I'm not rewatching the fucking episode... Even w/ Coronavirus, and even w/ this season being mostly fantastic, I got better things to do. So here's a very hasty, probably very inaccurate Edgic based on a single viewing I did half a week ago. I'm totally sober.
Sele
Michele- CPP3- Michele is getting a consistent and consistently positive edit. Easily the most "likeable" on the Sele tribe (by which I mean the editors routinely "take her side," allowing her to explain her feelings and her strategy), Michele also benefits from having a workable "redemption" storyline and a strong connection to this season's sub-theme of "past relationships matter." Her past with Wendell has been THE Sele Story since the tribe swap, and she seems built to get a lot further in the game that that, uh, cocky bastard
Nick - CP3- Nick's edit has been similar to Michele's as of late; they're the two "dynamic strategists" of the Sele tribe, and have given plenty of time in testimonials and in, uh, earned media coverage to tell the viewer where they're at, game-wise. What does bode well for Nick is how... not-positive his edit has been... By which I don't mean "negative." The fact is that Nick has yet to develop into the kind of character he was in "David versus Goliath." His most dwelt on trait this time is "gay for Parvati." I find this lack of personal content... Disturbing. Still, he is demonstrating good play and it seems like he's in this thing for the semi-long haul.
Yul- MOR1- Ack! Yul, what happened!? I'd say he crawled from under the UTR rock, mainly because his name was thrown out, and mainly because he was said to have a cunning, numbers-crunching mind (he proved this w/ this insane, awesome TC monologue about the Fire Token economy). But the majority of "Yul information" this episode didn't even come from Yul: it was all secondhand. The man was simply left out of the discussion, which is never a good look. Yul had enough emotional content early on to make him a possible contender for an EOE return. (Perhaps the soonness of that return is why his appearance seemed so... limited... this episode?) But I'm not so sure.
Wendell- MORN2 - Wendell found a way to piss off Nick and Yul, and it was the way similar to how he's pissed off Michele: his "hot shot" antics at the Immunity Challenge (saying "shut up Probst" or something) cost them seconds in the puzzle, seconds that ended up being totally crucial. His behavior seemed less OTT to me this episode, like he was coming down from last week's crazy, irritating-as-hell high. It's still telling when his attempt to reconcile with Michele ended with a mansplain. At Tribal, Wendell almost, almost seemed sorry. But he still strikes me as a weak player with a big target on his back who will find a way-- probably via arrogance-- to exit the game soon.
Dakal
Kim - MOR2 - Kim isn't getting a ton of time to shine, though that's not entirely her fault... She is still on a beach with Tony, and the conversation this week revolved almost entirely around Denise's TC triumph. Kim's sincere willingness to work with Denise is intriguing, and might point to the kind of power pair situation that Denise (feat. Malcolm) took to the bank in the Philippines. Still, seven episodes in, I'm thinking Kim is a marginal player this season-- a way for someone else to get forward, perhaps?
Denise- CPP1 - This was a pretty good way for Denise to follow up an epic move. The reaction to her success, previewed at TC itself, was one of respect and admiration. (There didn't seem to be deep love for Sandra on the tribe.) Like Michele, Denise seems to be working on a "underrated winner" arc, trying to "prove" the authenticity of her prior Survivor victory. Her bond with Jeremy still seems semi-solid, and her blossoming friendship with Kim seems like a good move, too. Aside from one fella we'll discuss in a second, I'd say she's gonna the strongest winner chances of anyone on Dakal.
Jeremy- UTR2 - Man I can't remember what happened with Jeremy this ep. (He hashed things out with Denise, right?) So either him or me is Under the Radar. You decide, this is Amateur Edgic.
Tony- CP1- We're back to Tony, the calm, rational contender... or are we? Good or bad, positive or negative, complex or over the top, Tony is definitely one of the main personalities this season. Even if he's not dominating the strategy, he is always a topic of conversation. He has created some of the principal terms through which we can understand this season... And the question is now, can his lion fend off the swarm of hyenas? He's maybe the last player standing unanimously understood to be a "big threat." His dynamic game, and his opportunities to explain its twist and turns, every episode, make me think he'll be threatening the others for a while yet.
Yara
Sarah- MOR2- Sarah and Sophie are aligned in so many ways now: they're on the same tribe, in the same alliance, idoling it up, playing similar strategies, and seeming like they're completely in control of the game. I think Sarah is going to outlast her, though, because she has more storylines to work with. She still has a "Cops R Us" thing going with Tony. And Adam thinks-- KNOWS!-- that she has an idol. She is deemed a strong player by her peers... Hopefully not too strong!
Sophie- MOR2- Same thing goes for Sophie. (Except that last part.) (Sorry, Sophie!)
Ben- MOR3- Ben has turned against Adam completely, and it's hilarious. He's trying to align himself with Sarah and Sophie, but I have a feeling he's gonna be the odd one out. He never seems totally in control of his fate, this Ben guy. But maybe that's part of his own "redemption" arc? (Redeeming himself from the cheapest win in Survivor history?)
Adam- CP2- Again, we see paranoid, calculating Adam, on the ropes, out of the loop, desperate to hang on. His desperation never strikes me as negative though. Even though he clearly miscalculated with his idol suspicions, he is right to be suspicious, and I think the editors want us to see a hard-working, hard-thinking player as much as they do a dumb one. I'd still put Adam in the better half of winner contenders, as he is getting interesting content every episode (even ones like these, without a TC). But he might make too many mistakes for his own good.
EOE
Natalie, Amber, Danni, Ethan, Tyson, Rob, Parvati, Sandra
Sandra left. Tyson found a fire token, Rob found three. My wife said, "I just don't want to see him [Rob] anymore." Good thing is, I don't think we will, hun! I think Tyson returns, then maybe Natalie, then maybe Yul.
