Even though most people are prob unaware of the strategy and its origins many sense we are reaching a critical mass and it will be too late to recover. This would contribute to the increase in firearms sales. At the end of the day whats left to do? I try not to get hysterical about it but everyday brings with it another level of insanity that leads directly down the path he describes

Expand full comment

I hope you realize there's no more Soviet Union and KGB and the horror of living in that atmosphere, which was an aberration of communism because leadership all over the USSR was ignorant and appalling. That's all gone. Russia is a capitalist/democracy/ socialist country. I was recently there and it's a far more pleasant place to live than our insane country. I have been in thirty-some countries and the most strife-free, and completely non racist is Cuba.

Expand full comment

First off - when did u travel to Cuba? Since they eased visa restrictions im sure. I would try to educate you about Cuba but anyone who thinks the KGB no longer exists is living in a mindset i would like to have. So long as Putin is president, which will be until he dies - at this moment they are trying to change any ‘law’ for term limit. President for life = king or dictator which does not equal any of the above.

My fathers family FLED Cuba because of the cruelty, death and terror inflicted on ANYONE who disagreed or even blinked at the thought of dissent. and Raoul has made sure it is sanitized. Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world.how far were you outside of Havana? Im sorry but you will find that ANY Cubans who became AMERICANS still become enraged at the mention of the name Castro. Family members who did not get out were “disappeared” or cut off from the ability to make a living OR to access most of the country’s GREAT BENEFITS.

Expand full comment

Also if you have visited 30 countries and think Cuba is best, you haven't been to Australia?

Expand full comment

People can be leftist (or embrace many leftist or at least center-left ideals) without also embracing totalitarianism. Just as being Christian conservative doesn’t mean that person embraces theocracy.

I don’t have a lot of interest in the debate as to if the left is always totalitarian or the right is always fascist, somehow. It’s the wrong focus. Rather, is totalitarianism ever a good idea? No. Is fascism ever a good idea? No.

There are elements of the dominant ideological culture (the left, in America, for most of my life) that are always going to be totalitarian and fascist but not always in charge. And not always deep within all of the country’s institutions. The power-brokers of the left and right have always wanted complete control of the press in order to shape narrative—now, one side actually had it. And it is awful to behold.

In any case, I’ll take a strong Blue Dog Democrat with sincerely held convictions over the vast majority of politicians—of both parties—whose only concern is their own political fiefdoms.

Expand full comment

So has the right so you never had a choice. The left/right distraction is the new religion. The conservative movement was started to preserve feudalism and it has succeeded.

Expand full comment

Your logic about 'the left' is specious, incoherent, unsupported, and silly. The very heart of the left comes out of the enlightenment in an unalloyed belief in the Individual: the Individual as Fundamental to civilization. Greed/power-head players of the political game, right or left, have always corrupted the clear, simple, achievable concept of the lefts' Individual-- the average person elevated to a personal sovereignty allowing honesty and the means with which to think. These ideas on the left are alive and well. You beer can William F. Buckley's make me tired.

Expand full comment

Your description of "the Left" bears no resemblance to any self-described leftist movement of the past two centuries. The Left have driven collectivist movements from outright socialism and communism, to the modern incarnations of identity-politics, etc. You appear to be living in a universe where "left" is some pure Planotic conception unsullied by the activities and practices of actual leftist movements. (Adding pathetic insults on top of this adds nothing but demonstrating that you substitute name-calling for analysis; and posting these juvenile insults without your full name makes you a coward.)

Expand full comment

My name is albert richard lewis. You are not coherent. this is not an ad hominem attack on you. you are not coherent in either comment. you are a sad shadow of crypto-fascist types personified by William F. Buckley--without all that baggage of reasoned argument and making an actual point. But you express that point of view in sloppy generalities. Your profoundish generalizations are unsupported, fatuous. ALL political programmes--left, right, whatever-- have failed and have ended in tyranny. Why reserve pointing out failures of the left? Learn from this, and don't waste time on another snappy reply. Read up on anarchy, for instance. Much anarchy holds that no one--individual, state, church has the right to impose any decision on any individual. that is an outrageous demand of the left--in service of individuals. Anarchist insist that the burden of proof always is on the powerful as basic. Enough. The End

Expand full comment

"This is not ad hominem", followed by a stream of juvenile taunts ("crypto-fascist", "sad", "shallow"). If you are going to spew your bile on the internet, at least learn to capitalise proper nouns and the first letter of each sentence. This is grade-school stuff.

