Daily Archives: January 25, 2020

Wendy Williams allegedly ripped a pretty decent fart on live TV. She was in the middle of talking about political correctness when the accident happened. Williams has been in the news quite a bit over the past few weeks and recently had to publicly apologize to Joaquin Phoenix and individuals with a cleft palate after she said she found the actor to be "oddly attractive" and then talked about the scar over the actor's lip.

During a new segment on her show Friday, Wendy Williams was discussing the Odell Beckham butt-slapping incident, which has also been making headlines. While talking, she seems to take a pause when a totally audible fart can be heard. She then acts as if nothing happened and continues her talk on political correctness. Social media has not been able to get enough of the rather loud fart and the look on Williams' face when she allegedly lets it rip.

Lapel microphones are used on talk shows and The Wendy Williams Show is no different. While it's not confirmed, it is believed that the mic in question is uni-directional, which means it's only supposed to pick up audio from one direction. In this case, just like all talk shows, the goal is to hear the person's voice as loud and clear as possible. For Williams to rip a fart and have it picked up on an uni-directional microphone is quite a feat, which means that it had to have been pretty loud with a decent amount of force behind it.

Farts are pure comedic gold in most circles, so it would have been refreshing to see Wendy Williams have a good laugh while addressing it. Accidents happen and it's not like she defecated in her dress in front of a live studio audience, along with the folks watching and listening at home. Farts happen, it's just natural for the body to relieve some gas from time to time. Maybe she had a bad breakfast burrito or bad creamer in her coffee before the segment. There's a lot of different variables to take into account here.

Some believe that the live television flatulence was karma for Wendy Williams' comments on the cleft palate. Over 63,000 people have signed a petition to get her fired after the 55-year old talk show host pulled her lip up with her finger to mock the condition. Many are not excepting her apology to Joker star Joaquin Phoenix and individuals with a cleft palate. It should be noted that Phoenix's scar is not a cleft palate. Instead it's a scar that he has had since birth. Regardless, Williams is still on the air and surprising her audience with all kinds of audio goodness. You can check out the video of Wendy Williams allegedly ripping a big juicy fart on live TV below, thanks to the Pop Hub Twitter account. The awesome fart in question pops up at the 18-second mark.

More here:

Did Wendy Williams Fart on Live TV While Talking About Political Correctness? - TVweb

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. (WCAX) A controversial author who ignited demonstrations at Middlebury College three years ago is expected to return to campus later this spring.

Dr. Charles Murray has reportedly accepted an invitation by the Middlebury College Republicans to tentatively speak on campus March 31, according to an op-ed by the group in the Middlebury Campus newspaper.

The college confirmed in a written statement Wednesday that the group invited Murray to discuss his upcoming book, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class.

A 2017 speech by Murray prompted demonstrations and a confrontation in which a Middlebury professor was injured. Murray is a social scientist who critics say uses pseudoscience to link intelligence and race.

"We believe that the way the administration and the protesters handled the 2017 event was a stain on Middlebury's reputation and a betrayal of its mission of 'creating a world with a robust and inclusive public sphere,'" said the op-ed. "We believe that this public sphere is integral to the meaning of a liberal arts education and the freedom of academic inquiry."

The 2017 incident garnered national attention over the issues of political correctness on campus and freedom of speech.

The college created new guidelines following the incident that called for evaluating the safety risks and security needs and consider canceling only events that cause imminent and credible threats that cannot be helped by changing the event plan.

The college canceled a lecture by a conservative Polish speaker last April out of safety concerns.

See the rest here:

Controversial author expected to return to Middlebury College - WCAX

"Me and My Tapeworm Isobel" by Marius Enescu.