Monday, March 30, 2020
Thursday, March 19, 2020
Survivor Amateur Edgic, Winners at War, Episode 6
I'm not rewatching the fucking episode... Even w/ Coronavirus, and even w/ this season being mostly fantastic, I got better things to do. So here's a very hasty, probably very inaccurate Edgic based on a single viewing done under the influence of two glasses of wine.
Sele
Parvati - MOR3 - Parvati never really took off this season. We heard a lot of talk about her threat level, but didn't see much of that threat enacted (sadly!). Even in this, her boot episode, the majority of what we got out of her was incidental-- statements of fact related to receiving yet another fire token and being very clearly on the Sele bottom. Her last-ditch effort to bury Wendell with his own words, while exciting, didn't end up paying dividends. So much for my pre-game prediction!
Michele- CPP2- Michele is my Sele "Winner" pick at the moment, even if her edit seems more like a Wentworth "I'm changing my game, making the merge, and crapping out just before FTC once the others discern how close I am to winning" (i.e a "redemption" storyline) than a true Winner's arc. In her interactions with Parvati, Nick, and Wendell, Michele is shown as a calm, thoughtful player with an accurate read on the game. (Especially when put alongside Wendell!)
Nick - CP2 - After starting the season largely UTR Nick has found himself as the crucial "swing vote" in two straight TCs. He's getting a bit of character content, talking about his personal relationships with Yul and Wendell, as well as his hilariously dorky crush on Parvati. But it seems like a lot of the "strategy" we're hearing from Nick has less to do with an overall plan, relating more to his current set of circumstances. His TC line about having a "backbone" was fascinating. Was he trying to justify to himself his Parvati vote? Making a final pitch toward Michele? There's something impulsive about Nick's play (the man makes an eerie foreshadowing comment practically every other scene) that makes it seem like he's in for a fall.
Yul- UTR1 - As a solid vote in a strong alliance of three, it makes sense that we wouldn't hear much from Yul this episode, especially with the bigger stories of "Nick the swing vote" and "Wendell the bitter fuck" in play. Still, it's a wee bit concerning that Yul, Mr. Numbers/Strategy-Man, was not given a single testimonial to describe his thought process this ep. He was described by Parvati as (if I remember correctly) a "brick wall," never the best image to be compared to, in this game. Perhaps this is just a cooldown after his emotionally vivid prior episode and a strong Edgic start.
Wendell- OTTN3 - Some folks would call this a CP3 because Wendell was shown throughout as a player who does have ideas about the game, some of which seem semi-correct. But when my thought after every one of your statements is "God, what an asshole"... Well, I feel like only OTTN will suffice. Michele criticized him last episode for thinking he's "hot shit," and the Picker-of-Teeth lived up to that description this turn, plus some. He was dismissive of his ex, dismissive of the idea of fire tokens, and pretty much dismissive of everyone's feelings as Tribal (every player said something clearly Wendell-targeted about, well, not being a jackass). His semi-apology about "being real" sealed the deal... No rational viewer would call what Wendell was doing this episode or last episode as "realness." Right now, it's Michele who seems like the "real" half of this pair-- and that means Wendell could be in big trouble. Fine by me!
Dakal
Sandra- CPN3 - The Queen goes to the Edge. But her edit here, and throughout this season, isn't quite consistent with the idea that "Sandra's arrogance" was the cause of her abdication. True, there was a Negative tone-- Sandra underrated Denise completely, and no one so thoroughly blindsided will ever look very, uh, good at Survivor. But Sandra showed a willingness to play this episode, and a willingness to adapt all season. But for the (rather large loophole) that Denise exploited, Sandra's plan for blowing up TC seemed interesting. And that, I contend, was the problem. Sandra is not a "blow up the game" kind of player. That's not her skill-set. Sandra deviated from a tried-and-true formula, and it cost her in a devastating, supremely entertaining way.
Kim - MOR2 - It's hard to know what to make of Kim's edit at this moment. On a tribe with Sandra and Tony, the fight for screen time is never gonna be easy. But her status as a "swing vote" changed-- maybe definitively-- this episode, as Kim was shown going along with Sandra and Tony's whims without question. The strategy talk testimonials that she's given in episodes past were mostly ceded to Jeremy. This was about as middle-of-the-road as an episode gets.
Denise- CPP5 - An instant classic of a turn for Denise, who I always knew was gonna be this season's stealth force (honest I did!). Denise's ability to form "real" relationships with people was on full display, in her positive comments to her tribemates, her idol play for Jeremy (which might have actually been a very canny move to counter a potential Sandra vote for someone not-named-Denise), her ability to go toe-to-toe with Sandra, and her description as a "humble" player. What made this ability more than just a positive tone was Denise's actual USE of it. The "ice-cold" blindside of Sandra was not presented as the rash move of a bitter player, but the cunning play of a winner who was much craftier than anyone thought. (Indeed, the rest the tribe seemed pretty happy for her, on the way out of Tribal!) She's in a good place if she had re-affirm her connection with Jeremy. Her read of the game, demonstrated so positively in this episode's edit, might allow her to do that.
Jeremy- MORP3 - Another "swinger" turned into a pawn in Sandra and Tony's game, though Jeremy got a lot more screen time than Kim this episode. Some of that is related to his advantage-- Jeremy's description of which gave this episode its curious title-- but it was Jeremy's description of an upside-down-duck that really got me. It was smart, funny, and self-aware: things you like to see in a Winner. Jeremy still seems more like a side-player this season than a potential FTC candidate, though.