Expand full comment

You speak for many. Old Dem here who wants nothing to do with the Cultural Revolution. I know Berkeley professors who foresee the dunce cap for faculty whose commitment to social justice is judged wuestionable.

Expand full comment

I'm an Independent. What's left of the sane Democrats, and I'm really not sure what that is because all leadership has failed the maibstream US during this crisis, panders to the radical part of its base. Center Democrats get dismissive form letters about social justice, and the warriors are going to push Old Joe around, using him as a stalking horse. He's given little sign otherwise. And who will be his vice president? Daily the so-called mainstream Democrats are getting on the guillotine wagon. The Republicans, interested in deregulation and lowering taxes for the rich, appear to have been mass anesthetized. Do they give a damn?I wish someone normal would run as a third party, but that won't happen.

Expand full comment

Oh wait! Cheer up - Kanye is entering the race! Because we cant have one election without a SNL skit. If he actually runs How does it effect the votes? On another note - is it now acceptable to have a First Lady with a silicone ass and a sex tape on the internet? Wow.

Expand full comment

And the point is. . .btw, I hit the 'like' button by mistake.

Expand full comment

Excellent point. Trump is ratings-driven. Dems are donation-driven. So ... PANDER in full “can you top this?” Mode.

Expand full comment

How do "ratings" diverge from democracy. Both are the will of the people. The only issue with immediate reaction is one's knee get jerked a lot. But not to worry, government is incapable of reacting quickly enough to respond to "polling" or ratings.

Expand full comment

Sasha, the non-Trump, “non-left in its current form” alternative is a certain independent senator from Vermont. A man with whom I only probably share 10% of beliefs but who is honest. A man so consistent it gives one headaches see him saying the same things today he said 30 years ago. That alternative was destroyed. The smear campaigns sponsored by American corporate machinery were ruthless and echoed by Twitter and the axis NYT/WAPO. But to your point, I find it alarming that we have appointed Jack Dorsey and other billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg the arbiters of truth.

Expand full comment

Bloomberg put it best when he said only in America could the socialist candidate for president have 3 houses and a jet.

Expand full comment

Indeed. Only in America would the revolution be sponsored, coordinated, and fueled from corporate headquarters and “mind-blowingly” privileged billionaires. The guys strangling the workers are now the revolutionaries and the unemployed, strangled class at the bottom is providing boots on the ground to loot and destroy small businesses.

Expand full comment

The French Revolution comes to mind?

Expand full comment

Because socialists have to be poor, right ?

Expand full comment

I know this is way too late but I just subscribed today and I'm scrolling back through time. And this was a fantastic comment to a fantastic article, it's exactly where I find myself. I have been screaming against all things Trump for the last four years and want nothing more than for him to lose. But boy the Democrats are working hard to push me in his direction (won't happen). It's so nice to see that not everyone in my country has gone insane.

Expand full comment

An increasingly valid argument for voting FOR Trump, I hate to admit, is that a Biden win will immediately turn the government over to the deep state. The Russiagate hoax will be buried and the Epstein/Maxwell case forgotten.

Expand full comment

What the left is telling you is that this will continue as long as Trump is the president. They want you to believe that it will all end if Biden is elected. I am not sure that is true though.

Expand full comment

A Biden victory will turn the entire executive branch over to the deep state. This may be the only reason to consider voting for Trump. Well, actually, he can also be credited for not starting any new wars, and for trying to negotiate with the Taliban and pull at least some troops out of Afghanistan-- until Congress shot him down, and NYT printed a bogus story about bounties to kill Americans.

Expand full comment

Then we can turn it all over to ISISrael and Saudi Arabia.