PHOENIX (PRWEB) January 21, 2020

Many are frustrated with aspects of todays society such as cancel culture and political correctness, arguing that it causes us all to feel as if we walk on eggshells by being careful not to offend anyone. Marius Enescus Me and My Tapeworm Isobel: Extras from the Volume Intellectual Cramps deviates from political correctness in the interest of what the author calls political directness, offering a quick read containing Enescus biting and wickedly humorous satirical views on the world around him.

The book creatively highlights the tiny observations and thoughts Enescu has about life and humanity on a daily basis; he approaches with humor and lightheartedness a wide range of topics such as medicine, our eating and drinking habits, how we present ourselves in public and how the media influences our desires and attention.

Rather than spending his time and thoughts remaining politically correct by todays societal standards, Enescu instead prefers to call his approach to communication political directness. His hope is that the book helps teach the world how to be more sincere with themselves and others without diminishing the complexity and beauty of humanity.

If we can allow one another to be genuine when we speak, we will be able to have more friends, more love and understanding of one another, Enescu says. The difference between friends and enemies will become clearer but then we will learn to respecting our differences instead of hating them.

Enescu receives praise for Me and My Tapeworm Isobel, with one Amazon reviewer lauding the book as a great read and awarding it a five-star rating.

Me and My Tapeworm Isobel: Extras from the Volume Intellectual CrampsBy Marius EnescuISBN: 9781489720603 (softcover); 9781489720597 (hardcover); 9781489720610 (electronic)Available at LifeRich Publishing, Amazon and Barnes & Noble

About the authorBorn in Eastern Communist Europe, Marius Enescu uses his surgical skills in performing blunt incisions within the sometimes-sordid aspects of real everyday life, while humorously opposing them to the unrealistic and fabricated image described by wishful thinking and exaggerated political correctness. To learn more about Enescu and his works, please visit his website.

Contact:LAVIDGE PhoenixKalin Thomas480-648-7540kthomas(at)lavidge(dot)com

Share article on social media or email:

See the original post:

Escape from Overzealous Political Correctness and Appreciate Humanity in Whimsical New Satire Book 'Me and My Tapeworm Isobel' - PR Web

James Melville argues that wokeness is the latest concept to be hijacked by the right-wing to make a stand against equality, democracy and justice.

Right-wingers have cultivated a bogus enemy of political correctness which they have now rebranded as woke. In effect, they are demonising common decency to legitimise bigotry.

So when actor Laurence Fox declared his all-out battle cry against wokeness on BBC Question Time, he was jumping on the bandwagon of an ever-increasing demonisation of political correctness thats been bubbling away for years, along with a mainstream backlash against progressiveness since the 2016 EU Referendum and the US Presidential Election.

Being woke means being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice.

Brexit and Trumpism have become the pegs on which a culture war has been hung in Britain and America. It has become an unedifying battle between a series of tribes ranging from remainers versus brexiters or woke versus gammon or snowflakes versus bigots. This turf war has spread to new frontiers covering climate change, transgender rights, #MeToo, Stormzy criticising Boris Johnson, knife crime, and Harry and Meghan.

The discourse has become toxic and evidence-free at a time when we desperately need more insight, respectfulness and empathy. Shouting down the other side has become more commonplace than the basic courteous art of listening.Repugnant narratives are justified on the basis of freedom of speech and telling it like it is.

It has become incredibly boorish. It is debate thuggery. It has become a culture war.

The term woke has been hijacked by the right-wing and its meaning turned inside out. Instead of meaning being correct, it has been rebranded as constituting a liberal elite political programme of thought control of our political, legal, educational, media and cultural institutions; another expression of political correctness. This new definition implies that a woke person is acting in bad faith by being fake in order to advance an agenda.

Political correctness has become a term that is used by the right-wing to plant the idea that there is a deep divide between ordinary people and the liberal elite who the right-wing claim has sought to control the speech and thoughts of the public. But, in effect, the right-wing is doing the same thing they claim the liberal elite are doing: trying to control public thought and opinion. Their opposition to political correctness is also arguably about providing a smokescreen for their own bigotry.