Tony- OTT4- Wacky Tony came back this episode. Every statement he made, to the camera and other players, was breathless and paranoid... Or were they? Though it would be impossible for me not to award him an OTT after the re-implementation of the spy-shack (which, perhaps tellingly, didn't pay many dividends), Tony's suspicions that something was up ended up being verified by Tribal's crazy result. I still think he's got a good chance at winning this thing-- but as a threat, he's back on the radar, which might make things difficult down the line.
Yara
Sarah- UTR1- Not much for Sarah to say or do here. Commentary on the post-Rob-killing Tribal was ceded entirely to Ben and Adam. They both affirmed that Sarah and Sophie were tight, capable players.
Sophie- UTR1- Same thing goes for Sophie.
Ben- CPP2- Ben and Adam were chosen to explain the aftermath of the Buddy System. Ben emphasized his changing strategy, the differences between his social game "then" and "now," and his relationships with Sarah and Sophie. It was a pretty good look!
Adam- CP2- On the other hand, Adam was shown as a player more obviously calculating than Ben, and one with far less success at forming the end of relationships that might, MIGHT, take one to the end. So who wins out? Wiley but trustworthy Ben? Or the most explicitly cunning Adam? The answer, of course, is NEITHER. I can easily see both of these characters sneaking into the merge... And then both being picked off for their myriad mistakes.
EOE
Natalie, Amber, Danni, Ethan, Tyson, Rob
Ehhh who knows. Tyson got all the content, cuz he figured out the clue. The dude is entertaining as hell in his testimonials. Will his peanut butter give him the strength he needs to... Man goddamnit EOE
Sele
Parvati - MOR3 - Parvati never really took off this season. We heard a lot of talk about her threat level, but didn't see much of that threat enacted (sadly!). Even in this, her boot episode, the majority of what we got out of her was incidental-- statements of fact related to receiving yet another fire token and being very clearly on the Sele bottom. Her last-ditch effort to bury Wendell with his own words, while exciting, didn't end up paying dividends. So much for my pre-game prediction!
Michele- CPP2- Michele is my Sele "Winner" pick at the moment, even if her edit seems more like a Wentworth "I'm changing my game, making the merge, and crapping out just before FTC once the others discern how close I am to winning" (i.e a "redemption" storyline) than a true Winner's arc. In her interactions with Parvati, Nick, and Wendell, Michele is shown as a calm, thoughtful player with an accurate read on the game. (Especially when put alongside Wendell!)
Nick - CP2 - After starting the season largely UTR Nick has found himself as the crucial "swing vote" in two straight TCs. He's getting a bit of character content, talking about his personal relationships with Yul and Wendell, as well as his hilariously dorky crush on Parvati. But it seems like a lot of the "strategy" we're hearing from Nick has less to do with an overall plan, relating more to his current set of circumstances. His TC line about having a "backbone" was fascinating. Was he trying to justify to himself his Parvati vote? Making a final pitch toward Michele? There's something impulsive about Nick's play (the man makes an eerie foreshadowing comment practically every other scene) that makes it seem like he's in for a fall.
Yul- UTR1 - As a solid vote in a strong alliance of three, it makes sense that we wouldn't hear much from Yul this episode, especially with the bigger stories of "Nick the swing vote" and "Wendell the bitter fuck" in play. Still, it's a wee bit concerning that Yul, Mr. Numbers/Strategy-Man, was not given a single testimonial to describe his thought process this ep. He was described by Parvati as (if I remember correctly) a "brick wall," never the best image to be compared to, in this game. Perhaps this is just a cooldown after his emotionally vivid prior episode and a strong Edgic start.
Wendell- OTTN3 - Some folks would call this a CP3 because Wendell was shown throughout as a player who does have ideas about the game, some of which seem semi-correct. But when my thought after every one of your statements is "God, what an asshole"... Well, I feel like only OTTN will suffice. Michele criticized him last episode for thinking he's "hot shit," and the Picker-of-Teeth lived up to that description this turn, plus some. He was dismissive of his ex, dismissive of the idea of fire tokens, and pretty much dismissive of everyone's feelings as Tribal (every player said something clearly Wendell-targeted about, well, not being a jackass). His semi-apology about "being real" sealed the deal... No rational viewer would call what Wendell was doing this episode or last episode as "realness." Right now, it's Michele who seems like the "real" half of this pair-- and that means Wendell could be in big trouble. Fine by me!
Dakal
Sandra- CPN3 - The Queen goes to the Edge. But her edit here, and throughout this season, isn't quite consistent with the idea that "Sandra's arrogance" was the cause of her abdication. True, there was a Negative tone-- Sandra underrated Denise completely, and no one so thoroughly blindsided will ever look very, uh, good at Survivor. But Sandra showed a willingness to play this episode, and a willingness to adapt all season. But for the (rather large loophole) that Denise exploited, Sandra's plan for blowing up TC seemed interesting. And that, I contend, was the problem. Sandra is not a "blow up the game" kind of player. That's not her skill-set. Sandra deviated from a tried-and-true formula, and it cost her in a devastating, supremely entertaining way.
Kim - MOR2 - It's hard to know what to make of Kim's edit at this moment. On a tribe with Sandra and Tony, the fight for screen time is never gonna be easy. But her status as a "swing vote" changed-- maybe definitively-- this episode, as Kim was shown going along with Sandra and Tony's whims without question. The strategy talk testimonials that she's given in episodes past were mostly ceded to Jeremy. This was about as middle-of-the-road as an episode gets.