Expand full comment

I guess your really wanting the reparations train, total choas, and AOC, to be in charge of the government. Because if you vote anything else but Trump, that's what's likely to happen. Personally, I'd like to see the people who brought about the whole Russia-Gate story pay...because that was a BS lie progagted on the country.

Are you cool with the administration who gave us that, coming right back into office?

Expand full comment

You mean would I be cool with Obama coming back after this last four years of catastrophe? yes please!

Expand full comment

Why would going back be better after all that has been shown to be a lie and blatantly criminal behavior? You think this country elected Trump to go back to business as usual? We already tried that, and it didn't do any good for anyone but the super wealthy.

I'm curious to know what exactly you think is a catastrophe with Trump? No new wars and putting an end to the free trade while the rest of the world slaps tariffs on our exports sounds like a pretty sweet deal. You think this country wants to get rid of our borders and let anyone come and go as they please? How is that even a country anymore?

I would be willing to bet that you could be dishonest and confused enough to mistake all the noise and chaos that the media and the Dems are causing in their attempts to destabilize Trump for actual bad behavior or blame on his part. Take away all the media smears and constant pearl clutching, along with the insane attempts to lie and cheat to overthrow a POTUS and undo an election, and all you are left with is a very boring and uneventful presidency that has accomplished many of its promises, and actually got stuff done despite it all.

You might actually have a legitimate grievance on some or all of his policies, but given the language you choose to use, I seriously doubt it. The only catastrophe is for the deep state Dems and free trade oligarchs who want to sell out this country. If you're one of them, then too bad if it's catastrophic. You ain't seen nothing yet. It's just going to get worse the more you gnash and snarl like an insane cornered animal.

Expand full comment

You call Obama's presidency 'blatantly criminal", and me dishonest, confused and "gnashing and snarling like an insane cornered animal" because I used the word catastrophe? A bit over the top, even for a Trump supporter. Obama rescued the country from complete collapse, took a first stab at fixing our broken health system, strengthened our image abroad and narrowed the budget deficit when the economy recovered. And he did that without anything like the arrests and scandals of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Trump pretends he stopped immigration by building his imaginary wall, pretends he created this economic miracle when all he did was inherit a great economy, pretends he saved us from the coronavirus when we are of course the cautionary tale of what not to do for the rest of the world, and pretends he's restored our place in the world when the rest of the world looks at us with a mixture of horror and pity. The only good thing I can say about Trump is that he's lazy and spend almost all his time watching Fox, tweeting nasty insults and insane conspiracy theories, and golfing. Because he's incredibly stupid and a genuinely terrible human. If he were also diligent he could really wreak havoc on the country.

Look, I'm an Obama Democrat who is increasingly concerned with the direction the party is going in. I would love to have a viable Republican option. Bush wasn't my cup of tea but I'd take him in a heartbeat over Trump, and I'd probably vote for Romney or any number of other Republicans. But the stink of Trump is strong and until that is swept from the stables I'm stuck looking for the least worst Democratic option.

Expand full comment

Calling the most uneventful first three years of a presidency since Carter a catastrophe betrays not only your blind partisan hatred, but your colossal stupidity as well. Trying to blame Trump for something everyone is struggling with only shows that even if there were one death you would be screaming bloody murder.

Your Obama fan fiction rewrite of history leaves out so many key things and completely falls flat when it comes to getting wrong the few things you were able to scribble out.

Obama didn't save anything from collapse, the economy recovered and stabilized automatically due to the myriad of safety net programs and shock absorbers we have baked into the system and haven't been yet dismantled by the neolib Dems. And not even attempting to hold a single banker accountable for the massive and pervasive fraud that they perpetrated on the entire world just ensures that it will happen again when the helicopter QE cash from the Fed stops shocking the markets back to life like an insane defibrillator.

Obamacare was simply a big fat stimulus and bailout for the insurance industry, so anything less than universal single payer is exactly what we always had and always will have without it: a complete waste of money and a huge scam to fatten the insurance company dividends.

Strengthening our image abroad doesn't mean letting every country in the world dump all of their exports for free here while slapping our imports with fat tariffs to protect themselves. The only image that was improved was our reputation as rich suckers who paid twice as much for half the product.