Tragically, the tactic appears to be working. More in Common, a campaign organisation that works on initiatives to address the underlying drivers of division, and polarisation, to build more united, resilient and inclusive societies, conducted a survey in 2018 in which 80% of the Americans surveyed said that they now viewed political correctness as a problem.

Brexit was the Trojan horse within this anti-PC campaign. It emboldened influential commentators to frame the narrative of a country that had lost control to progressive liberals who were shutting down sovereignty, patriotism and identity because they were subserviently letting foreigners tell us what to do or enabling immigrants to steal our jobs. The treacherous saboteurs of the liberal elite were undermining national identity and taking control away the people and the country.

Efforts by liberals and the left to fight back are portrayed as fake, aggressive and woke.The reluctance by many liberals to take part in this race to the bottom of a culture war of political discourseis embodied by the famous Michelle Obama mantra of when they go low, we go high. But, the answer isnt to avoid playing the game at all, but to play the game better.

So how do liberals and the left win this messaging culture war?

We think of the culture war as a toxic debate in which both sides scream at each other and division widens. Yet, progressives have won on most social issues over the past 20 years in areas such as gender, racial and sexual equality. But, in the case of the US and the UK, progressives have lost political power in the process.

Its now up to progressives to frame the messaging without coming across as condescending or shrill. It is one thing to persuade and another thing to win by debating with patronisingshrillness.Using a sanctimonious cultural superiority argument to silence foes risks deeper division and a further backlash which ends up with the rise of Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Brexit. They may have the power, but its up to the progressives to find the toolkit to dismantle it.

Progressives must however, never ever lose sight of the fact that being politically correct is not an insult. Political correctness gave us the NHS. Political correctness gave us democracy. Political correctness gave women the vote. Political correctness gave us freedom of speech. Political correctness gave us human rights. Its called political correctness because its correct.

Political correctness was always about treating people with dignity and respect, including the weaker and more marginalised members of society. What sort of person are you to find that objectionable?

Being woke means being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice. In mainstream use, woke can also be used more generally to describe someone or something as being with it.

Im with that, who isnt?

Read more:

The Weaponising of 'Woke' - Byline Times

In this season of fires in the southern hemisphere, I am reminded of the one we have burning right here in our country. It has a name, and that name is Donald Trump. And he is systematically burning his way through every moral tenant our nation has held dear. He is, like a wildfire, out of control.

I am also reminded of ways wildfires can be effectively fought. Of course, the most obvious weapon against fire is water. Dousing a fire with enough water will have the desired results. While dousing Donald Trump with water is not an option, we could try to soak him with truth, logic, morality.

Still, my suspicion is that none of that will work. Trump has already shown that he has a very sketchy relationship with morals and truth, so most likely trying to use those against him would have little effect.

Another very effective way to fight fires is to remove whats fueling it. Cutting fire breaks can often limit the damage a fire can cause. With regard to the Trumpster fire, voting him out of office would remove the fuel. Unfortunately that will take many months, and there is no guarantee we will get a fair election this time either.

The perfect way to stop a fire is to deprive it of oxygen. Fire is, simply put, a very rapid oxidation of a material; without oxygen that cant occur.

When it comes to Trump, his oxygen is notoriety. He is a narcissist and as such thrives on being the center of attention. The presidency is the perfect place from his point of view in that every move a president makes, every word a president says is news and thus gets attention.

Add to this Trumps instinctive tactics to garner attention, and you have an out of control narcissist in a very dangerous position of power.

So how do we starve this fire of oxygen?

We can begin by slowing down the amplification of every morally bereft statement or act the man makes. There is nothing to be gained by broadcasting his latest tweet or outrageous statement all over social media. All it does is feed his ego and fan the flames. It also infuriates his cult-like followers, who are never outraged by his behavior, instead finding it the perfectly refreshing antidote to the political correctness they rail against.