Denise- CPP5 - An instant classic of a turn for Denise, who I always knew was gonna be this season's stealth force (honest I did!). Denise's ability to form "real" relationships with people was on full display, in her positive comments to her tribemates, her idol play for Jeremy (which might have actually been a very canny move to counter a potential Sandra vote for someone not-named-Denise), her ability to go toe-to-toe with Sandra, and her description as a "humble" player. What made this ability more than just a positive tone was Denise's actual USE of it. The "ice-cold" blindside of Sandra was not presented as the rash move of a bitter player, but the cunning play of a winner who was much craftier than anyone thought. (Indeed, the rest the tribe seemed pretty happy for her, on the way out of Tribal!) She's in a good place if she had re-affirm her connection with Jeremy. Her read of the game, demonstrated so positively in this episode's edit, might allow her to do that.
Jeremy- MORP3 - Another "swinger" turned into a pawn in Sandra and Tony's game, though Jeremy got a lot more screen time than Kim this episode. Some of that is related to his advantage-- Jeremy's description of which gave this episode its curious title-- but it was Jeremy's description of an upside-down-duck that really got me. It was smart, funny, and self-aware: things you like to see in a Winner. Jeremy still seems more like a side-player this season than a potential FTC candidate, though.
Tony- OTT4- Wacky Tony came back this episode. Every statement he made, to the camera and other players, was breathless and paranoid... Or were they? Though it would be impossible for me not to award him an OTT after the re-implementation of the spy-shack (which, perhaps tellingly, didn't pay many dividends), Tony's suspicions that something was up ended up being verified by Tribal's crazy result. I still think he's got a good chance at winning this thing-- but as a threat, he's back on the radar, which might make things difficult down the line.
Yara
Sarah- UTR1- Not much for Sarah to say or do here. Commentary on the post-Rob-killing Tribal was ceded entirely to Ben and Adam. They both affirmed that Sarah and Sophie were tight, capable players.
Sophie- UTR1- Same thing goes for Sophie.
Ben- CPP2- Ben and Adam were chosen to explain the aftermath of the Buddy System. Ben emphasized his changing strategy, the differences between his social game "then" and "now," and his relationships with Sarah and Sophie. It was a pretty good look!
Adam- CP2- On the other hand, Adam was shown as a player more obviously calculating than Ben, and one with far less success at forming the end of relationships that might, MIGHT, take one to the end. So who wins out? Wiley but trustworthy Ben? Or the most explicitly cunning Adam? The answer, of course, is NEITHER. I can easily see both of these characters sneaking into the merge... And then both being picked off for their myriad mistakes.
EOE
Natalie, Amber, Danni, Ethan, Tyson, Rob
Ehhh who knows. Tyson got all the content, cuz he figured out the clue. The dude is entertaining as hell in his testimonials. Will his peanut butter give him the strength he needs to... Man goddamnit EOE
Thursday, March 12, 2020
On being gaslit
It is exhausting being a Bernie Sanders supporter.
For years, the media has told other Democrats that you are a person unique capable of zealotry, cruelty, online harassment, etc.
When you try to insist to these people, "No! That's not true! I just really like Bernie Sanders," they write you off with comments like #NotallSandersSupporters.
So you try to articulate exactly what you find compelling about Bernie Sanders and his movement, and then you're just told to shut up.
You don't get a chance to correct the narrative, and you continue to be a person unique capable of zealotry, cruelty, etc.
God.
Thursday, March 5, 2020
My social media presence
Facebook is a place for friends. Most regular Facebook users (my friends, anyway) post pictures of their children and wholesome/occasionally slightly amusing memes. I use it to post profanity-laced political screeds.
Twitter is a place for ENEMIES. Most regular Twitter users (the people I follow, anyway) post profanity-laced political screeds/"hot takes" laced with sarcasm and mean wit. I use it to post... Nothing. I linger in the background.
Goodreads is a place for people who think books are important. Most regular Goodreads users are fucking FREAKS who need to get out into the world and make some fucking friends. I am one of these people completely
Twitter is a place for ENEMIES. Most regular Twitter users (the people I follow, anyway) post profanity-laced political screeds/"hot takes" laced with sarcasm and mean wit. I use it to post... Nothing. I linger in the background.
Goodreads is a place for people who think books are important. Most regular Goodreads users are fucking FREAKS who need to get out into the world and make some fucking friends. I am one of these people completely
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Why I think the things I think and am the ways I am
I became a politically engaged person in high school. Toward the end of George W. Bush's first term, I remember distinctly reading two books-- "Bushwacked" by the late Texas journalist Molly Ivins, and "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by the might-as-well-be-late, appropriately disgraced Senator Al Franken-- that more or less made me a liberal for life. Those books hit me right where I was at; in that moment, it was clear that the Democratic party was the place to go if you had anything in your chest resembling a heart and anything in your head resembling a brain. (I made a T-shirt with the phrase "A Distorted Reality is Now a Necessity to Be Free" Sharpied on-- that's an (okay) Elliott Smith song with a great, still relevant title.) Besides, the only teenagers who supported Bush were total nerds. That president was just so obviously a moron and a thief and a frat-bro bully... You could only justify his absurd abuses of power if your brilliant wise dad slapped the Molly Ivins out of your hands and replaced it with "Atlas Shrugged." (My brilliant wise dad encouraged my liberalism! Extremely grateful for his support! Disagree with him about Mike Bloomberg!)
This attitude of "Bush sucks, anything but Bush, go Democrats, I'm a kid" made me the ideal Obama supporter in 2008 and 2012, and indeed, I fell HARD for that wonderful (seeming?) man. Just as Bush was the perfect backdrop for becoming a non-Republican, coronating Obama was the perfect way to commit to his party; just as Bush was so evidently a idiot tyrant with no vision other than enriching himself and his oil-thug friends, Obama was the opposite: a gifted, intelligent believer in the American idea, with a big, bold message of CHANGE. I was miserable through much of middle school and high school, when Bush was president (not entirely Bush's fault, I suppose, but still), and almost unbelievably happy and gay during college and its immediate aftermath, when Obama's way seemed like the way. Through those eight glorious years, it was difficult to imagine America ever returning to the murky, bigoted depths that our hero-prince so triumphantly emerged from...