Your foolish insistence on proclaiming how great he was with the deficits completely misses the point. Deficits and the debt only serve to scam the rest of us into believing that the USA is broke and can't afford to pay for anything better than Obamacare or actual welfare and minimum wage programs. But somehow we are able to always find an extra couple trillion to throw at the pentagon or Wall St whenever they want. Obama perpetuated the lie and the scam that the USA is like a household or business that has to go out and earn or borrow money. It doesn't. It is the only one who can issue US dollars, and the only function that taxes serve is to make everyone hold and use US dollars to settle the tax bill because that's the only thing the IRS will take. Taxes only give the dollar its necessity and value. The only real constraint on the generation of US dollars is how much productive capacity the economy has and can handle. He deliberately chose to let Main St. starve and go homeless while Wall St. got bonuses and bailouts. And taking our couple of wars he started with and then turning them into 7 while completely obliterating Libya and letting ISIS run riot over Iraq and Syria couldn't be any better for the pentagon, but worse for the world and especially the ME. So our standing was crap, and no amount of charm and eloquence by our dapper Obama was going to fix that.

And to actually point to all the fabricated and concocted scandals born of all the media and Dem lies and crimes of Russiagate as some sort of proof of his being a bad POTUS just proves my point. The only catastrophe and scandal is how an outgoing administration can make Nixon and Watergate look like a cub scout rally by sending the FBI and IC to spy on the opponent's campaign and then use that as a pretext to cripple the administration and attempt to bring it down with a bogus witch hunt. Pointing to the scandals and fiascoes that were a direct result of Obama and the Dems' lies and crimes doesn't prove Trump is a catastrophe, it proves that my point that the Dems and media have been after Trump since before he was even elected, and he never stood a chance. But they still failed to take him down, and he still managed to keep a great economy and stock market. Only the complete lockdown of the country was able to ruin it, and there was never any question of what road the Dem mayors and governors were going to take, was there? Never mind the fact that we caused for more damage with the shutdowns than we could ever fear to pay in actual lives lost, that good economy had to go so Trump could be defeated in November.

Spreading vicious lies and staging a phony coup to take down the POTUS is one thing, but to put the Dem goals of ruining Trump's economy ahead of our welfare as a country really sealed the deal. The Dems aren't just a political problem, they are a clear and present danger and nothing less than a domestic enemy. And with the double whammy of riots and pissing all over our history and spitting in the faces of every American telling them how evil they are, the question then becomes: why would we want to vote for a bunch of crooks like the Dems who not only threw our economy under the bus to take down Trump, they tell us how evil we all are and how much they are going to wreck what we spent centuries trying to build. No sale.

Expand full comment

I see your point. But how the administration has handled the Coronavirus pandemic=Catastrophe. Even the establishment dems would have done better.

Expand full comment

IDK. Many establishment dem governors have done so well that states such as NY literally killed tens of thousands of nursing home patients by sending COVID patients there. It has nothing to do with the president or the legislature.

Expand full comment

Given the fact that absolutely no one handled the virus better, that is an absurd claim to make. The only ones that can be said to have reacted better are the Swedes, who avoided most of the self inflicted economic damage and societal disruption while still having lower per capita deaths than Belgium, Spain, Italy, and the UK.

Speculating about the woulda coulda shoulda is quite stupid, and effortlessly easy to do. Maybe you should try speculating how things would have turned out if Kennedy didn't get shot, or if Armstrong's lunar lander crashed and burned. That might actually be interesting, and it would be just as based in reality as your establishment speculation.

Expand full comment

You mean the same Obama (for whom i voted) who also circumvented the Constitution, And LOVED govt takeover of: communications, all modes of transportation from highways to ports to airports, all power/electrical gas etc, public storage, all health education and welfare systems, designating Postal svc to operate a national registration of ALL Persons, relocation and establishment of new locations of populations raising pay for judges - very handy strategy to buy the judiciary (more than 2 of these orders). In essence authorization of complete govt control of ALL sectors. And if you think the The new left wont take advantage of these think again.

Expand full comment

Wow, I never knew he took over all the businesses in the country and relocated all of us. Thanks for the info, I'm convinced!