For anyone who is seriously opposed to Trump and his politics, the rebroadcasting of his outrageous behaviors only reinforces the already obvious fact that he is morally bankrupt and a danger to the entire world. Frankly, if you dont already know that, no amount of information is going to change your mind. And splashing his latest tantrum across social media only gives him the oxygen he needs to keep going.

Though he might not see your posts or your friendss posts, he does watch polls and trends, and as long as his name is running high in the ratings, good or bad, he is happy.

There is no new information regarding Donald Trump. He is a one trick pony; his tweets and chopper-talk press appearances are all designed to do one thing: focus cameras and microphones on Trump.

So why give him more of what he wants? Its not like he is going to do anything surprising. He will continue to dismantle our freedoms, attack the bedrock morals of society and lie lie a lot.

I could successfully make up tomorrows headlines simply by imagining how low he could go. I would have a high probability of predicting him correctly, and, frankly, so would everyone else.

Its time to starve the Trumpster fire of its oxygen. Stop feeding the flames on social media and start doing something to make sure he is doused in November.

Get out and work for a candidate to defeat him. Start working to make the world a better place. Start living your life openly and freely and without the cloud of Trumps smoke hanging over your head. You will find it a lot easier to breath.

Hardy Haberman is a longtime local LGBT activist and a board member of the Woodhull Freedom Alliance. His blog is atDungeonDiary.blogspot.com

See the original post:

Putting out the Trumpster fire - Dallas Voice

Lauren Groffs review of American Dirt, Jeanine Cumminss new novel about a mother and son fleeing cartel violence in Mexico, is one of the odder articles that The New York Times Book Review has published in recent memory. It is less a work of criticism than a lengthy self-examination, with Groff, who is white, agonizing about whether it is even appropriate for her to review the book:

I was sure I was the wrong person to review this book. I could never speak to the accuracy of the books representation of Mexican culture or the plights of migrants; I have never been Mexican or a migrant. In contemporary literary circles, there is a serious and legitimate sensitivity to people writing about heritages that are not their own because, at its worst, this practice perpetuates the evils of colonization, stealing the stories of oppressed people for the profit of the dominant. I was further sunk into anxiety when I discovered that, although Cummins does have a personal stake in stories of migration, she herself is neither Mexican nor a migrant.

Things took a stranger turn when, shortly after the review was published, the Times tweeted a pull quote: American Dirt is one of the most wrenching books I have read in a few years, with the ferocity and political reach of the best of Theodore Dreisers novels. There was one problem: That sentence did not appear in the review itself. Groff demanded that the Times delete the tweet, which it did. Pamela Paul, the editor of the Book Review, explained that Groff had revised her piece, seemingly at the last minuteand seemingly once she got wind that a backlash was brewing against American Dirt. Groff then quasi-renounced the review: I give up, she tweeted. I wrestled like a beast with this review, the morals of my taking it on, my complicity in the white gaze.

Groffs public turn in a hair shirt raised several questions: Did she change her opinions in deference to political correctness? Why did she agree to the review in the first place, if she was so clearly uncomfortable putting her byline on it? And why didnt Groff or Paul see this disaster coming a mile away?

The answers to these questions begin with the publishers acquisition of American Dirt. Hype for the book began building as soon as it was bought by Flatiron for a seven-figure advance in 2018. A movie deal, involving the producers of The Mule and the writer of Blood Diamond, followed a year later. The book was hailed by John Grisham and Stephen King as a perfect thriller, and in the lead-up to its publication there were profiles of Cummins in the usual newspapers and glossy magazines, heralding the years first blockbuster novel.