And then, of course, it fucking did. And we got a president even dumber, meaner, more selfish, and more tyrannical than Bush.
The night of the 2016 election was, uh, emotional. But over the years, looking back, it seems less and less... Inexplicable. I don't think people voting for Trump made a good decision... In fact, I will always sort of hate anybody who was tricked into thinking Trump could possibly handle the demands of, well, any job with a shred of responsibility, never mind the job with the most responsibilities on the planet. Of course there were institutional factors that helped Hillary Clinton lose, too (the damn electoral college, chiefly). But to say that election was stolen from her by, oh, Russian hacking... It seemed to ignore the really big idea that kind of explained a whole lot in 2016: that everybody who sat out, supported Trump, supported Sanders, or voted for a third party was just really fucking tired of the bullshit. The bullshit media, the bullshit DNC, the bullshit candidates we're expected to "hold our noses" and "fall in line" for.
I of course think Trump is more full of shit than probably any other hundred people on the planet. But Hillary Clinton-- still bitter about Bernie!-- doesn't exactly smell like roses these days, either. And the more I got to reading and thinking, these last four years, the more I got to this place I am right now, where I'm kinda wondering what exactly the Democratic party has done, really, for anybody, ever. I'm kinda thinking they're sorta... Well... Shitty. Which helps me to understand what happened in 2016, and makes me more than a little concerned about what might happen in 2020.
The Democratic party for decades has operated on assumptions that are practically identical to the assumptions of the Republican party, assumptions that are, as far as I can discern, not based on a great deal of empirical data-- they're more like folktales passed down one from aging political class to the next. It is my belief that these assumptions make life a whole lot crappier for everyone who isn't super-rich, super-privileged, or super-white.
Here are some of those assumptions:
- You don't have a right to healthcare. Good health is not something you should expect in American society. It is something you have to earn, just like shelter or a decent-paying job. You have a right to free speech... That is the exclusive way you are allowed to be free.
- The only decent way to live is to work hard all of the time. If you are not working hard all of the time, you are not entitled to anything: food, shelter, children, etc. You must pay your dues, in America.
- The people who are richer in our society are that way for good reasons. They are clearly working harder than the people who are poorer. You should not expect these richer people to play a role in our society: they are entitled to what they have, as they've earned it through their own volition. You can do it, too!
- The goal of workers is to provide for companies, and the goal of companies is to provide for shareholders. The point of economic activity is not to create a better society: it is to create profit. That profit is not to be touched by government hands! It is sacrosanct. (It will certainly not be redistributed into welfare programs, which discourage people from working hard all of the time.)
- The "knowledge economy" has a place for all workers. The only path to success in America involves a high school diploma and at least a four-year college degree (more education preferred!). If you are not going to school for decades, well, sorry, we can't do anything for you. Oh btw sorry about all the student debt. Fingers crossed on that epic problem!
- There are good people in this world, and there are evil people. The good people are our allies. The evil people are those who question the decisions of the American government. Those evil people must be made to believe in the American project. If it requires war to make these people learn their lesson, then so be it.
- The actions of the American government are sacrosanct. If we installed a military dictator in Latin America or declared war in Asia, it must've been for very good reasons. Besides, times change. You can't question the decisions of the past! You can't question the decisions of the present, either.
- Solutions to climate change must be gradual and piecemeal, and the burden of their success must fall on consumers. We cannot expect governments or corporations to alter their behavior (and we certainly aren't going to TELL them to!!): we can expect people to own reusable bags and to turn off their lights and to buy green stuff to support the green economy.
- There is only one path to citizenship in this country: legal entry through one of our borders. Who cares how long an illegal has lived here or how deep their connections to their new community are: the law is the law. If we have to deport people to their "home" countries, then so be it. We are in no way responsible for the ravaged economies and corrupt governments to our immediate south. Simply put, there is a right way and there's a wrong way. We just can't take everybody! We don't have the jobs! We don't have that kind of money!
- Drugz are bad. What's good is locking people up for drug offenses! That will obviously make the streets safer and will surely have no lingering effects on families. How could you possibly consider a society without prisons? Where would we put all the evildoers?
- The most effective way to create racial equality is representation in the media. This is the kind of civil rights solution that will not divide us needlessly. You cannot seriously consider the idea of reparations. Affirmative action that is exclusively race-based is problematic. I mean, Obama was president for crying out loud!
- A progressive agenda just won't work! The people will never go for it! What the people want is for us all to come together and reach across the aisle and find compromise! Besides, HOW ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR IT?
These are not only political assumptions of the Democratic party, of course-- they're also those of the supposed "liberal media," and they so loom large in the public imagination. They certainly play a big role in the political makeup of Joe Biden: to the extent that he can form a coherent thought, you can imagine him saying most of those things, yes? He is absolutely into an idea of "personal accountability" that totally ignores the injustices and cruelties of our institutions. He has said he has "no sympathy" for millennials. Why? Because at the end of the day, the most important thing for him-- like so many Democrats and Republicans-- is "trying hard." A person who's "failing" in our society-- because they're making the minimum wage, or homeless, or crushed by medical debt, or in prison, or addicted to drugs-- is not a victim of constant exploitation: they're somebody who needs to buck up. A person who's doing well? Well, we can't just PUNISH them for being good, now can we?
And what about a government that, oh, sends robot wasps to murder mothers and children who live in impoverished villages thousand of miles away? "In our heart of hearts, we are doing the best we can."