Expand full comment

PLEASE READ (why do we have to tell people now to READ). READ Obama executive orders. I didnt say he did those things - i SAID he signed the EOs into effect which leaves the door open for others to do those things. WTF is wrong with people who cant stand facts, dont read and then run their mouths with ridiculous replies. READ READ READ

Expand full comment

It is very depressing - I keep thinking how many more months of this can we take? And how much worse is it going to get?

Expand full comment

If the cultural revolution and evergreen is anything to go by, worse.

Expand full comment

I know this is way too late but I just subscribed today and I'm scrolling back through time. And this was a fantastic comment to a fantastic article, it's exactly where I find myself. I have been screaming against all things Trump for the last four years and want nothing more than for him to lose. But boy the Democrats are working hard to push me in his direction (won't happen). It's so nice to see that not everyone in my country has gone insane.

Expand full comment

Agree

Expand full comment

Not all is lost yet! To all frustrated with the state of affairs on the left and on the right, please consider joining the plan put forth by the Bret Weinstein of the Evergreen fame at https://www.articlesofunity.com/ More can be found on his Dark Horse podcast on YT

Expand full comment

Amen.

Expand full comment

Appreciate your honesty. I get that inability to unsee the bullshit.

Expand full comment

I totally agree with what you're saying and I studied linguistics/hate Stephen Pinker!

Expand full comment

The "left" is more "right" than moderate Republicans we all hated were in the 80s and early 90s.

Giant corporate banks have been dancing on the backs of the poor more than usual in the last 20 years and it shows: a lack of decent paying jobs, GDP tied directly to profiteering money-shuffling and outsourcing even TECH jobs is killing us slowly while the elected shits all dance to the fiddles being played on Wall St.

I voted for Obama twice... without being aware that they were gutting the country's manufacturing worse then NAFTA.

As much as I hate Trump, the ONE thing I can stomach is his stance toward the CCP. They're ruthless thugs with deep pockets full of dirty money and they've built their entire global empire on slavery.

Expand full comment

When Candidate Obama visited Nt Rushmore in 2008, CNN called the monument majestic.

When Michelle visited Mt Rushmore in 2013 she called it a great sight, and CNN reported her statement objectively.

When Candidate Bernie Sanders visited Mt Rushmore in 2016, CNN again called the monument majestic.

When Trump visited Mt Rushmore yesterday, it had become, according to the CNN reporter, “a monument to two slaveholders, built on stolen Indian land.”

See how things work?

Expand full comment

These distortions and the agenda behind them are more dangerous than ten Trumps and Trump is a bum.

Expand full comment

I've been warning people that what comes after Trump, if the ruling class isn't a bit more honest, won't be pretty. Whether it's this leftist monster that Taibbi writes so eloquently about, or a right wing response reminiscent of centuries passed, I fear I wasn't wrong.

Expand full comment

It is the Democrat-Republican dance. The both blow bullshit constantly (Culture war, so-called scandals, etc etc etc), never dealing with the job of finding real solutions to problems that matter to we , the people. Fuck em all.

Expand full comment

Here, here.

Expand full comment

You ain't wrong...but really we can agree MR is both things: a majestic monument to American imperialism.

Expand full comment

$$$$$. The owners of the legacy media know they have to fall in line or they'll be replaced by online news.

Expand full comment

Bout time, though. A monster act of vandalism. Stone Mountain, too.

Expand full comment

I disagree-

Expand full comment

I was so hopeing Trump had set a trap for stat line jumpin ANTIFA....instead he got the only US ckitizens due reparation s...fresh from the pipe line wars

Expand full comment

The last honest man in America. Thanks for taking the gloves off Matt.

I’m a man of the left whose never really got any goose bumps when they raised the flag or played the anthem, but I’ve found myself defending America to many wealthy white liberal friends who are dripping in the spoils of the American Dream. If I’m the most patriotic person in my circle, we are in deep shit.

My white guilted friends will defend any crime or lie in the name of racial justice. Just don’t ask them to do anything except cheer on the madness and confess their white privilege.