Excerpt from:

How Not to Write a Book Review - The New Republic

A great groaning and rolling-of-eyes seized the internet last week as Dave Chapelle announced he was supporting Democratic candidate Andrew Yang in the primaries. I cant say that I was surprised. Many have heard of the Yang Gang, that motley group of Redditors and Channers, gamers, memers, vapers, Bitcoin enthusiasts, and compulsive masturbators that have formed the basis of Yangs campaign online. But in addition to these unwashed masses, Yang has also steadily been attracting an elite, mostly male constituency I like to call eccentric Tories, or to coin a term, New American Tories. When I watched Chapelles latest stand-up special,which premiered in August on Netflix, as he reflected about the joys of gun-ownership and land ownership (he has a farm in Ohio) and ranted about his irritations with young people and the rise of identity politics and cancel culture, I thought to myself, Oh, hes kind of a Tory.

The terms Tories and Toryism are not really part of the modern American political vocabulary, so let me explain a little. The Tory faction emerged in the late 17th century in England as the defender of the monarchy and tradition against the Whig party, which advocated the interests of parliament. Tory is now the colloquial name for the Conservative parties of Canada and Great Britain, the latter of which just won a resounding victory at the polls. But the name refers as much to a disposition as an ideology or specific party. The classic image of the Tory, which holds from the 1700s to today, is that of a fat, self-satisfied landowner, generally complacent but driven to red-faced distemper by anything that would intrude on the enjoyment of his privilege and the comforts of his estate.

Tories are often eccentric and drawn to eccentric figures. The 17th century English poet William Shenstone said they belonged to the fanciful tribe. Look, for example, at the shaggy British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who dreamed as a boy of being world king, attended Eton and Oxford, and seems to have been genetically engineered to stymy political cartoonists by outstripping their best endeavors. And for all their aristocratic pretensions, Tories historically were often parvenus new money as we call it in America anxious to preserve the wealth and status that theyd recently acquired. As Marx acidly remarked, The Tories represent the plebs of the aristocracy.

Yang seems to uniquely attract this kind of person the recently established and self-regarding. His supporters include Tesla founder Elon Musk, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, rapper and actor Donald Glover, who threw an impromptu concert for Yang in December, Weezer lead singer Rivers Cuomo, and actor Nicholas Cage. They all in one way or another belong to a previous age, in which the pretensions of wealth and talent were given more deference. They are men accustomed to having their fanciful notions regarded with awe and respect. In the midst of or approaching middle age, they fear the loss of the world they could understand and master. The 17th century philosopher Spinoza asserted that every individual thing strives to persist in its existence, and these magnates certainly follow that universal law, resenting anything that would dilute or diminish their sense of singularity.

In America, libertarianism used to attract people with this sensibility, but the era of Trump and populism has evidently made libertarians realize that Leave me alone is no longer a viable political position; they have moved on to If I give you some money, will you leave me alone? in the form of the Freedom Dividend, Yangs Universal Basic Income proposal. The New American Tories have adopted the classic Tory answer to social unrest paternalism. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, the great Tory leader of the late 19th century, realized that the problems facing the rapidly industrializing nation had to be dealt with, and that further impoverishment of the lower orders was likely to lead to revolution and so he became the sponsor of initiatives to somewhat relieve the plight of the poor and dampen radical agitation.

Among the cranks and curmudgeons with the most to lose from a changing society, Yang is particularly favored by comedians. Hes received nods from Hannibal Burress (quite literally a landowner concerned about the continued collection of his rent), Norm MacDonald, Ken Jeong, Tommy Chong, and, of course, Dave Chapelle. (Some of Englands greatest satirists and wits, from Jonathan Swift to Samuel Johnson, were Tories.) If, as Clive James said, Humor is just common sense, dancing, then its in the interest of the aging humorist that common sense remain the same, lest they have to learn new dances on less-than-spritely legs. The central premises of Yangs campaign general social liberalism (let people do what they want!), a rejection of identity politics (this political correctness stuff is out of control!), and UBI (just give people $1,000!) all can sound like a comedians bits. Oversimplification, often funny in the way it can simultaneously fuse wisdom and folly, becomes an unfortunate tic of the comic mind when applied to more serious pursuits.