Biden is running as Obama's spritual successor (a strategy that somehow... seems... familiar). But the warm, fuzzy, "he's singing Al Green!" feelings of that era are never coming back. Look past the nostalgic haze and see that the "Obama way" did NOT address the scourges of poverty, war, economic turmoil, social isolation, racial inequality, and hypercapitalist greed in any kind of meaningful way. The vaunted Obama changes to society were, in many ways, a doubling down on its existing mechanisms (the Affordable Care Act cannot be dismissed entirely-- shoot, it gave more people healthcare, and so saved tens of thousands of lives-- but never forget that it was a Republican plan first, because it finally makes people beholden to the market, turning their health into a little game). At the end of his eight years, certain ideas had changed (remember "civil unions?)... But the way we live, and the way we treat each other, wasn't fundamentally different from how it was under Bush. America was still a mean, hard, bitter place to be, especially if you were vulnerable in any way (i.e. if you were very young, very old, poor or underpaid, a person of color, gay/lesbian/transgender/queer, etc).
When the Democratic party has changed its assumptions, it has been because of constant pressure from an activist left. The party on its own does not encourage conversation: its power structure wants its power structure to last forever. They will pay lip service to change when it suits their needs, but they'll only support a change agenda when... Well, we make them.
Which brings me, of course, to Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in the race who does even the most basic and necessary thing when faced with the above assumptions: he sees them for what they are, and he challenges them. Instead of ruthless, winner-take-all capitalism, Bernie Sanders proposes an economy that actually meets people's needs, one that puts families and communities (even those of immigrants!) ahead of corporate profiteers. Instead of "earning" our health and sanity (to say nothing of our ability to raise children) through endless toil, Bernie suggests that healthcare (and childcare!) is, in fact, a human right: a vital component to our freedom, and one that must be provided to everyone regardless of their state in life. Instead of justifying constant war and foreign intervention with the vaporous idea of "American interests," Bernie advocates a clear pacifist agenda, one that will necessarily make him easier for other countries to worth with (and so address the global crises of climate change, finding homes for refugees, nuclear proliferation, etc). Instead of punishing the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the disabled for living in a society that is often hostile to their existence, Bernie asks that we come together, and consider fighting for "someone [we] don't know." These positions and others represent fundamental changes not only to American institutions, but also to American values: they replace an ethic that is essentially mean-spirited and individualistic with one that is essentially compassionate and community-oriented.
If I have an issue with how Sanders has conducted his campaign, it is not his inability to wrangle the largely imaginary "Bernie Bro" contingent, nor his supposed "lack of details" about how he's going to do what he wants to do-- it's actually kind of the opposite of both of those things. When Bernie says we should we willing to fight for someone we don't know, he is doing something incredibly powerful, something that I think really summarizes the goals of his supporters. Basically, I wish he'd do it more. That's right: I wish he would be more passionate and less specific. I wish that instead of returning again and again to his Rogues Gallery (who are totally real, and totally awful) of billionaires, Wall Street, and the healthcare industry, that he'd really play up the big picture, big-hearted, big-assumption-overturning component of his movement. There is a revolutionary spirit in America, but I don't think it's necessarily activated by, oh, policy and plans (the failure of Elizabeth Warren's campaign to do, umm, much at all is probably the best proof of this). Medicare for All is a great idea that is now supported by majorities of Democrats... It's also just one piece in a larger puzzle about making our society more caring, more responsible, and more committed to justice.
I'm convinced that there are huge swathes of Democratic voters who want THIS America: one that is kinder, smarter, a little less driven by wealth and fame, and a touch more interested in love. Many of these Democratic voters sincerely believe that Joe Biden will take them there, and you know, they might be right...
But I doubt it. There is little in Biden's record or his recent public statements to suggest he will suddenly pivot to democratic socialism. He's been a party animal for fifty years: he embodies the capitalist, imperialist, centrist assumptions of the DNC completely. He doesn't understand what he has to change-- he doesn't talk about change in a convincing way-- because at the center of the Washington bubble, he can't even see what needs changing. He cannot look beyond his experiences, and thus cannot imagine a better future.
Oh, and speaking of that: can I end with some John Lennon? So when I was in high school, I thought the song "Imagine" was kind of dumb. It was slow and ultra-serious music for people who weren't very serious about politics (unlike ME at the age of SIXTEEN!); clearly inferior Beatles product designed for the masses who prefer "Hello Goodbye" to "I Am the Walrus." But I was thinking about the lyrics the other day-- and the plaintive, perfect way Lennon delivers them-- and it occurred to me that, well, the dude kind of nailed it with that song. The song is called "Imagine" and the first word of each verse is "imagine" and the refrain is "you may say I'm a dreamer / but I'm not the only one." Commie propaganda? Perhaps! But what Lennon seemed to understand is that when it comes to change, the place where you must begin is imaginative. You have to create, in your heart and in the hearts of others, a blueprint for a different world. You don't start with a budget, and you certainly don't start by restricting your idea of possibility with bullshit received wisdom. What you do instead is what Bernie does at his best: insist that people are fucking worth it, man, that they deserve more than they're getting, that we can fucking do it.
Bernie will not "get it all done" (he's not a great man like Mike Bloomberg!). But he will put our collective foot in the door. He will replace the outdated ideas of our forebears with new intellectual and emotional energy. He will create space and opportunity for human flourishing throughout American society. He will get us much closer than any president has to the real American dream: the one of government by the people, of the people, and for the people. You know, the Lincoln dream. The King dream. The dream of democracy.
So yeah, I hope someday you'll join us.