Whatever short term political benefit that might come from letting the radicalized left run roughshod over the ideals, however aspirational, of America, will be more than negated by the grave harm being done to the nation’s history and free speech. To say nothing of the backlash soon to come from the half of America and the police being demonized as racists on every organ of the mainstream press. This backlash will make the Trump era seem like lovely walk through ignorant bliss.

Tucker Carlson is the number one watched show and earned the highest rating ever for a news host last month. And the only corporations that will advertise on his show are My Pillow and some silly office chair spine healers. That should tell you everything you need to know about the disconnect between elites and the masses scared shitless watching this cultural riot insisting everything is up for grabs.

Thanks Matt for using your platform to call bullshit on this madness. You are a national treasure.

Expand full comment

It’s a dialectic capture or a dialectic hammer. Call it whatever you like.

Carlson is one of the people that discusses the issues afflicting the working class (although he does so from the aesthetic to the right). This is why he has such high viewership and such poor corporate sponsorships.

The elites need the left and right to stay the way that it is. Mitt Romney isn’t marching with BLM or supporting Biden because he cares about black people or working people: he needs to support the status quo.

Here Is an example of how the dialectic hammer work:

1) Education. Do we have a capitalist system? No. Do we have a socialist system? No.

The left comes in and says every single person in this country irrespective of ability, interest, income or societal need should be able to go to whatever university they want and major in whatever subject, irrespective of cost. The federal government guarantees the loans and universities can charge whatever they want irrespective of whether the borrower can eventually pay the money back. The “not for profit” universities can pay tenured boomer professors and administrators six and seven figures with obscene perks and transfer the cost to the student, who in turn transfers it to the public. If the student can’t pay it back, the public eats the cost. This is why education is the fastest rising item in the US today. Side note: the costs and defaults are spectacular, but we don’t have an honest picture because of programs like income based repayment that allow borrowers who otherwise can’t pay back their loans to pay a percentage of income as the balance of the loan grows.

If you aren’t down with this arrangement, your favorite very well compensated leftist administrator or tenured professor will summon his or her arsenal of identity politics fire power to let you know that there’s absolutely no way we can interfere with this instanity because a member of [fill in the blank protected group] wouldn’t go to Harvard medical school but for this program (never mind the legions of people attending no name universities staffed by ivy grads that are paying for degrees that will cripple them).

Now for the right. The right doesn’t focus on the fact that the universities are robbing the public coffers blind, oh no, there’s no care for fiscal responsibility here.

The right is just there to make sure the kids remain in permanent debt peonage and hammer the point “personal responsibility” over and over and over, never mind the fiscal catastrophe of writing blank checks to institutions governed by self interested actor. Trump’s Secretary of Education is notorious for this: just making sure borrowers can get out of the debt (even using legal means such as public service forgiveness programs).

The dialectic hammer at work. In this instance, the beneficiaries are leftists (professors and administrators), but for the con to work you need the tag team of the worst aspects of the left and right to bring you FASCISM.

There are people on both sides of the spectrum that can solve this problem by giving you real, solid and honest reforms, both on the right and left. For example, David Yang has a total command of this issue on the left and Carlson understands it from the right, but there’s no chance of either having any real power to do anything.

Expand full comment

Great commentary overall. If I can add one insight: We push people to go to college with a narrative of long term financial incentive, and we offer many of them short term incentives to do so. (e.g. do you want to live with your parents for the next four years or come to college on a loan?) But at some point you push past the group that benefits from a college education and are giving people who would be best served by vocational training (skilled manufacturing, welding, etc) degrees that leave them suited mainly for social activism.

So basically, we're paying for the indoctrination of an entire generation to become social critics of the current system, and now we're surprised when they engage in social criticism and the activism we encouraged them to go learn.

American Madrasas!

Expand full comment

But the military option doesn't indoctrinate people ? LOL !! This is very amusing ! So in essence your brilliant plan is to send all the poor kids into the military and trade school so that the children of the elite can go to the elite schools and continue to exploit the poor by both blood and treasure ? LOL !

That's the very system we have now ! Are you people CIA assets ??