While the British Tory might long for the days of colonial Kenya, Rhodesia, or the British Raj a time in which an English mediocrity was fanned by natives the New American Torys hopes are more modest and democratic, fitting his native country. He longs for a perpetual 1997, when the American empire was at its height, before 9/11 and the war in Iraq. This yearning is perhaps reflected in Yangs foreign policy, which favors a return to Clinton-era multilateralism and international engagement. The New American Tory longs to fall asleep on the couch watching an old episode of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, his dreams untroubled by the importunities of cancel culture. He pines for a time when the racial and social conflicts of America didnt seem so serious and were easily laughed off in a late-night TV monologue. In short, he hopes for a way out of politics and its constant tensions.

There are definitely worse creatures lurking in the margins of American political life than these new Tories, but perhaps fewer with so much self-regard and so little self-awareness, nourishing grievances that look outwardly so petty. Believing themselves to be independent and not part of any class or mass movement, they are unlikely to form a permanent part of a Yang coalition and will gravitate to other candidates on the traditional right and center. They are victims of the mental habits that afflict many eccentric people: undue cynicism directed at others combined with nearly inexhaustible reserves of credulity for their own often-harebrained ideas and notions. The New American Tory is materially secure but feels aggrieved by the lack of proper respect society now affords to his station. Why should he expect others to feel any other way?

Read the original:

Andrew Yang and the New American Tories - The Outline

Does anyone really want to have their flag flown for them by Laurence Fox or Lily Allen? Do Laurence Fox and Lily Allen even want to be flying these flags themselves? Wouldnt they rather be making movies or albums? And is anyone outside of Twitter and the media really whingeing about wokeness, or are they just trying to get on with their lives the best they can, with kindness and decency and good manners? I suspect the latter is true.

Wokeness is not really a new thing. Before wokeness there was political correctness, and before there was political correctness there was politeness. These constructs have come about not as a way to punish the majority, but as a way to protect minorities.

As ever, a few people feel defensive about this narrative, and must make it about themselves. Hence the word privilege has some clutching for their metaphorical (and literal) pearls. How dare anyone presume to tell me I have not struggled!

But for all its inflammatory language, the phrase check your privilege seems to be less about having a go at white people, and more about asking them to uphold the values most of us were taught as kids anyway: to think of others who may not have been given as much; to stand up for people around us who have been unfairly treated; to remember that all humans are born equal but that sadly it is not always the case that all humans are treated equal.

Thanks to social media, it can sometimes seem that everyone is furious, that there is only the Left and the Right waging a war with one another. The casualties of this war are the vast majority of hard-working British people who havent got a spare minute for Twitter or the energy for Question Time; who dont really care at all about the royals, because they have their own family issues to be getting on with; who would love to have the luxury of being able to debate for hours about wokeness and privilege, but have got jobs to do.

Hard-working British people who, above all, value manners and politeness and kindness. Even in this day and age, is that really toomuch to ask for?

Read Bryony Gordon at telegraph.co.uk every Saturday from 9am

Visit link:

'Wokeness' has been weaponised in the war between Left and Right - and it ain't pretty - Telegraph.co.uk

AP Photo/Mary Schwalm

Once upon a time, David Brooks, the New York Times editorial writer, was a relatively mainstream Republican. A cultural conservative, who believed in family values and fiscal conservatism, he proudly carried the mantle of a calm American traditionalism, ever skeptical of the dangers posed by self-righteous liberal reformers. Then Trump came along, trumpeting his gaudy disinterest in old-fashioned honesty and moderation, and Brooks became a pillar of the short-lived #NeverTrump movement. Now, a veritable man without a country, Brooks,after what one can only assume must have been a depressing process of elimination, seems to have settled on becoming a lone voice in the wilderness, a defender of Joe Biden.

His recent editorial, Joe Biden Is Stronger Than You Think: Heres why he is still winning lays out his current thinking.