This attitude of "Bush sucks, anything but Bush, go Democrats, I'm a kid" made me the ideal Obama supporter in 2008 and 2012, and indeed, I fell HARD for that wonderful (seeming?) man. Just as Bush was the perfect backdrop for becoming a non-Republican, coronating Obama was the perfect way to commit to his party; just as Bush was so evidently a idiot tyrant with no vision other than enriching himself and his oil-thug friends, Obama was the opposite: a gifted, intelligent believer in the American idea, with a big, bold message of CHANGE. I was miserable through much of middle school and high school, when Bush was president (not entirely Bush's fault, I suppose, but still), and almost unbelievably happy and gay during college and its immediate aftermath, when Obama's way seemed like the way. Through those eight glorious years, it was difficult to imagine America ever returning to the murky, bigoted depths that our hero-prince so triumphantly emerged from...
And then, of course, it fucking did. And we got a president even dumber, meaner, more selfish, and more tyrannical than Bush.
The night of the 2016 election was, uh, emotional. But over the years, looking back, it seems less and less... Inexplicable. I don't think people voting for Trump made a good decision... In fact, I will always sort of hate anybody who was tricked into thinking Trump could possibly handle the demands of, well, any job with a shred of responsibility, never mind the job with the most responsibilities on the planet. Of course there were institutional factors that helped Hillary Clinton lose, too (the damn electoral college, chiefly). But to say that election was stolen from her by, oh, Russian hacking... It seemed to ignore the really big idea that kind of explained a whole lot in 2016: that everybody who sat out, supported Trump, supported Sanders, or voted for a third party was just really fucking tired of the bullshit. The bullshit media, the bullshit DNC, the bullshit candidates we're expected to "hold our noses" and "fall in line" for.
I of course think Trump is more full of shit than probably any other hundred people on the planet. But Hillary Clinton-- still bitter about Bernie!-- doesn't exactly smell like roses these days, either. And the more I got to reading and thinking, these last four years, the more I got to this place I am right now, where I'm kinda wondering what exactly the Democratic party has done, really, for anybody, ever. I'm kinda thinking they're sorta... Well... Shitty. Which helps me to understand what happened in 2016, and makes me more than a little concerned about what might happen in 2020.
The Democratic party for decades has operated on assumptions that are practically identical to the assumptions of the Republican party, assumptions that are, as far as I can discern, not based on a great deal of empirical data-- they're more like folktales passed down one from aging political class to the next. It is my belief that these assumptions make life a whole lot crappier for everyone who isn't super-rich, super-privileged, or super-white.
Here are some of those assumptions:
- You don't have a right to healthcare. Good health is not something you should expect in American society. It is something you have to earn, just like shelter or a decent-paying job. You have a right to free speech... That is the exclusive way you are allowed to be free.
- The only decent way to live is to work hard all of the time. If you are not working hard all of the time, you are not entitled to anything: food, shelter, children, etc. You must pay your dues, in America.
- The people who are richer in our society are that way for good reasons. They are clearly working harder than the people who are poorer. You should not expect these richer people to play a role in our society: they are entitled to what they have, as they've earned it through their own volition. You can do it, too!
- The goal of workers is to provide for companies, and the goal of companies is to provide for shareholders. The point of economic activity is not to create a better society: it is to create profit. That profit is not to be touched by government hands! It is sacrosanct. (It will certainly not be redistributed into welfare programs, which discourage people from working hard all of the time.)
- The "knowledge economy" has a place for all workers. The only path to success in America involves a high school diploma and at least a four-year college degree (more education preferred!). If you are not going to school for decades, well, sorry, we can't do anything for you. Oh btw sorry about all the student debt. Fingers crossed on that epic problem!
- There are good people in this world, and there are evil people. The good people are our allies. The evil people are those who question the decisions of the American government. Those evil people must be made to believe in the American project. If it requires war to make these people learn their lesson, then so be it.
- The actions of the American government are sacrosanct. If we installed a military dictator in Latin America or declared war in Asia, it must've been for very good reasons. Besides, times change. You can't question the decisions of the past! You can't question the decisions of the present, either.
- Solutions to climate change must be gradual and piecemeal, and the burden of their success must fall on consumers. We cannot expect governments or corporations to alter their behavior (and we certainly aren't going to TELL them to!!): we can expect people to own reusable bags and to turn off their lights and to buy green stuff to support the green economy.
- There is only one path to citizenship in this country: legal entry through one of our borders. Who cares how long an illegal has lived here or how deep their connections to their new community are: the law is the law. If we have to deport people to their "home" countries, then so be it. We are in no way responsible for the ravaged economies and corrupt governments to our immediate south. Simply put, there is a right way and there's a wrong way. We just can't take everybody! We don't have the jobs! We don't have that kind of money!
- Drugz are bad. What's good is locking people up for drug offenses! That will obviously make the streets safer and will surely have no lingering effects on families. How could you possibly consider a society without prisons? Where would we put all the evildoers?
- The most effective way to create racial equality is representation in the media. This is the kind of civil rights solution that will not divide us needlessly. You cannot seriously consider the idea of reparations. Affirmative action that is exclusively race-based is problematic. I mean, Obama was president for crying out loud!
- A progressive agenda just won't work! The people will never go for it! What the people want is for us all to come together and reach across the aisle and find compromise! Besides, HOW ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR IT?
These are not only political assumptions of the Democratic party, of course-- they're also those of the supposed "liberal media," and they so loom large in the public imagination. They certainly play a big role in the political makeup of Joe Biden: to the extent that he can form a coherent thought, you can imagine him saying most of those things, yes? He is absolutely into an idea of "personal accountability" that totally ignores the injustices and cruelties of our institutions. He has said he has "no sympathy" for millennials. Why? Because at the end of the day, the most important thing for him-- like so many Democrats and Republicans-- is "trying hard." A person who's "failing" in our society-- because they're making the minimum wage, or homeless, or crushed by medical debt, or in prison, or addicted to drugs-- is not a victim of constant exploitation: they're somebody who needs to buck up. A person who's doing well? Well, we can't just PUNISH them for being good, now can we?