Expand full comment

It's not about rich or poor, it's about the right fit for the individual. Poor people with high IQ should be identified and put into the right course of study at a top school, and final job path. Rich and poor people with average IQ should be given a great career path that fits them. It may be coding, it may be welding, it may be high tech skilled manufacturing. But what we shouldn't do it push a person who can't handle a management job or an information economy job into college for the sake of having "a college degree" that doesn't change what they are best suited for. I'm all for keeping the rich who don't merit the spot from getting a pass into a college.

By the way, it is well known at this point that the actual education of college changes your income by +2-3%. It's primarily the selectivity of top colleges that affects their student's life outcomes, not what they teach them. Reverse that and "going to college" isn't what makes people successful.

Expand full comment

You are mostly righty, but we have dig in deeper.

Peter Thiel makes the excellent point that if the value in a Harvard degree was the actual instruction, then we could pay Harvard massive amounts of money and have their instruction provided online for everyone to consume. The value isn’t the instruction, it’s the selectivity and the network. The education has very little value there or elsewhere. It’s not practical.

The reason poor kids who to Harvard succeed is because the network advances them, sometimes. You get an opportunity to work for the institutions that control the country if you go to Ivy League schools because the rich send their kids there. The rich kid gets to pretend to hes competent because he goes to Harvard by pointing to the fact that poor people that went with the rich kid to Harvard, by and large, also become rich. However, the poor kids will actually have to compete in the real work place and TEACH THEMSELVES the skills required to succeed. If they can’t, they are really screwed, much more so than if they didn’t go to a place like that.

If you exclude the rich kids from the Ivy Leauge, it has no value. Rich kids want self esteem and a network. Poor kids want money and a network. You need both for the fraud to continue.

A real solution is getting back to practical skills, especially for the poor. Imagine if they taught martial arts the way they teach crap at university . Some asshole writing the moves on board, you memorizing the moves and then taking a test regurgitating it, without ever seeing how anything actually works in practice. The analogy would be bar brawl. If a rich kid with such a “martial” education stepped into a bar and a biker with no formal training but 500 street fights attacked the rich kid, the rich kids private security could handle it (and the analog to privy are security in the economy is a trust fund). A poor kid armed with such an education is going to get the shit kicked out of him. If the kid has natural gifts, speed, strength, endurance, etc., then he or she would learn how to fight in ten or so brawls and then be able to defend himself with the practical experience.

A better system is that the poor kid goes to a real Brazilian jiu-jitsu school and learn how to fight outright (military).

Expand full comment

99% agreed! The poor kids who go Ivy don't just get a network, they also have talent. But, beyond the selectivity, as you say the schools' main benefit actually provided is network rather than the education.

Expand full comment

And what about rich people with low IQ ? You know, the ones that go to Ivy league schools right after daddy or grandpa donate a few stolen millions ? Saying this isn't about rich or poor is what makes it funny. We all know about the economic draft set up by the elite into the military that gets poor kids killed and makes West Point grads rich and powerful.

Who do you think will choose which kids go to college and which ones go to trade school ? IQ is a horrible measure of character and especially of emotional intelligence.

You're just creating another hurdle to trip up kids who are at that stage immature to begin with naturally. The brain isn't fully formed until about 25 on average.

Barring kids from college due to some bs and incomplete standard like IQ is just wrong. Education is good for anyone that is willing to learn period. This whole BS social engineering by inbred elitist sociopaths who feel it's their birthright to exploit every aspect of everything having to do with life is what needs to go.

So does this consume for the sake of consumption BS economy that only drives more war and exploitation by the so called elite.

Expand full comment

Right, but without the rich kids the degree is worthless. That’s a contributing factor as to why millions of people can’t find employment. The education at 99 percent of universities is theoretical. Theoretical education is the province of the aristocracy, that’s never going to change.

Barring kids from college that aren’t rich or absolutely brilliant is a fabulous idea.

Americans need to get back to practical skills.

Expand full comment

I think I said "I'm all for keeping the rich who don't merit the spot from getting a pass into a college," but I guess we should check the record.

"Education is good for anyone that is willing to learn period." I don't think taking a differential equations class is good for someone who won't understand differential equations. But we can agree to disagree.

Expand full comment