Brooks begins by pointing out how, despite all of the criticism that Biden has received to date, he continues to lead in many polls. Brooks predicts Biden will win in Iowa (he wont; Bernie will), concedes Biden will lose in New Hampshire (he wont just lose; hell be walloped) and predicts that Biden will easily take Nevada (if Bernie proves as popular among Latinx folks as he has the potentially to be, it seems likely to be pretty close). But, yes, despite the fact that Biden appears to be slipping across the board, theres still lots of polls that place him squarely in the lead.

Brooks says this isnt where people six months ago would have expected us to be. But, I mean, of course, it is. When every pol in DC hates him and every big ticket campaign fundraiser cant stand him, how surprised can we be when it takes a minute or two for an underdog like Sanders to pull ahead of Biden, the obvious torch bearer of the Democratic Party.

Brooks then goes on to flaunt his man of the people swagger and lecture the rest of the Twitterati about how important it is to cure this insularity disease through constant travel and interviews, and I can only assume, actually talking to poor people. Fair enough. I agree, but keep in mind, the coffee at Dennys, or whatever, isnt usually as good as the Fair Trade cappuccinos of the coastal bourgeoisie, and in general, from my experience, the nice woman serving it to you doesnt like being treated like a pygmy encountered in one of Malinowskis anthropological expeditions.

But, now, move over Karl Rove and Sun Tzu, its time for the genius of Joe Biden. After all, Biden didnt just luck into this. lectures Brooks, He and his team grasped six truths.

To be honest, I kind of like the six things Brooks comes up with. Hes just totally wrong about how they actually work.

Understand the year you are running in.

As Brooks sees it, the progressive values championed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are stale, irrelevant and, more importantly, totally boring. What matters to voters today, in Brooks words, is that Donald Trump is a steaming hot mess in the middle of national life. Biden isnt caught up in actual issues like healthcare, education, climate change, basic economic fairness etc. Who has time for that? No, Biden has better things to do. According to Brooks, hes fighting for the soul of America!

Wrong. This is just totally wrong. Running on a platform of being anti-Trump wont work. Im positive about this. Democrats tried it in 2016. They lost. If they do it again, theyll lose again.

Understand your partys core challenge.

Today, if you want to understand the politics of rural America, the number one thing youve got to grasp is that a lot of folks in rural America are terrified about losing control of the communities theyve always called home. They go to the hardware store and people are speaking Spanish. There are Muslims in the supermarket. They try to celebrate Columbus Day, and their own grand kids call them racist. Shooting guns is one of the few things that genuinely makes them feel powerful, and now the Democrats are trying to take that too.

Most folks dont know exactly whats happening in DC, but they know in their guts that the people there dont care about them particularly. Rural Americans desperately want somebody who sees them, who likes them, who believes their communities can be great again. They want somebody whos got the spunk and the backbone to get in the ring and actually fight for them. In 2016, Trump promised that hed do that, and whatever you may think of the specific battles hes picked, Trumps certainly delivered on being a fighter. And, more importantly, when Trump fights, he brings his followers along for the ride, propelling them in a story that casts them as the heroes of an epic battle for their very freedom and independence. They love him for it.

Put bluntly, in 2016, Clinton didnt have a story. Her ads were as vapid as JC Penny commercials. Her campaign largely just consisted of her reminding everybody of her gender and attempting to persuade us all that Trump was even slimier than her husband. Nobody found that particularly compelling. Because it wasnt. And she lost.

Moderates are still powerful.

As Brooks tells it, Biden emerged from the great moderate American working class like a phoenix from the ashes. Today, hes focusing his attention on it and is winning support from it.