And what about a government that, oh, sends robot wasps to murder mothers and children who live in impoverished villages thousand of miles away? "In our heart of hearts, we are doing the best we can."
Biden is running as Obama's spritual successor (a strategy that somehow... seems... familiar). But the warm, fuzzy, "he's singing Al Green!" feelings of that era are never coming back. Look past the nostalgic haze and see that the "Obama way" did NOT address the scourges of poverty, war, economic turmoil, social isolation, racial inequality, and hypercapitalist greed in any kind of meaningful way. The vaunted Obama changes to society were, in many ways, a doubling down on its existing mechanisms (the Affordable Care Act cannot be dismissed entirely-- shoot, it gave more people healthcare, and so saved tens of thousands of lives-- but never forget that it was a Republican plan first, because it finally makes people beholden to the market, turning their health into a little game). At the end of his eight years, certain ideas had changed (remember "civil unions?)... But the way we live, and the way we treat each other, wasn't fundamentally different from how it was under Bush. America was still a mean, hard, bitter place to be, especially if you were vulnerable in any way (i.e. if you were very young, very old, poor or underpaid, a person of color, gay/lesbian/transgender/queer, etc).
When the Democratic party has changed its assumptions, it has been because of constant pressure from an activist left. The party on its own does not encourage conversation: its power structure wants its power structure to last forever. They will pay lip service to change when it suits their needs, but they'll only support a change agenda when... Well, we make them.
Which brings me, of course, to Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in the race who does even the most basic and necessary thing when faced with the above assumptions: he sees them for what they are, and he challenges them. Instead of ruthless, winner-take-all capitalism, Bernie Sanders proposes an economy that actually meets people's needs, one that puts families and communities (even those of immigrants!) ahead of corporate profiteers. Instead of "earning" our health and sanity (to say nothing of our ability to raise children) through endless toil, Bernie suggests that healthcare (and childcare!) is, in fact, a human right: a vital component to our freedom, and one that must be provided to everyone regardless of their state in life. Instead of justifying constant war and foreign intervention with the vaporous idea of "American interests," Bernie advocates a clear pacifist agenda, one that will necessarily make him easier for other countries to worth with (and so address the global crises of climate change, finding homes for refugees, nuclear proliferation, etc). Instead of punishing the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the disabled for living in a society that is often hostile to their existence, Bernie asks that we come together, and consider fighting for "someone [we] don't know." These positions and others represent fundamental changes not only to American institutions, but also to American values: they replace an ethic that is essentially mean-spirited and individualistic with one that is essentially compassionate and community-oriented.
If I have an issue with how Sanders has conducted his campaign, it is not his inability to wrangle the largely imaginary "Bernie Bro" contingent, nor his supposed "lack of details" about how he's going to do what he wants to do-- it's actually kind of the opposite of both of those things. When Bernie says we should we willing to fight for someone we don't know, he is doing something incredibly powerful, something that I think really summarizes the goals of his supporters. Basically, I wish he'd do it more. That's right: I wish he would be more passionate and less specific. I wish that instead of returning again and again to his Rogues Gallery (who are totally real, and totally awful) of billionaires, Wall Street, and the healthcare industry, that he'd really play up the big picture, big-hearted, big-assumption-overturning component of his movement. There is a revolutionary spirit in America, but I don't think it's necessarily activated by, oh, policy and plans (the failure of Elizabeth Warren's campaign to do, umm, much at all is probably the best proof of this). Medicare for All is a great idea that is now supported by majorities of Democrats... It's also just one piece in a larger puzzle about making our society more caring, more responsible, and more committed to justice.
I'm convinced that there are huge swathes of Democratic voters who want THIS America: one that is kinder, smarter, a little less driven by wealth and fame, and a touch more interested in love. Many of these Democratic voters sincerely believe that Joe Biden will take them there, and you know, they might be right...
But I doubt it. There is little in Biden's record or his recent public statements to suggest he will suddenly pivot to democratic socialism. He's been a party animal for fifty years: he embodies the capitalist, imperialist, centrist assumptions of the DNC completely. He doesn't understand what he has to change-- he doesn't talk about change in a convincing way-- because at the center of the Washington bubble, he can't even see what needs changing. He cannot look beyond his experiences, and thus cannot imagine a better future.
Oh, and speaking of that: can I end with some John Lennon? So when I was in high school, I thought the song "Imagine" was kind of dumb. It was slow and ultra-serious music for people who weren't very serious about politics (unlike ME at the age of SIXTEEN!); clearly inferior Beatles product designed for the masses who prefer "Hello Goodbye" to "I Am the Walrus." But I was thinking about the lyrics the other day-- and the plaintive, perfect way Lennon delivers them-- and it occurred to me that, well, the dude kind of nailed it with that song. The song is called "Imagine" and the first word of each verse is "imagine" and the refrain is "you may say I'm a dreamer / but I'm not the only one." Commie propaganda? Perhaps! But what Lennon seemed to understand is that when it comes to change, the place where you must begin is imaginative. You have to create, in your heart and in the hearts of others, a blueprint for a different world. You don't start with a budget, and you certainly don't start by restricting your idea of possibility with bullshit received wisdom. What you do instead is what Bernie does at his best: insist that people are fucking worth it, man, that they deserve more than they're getting, that we can fucking do it.
Bernie will not "get it all done" (he's not a great man like Mike Bloomberg!). But he will put our collective foot in the door. He will replace the outdated ideas of our forebears with new intellectual and emotional energy. He will create space and opportunity for human flourishing throughout American society. He will get us much closer than any president has to the real American dream: the one of government by the people, of the people, and for the people. You know, the Lincoln dream. The King dream. The dream of democracy.
So yeah, I hope someday you'll join us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)