Thats absurd. Biden hails from Delaware, Americas credit card epicenter, and hes spent much of his political career fighting for those same credit card companies and their corporate shareholders. Its been decades since hes seen a defense contract he didnt like. His idea of universal healthcare is requiring people to fork their hard-earned money over to bloated health insurance companies. He loves crooked trade deals. He even gets his kids in on the action. As Zephyr Teachout described in the Guardian earlier this week, Bidens approach to politics isnt moderation its just corruption.

Brooks isnt wrong when he identifies how alienated many Americans are from our national political conversation, but he is wrong when he dubs this cohort of alienated voters moderates as if the American working class were some kind of collective Goldilocks, deciding between a bowl of porridge thats too hot and another thats too cold. Americans arent starving for lukewarm oatmeal. Nobody has ever starved for lukewarm oatmeal. Its gross.

No, the thing that unites America right now is that were all really pissed off. If you see the political spectrum as running between a Left (defined by higher taxes, more social spending and stricter economic regulations) and a Right (defined by lower taxes, less social spending and a freer economy), you completely miss whats actually going on.

Most Americans would love to see the rich pay more taxes. Theyd be ecstatic if the government were to provide them with free healthcare. Most people absolutely want things to change a lot. If politics represented public opinion more accurately, wed all just unite on that kind of platform. The problem is that, for the most part, the Democrats dont actually represent that platform they represent higher taxes for everybody, not just the elite, and government programs that many fear only serve narrow demographics, like people of color and immigrants, while leaving the majority of Americans out in the cold.

The idea that alienated people are actually moderate doesnt make any sense. When you feel like youve been kicked out of something, the last thing you want is for it to stay the same.

Many Democrats resent their own elites.

As Brooks sees it, Biden communicates affection toward the working class, not judgment, acceptance, not expulsion. But thats fundamentally not what Americans want, at least not most of us. If you say that you like me, but you wont actually go to bat for me, what am I supposed to see that as, other than pandering condescension?

Brooks says most Americans feel ignored by the ruling class, which is probably true, but the answer to that, as I see it, cant be some sort of limp moral acceptance. Thats meaningless. When people say they hate political correctness and the elite who uphold it, its precisely this sort of passive ethic of acceptance that they hate. Nobody wants the people in charge to flaccidly tolerate them for who they are while censoring their criticism of their opponents. No, what they want is a powerful leader wholl throw a punch on their behalf. Biden likes to puff his chest out and talk tough, but right now, his current politics are so aimless that its hard to imagine him standing up for much of anybody.

Have a better theory of social change.

Brooks sees the American political system as being like a Chinese finger trap the harder you pull on it from either end, the more it jams up and stops moving. Biden, on the other hand, he says, believes that a center-left congressional coalition is the best we can do under present circumstances. Never mind the fact that Biden isnt a hyphen-left of anything, Brooks is just so wrong here, its hard to take him seriously.

For over a decade, Congress has been like a playground where the friendly Democrats show up with a kickball, and the Republicans push them down, give them wedgies and dropkick the ball onto the roof of the gym. At a certain point, you just have to accept that,until you show up with some big kids on your side who are are actually willing and able to stand up to the bullies, you simply arent about to play kickball. The Sanders coalition are those big kids. And were going to win.

Connection. Connection. Connection.

Brooks ends the essay with the quip that the candidate who can be vulnerable has a surprising power. But Biden isnt vulnerable. Vulnerability isnt something that you have innately. Its something you take on. Something you rise to. To be rendered vulnerable, you have to take risks. Engage in tough conversations. Be fully present when people are suffering, even if it means you might get hurt in the process.

Brooks says Biden is normal and emotionally relatable. Hes the opposite. When people are scared and angry, like they are today, the thing that they relate to best is righteous anger. These days, sedated levelheadedness is anything but normal. When your boat is sinking, nobody wants a neutral bystander wholl just tread water with a sheepish grin. They want a hero. But, until they get one, a lot of them will continue settling for a villain.

Related

Read more:

David Brooks is wrong about absolutely everything | From Below and to the Left - Bangor Daily News