Who Do You Love?

 

One of the candidates in the 2020 Presidential race earlier on bragged about the US Marshals taking out a person sympathetic to antifa as if delighted about an extralegal assassination* (which is not at all what someone sworn to uphold the Constitution should do) and pretended during his "townhall" that he both did not know what QAnon is, but if they are anti-pedophile they are OK with him, even though he surely knows who they are  because he should have been informed that they are a terrorist threat.  (Or: He may not have been though, because we are lead to believe he might not always be briefed on stories that might make him very mad and rejects things he doesn't want to hear. So that's....not at all comforting.)

The other candidate was compared to Mr. Rogers by a Trump World surrogate, as if that was a bad thing. 

Somehow she misspelled "Mr. Rogers" and didn't realize that Mr. Rogers Neighborhood was, for at least my generation, a place where at least one grownup spoke to us like we meant something, who valued our feelings and wanted the best for us, and always talked to us with honesty and respect. Mr. Rogers always understood that little kids lives mattered. 

Dueling "townhalls" was way better than a debate, because the candidates didn't have to face off or interrupt each other or front their differences, but could be seen in the entirely different way they actually operate. Joe Biden can answer policy questions in depth and reassure us that he is capable of change and growth and wants to hear us out.  I don't know what Trump is, but I am reminded of King Kong (as Don McGahn, still crazy after all these years,* but still facing a subpoena one of these damn days, has called him). 

Whatever Trump's attributes, he is capable of terrible damage, and does not belong in the White House. He does not reassure people so much as terrify, and is unpredictable and without reason. 

The difference is very stark. Tell me who you love, and I will tell you what you are at this point, and I might even be especially mean about it. 

* But of course he did. Because ROFLCOPTERS and owning libs and being a fucking fascist is why. And his fans will clap because the rule of law is for some and not all. 

*Also Trump fans sometimes have caveats that they should probably give further examination to. In the full light of day and everything. 

Being Fair to Biden

Joe Biden told an audience in New Hampshire he would consider naming a Republican as his running mate, if he's nominated, "but I can't think of one now." https://t.co/6aJWvi0zyH pic.twitter.com/1mCVFwzQbg

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) December 31, 2019

I've seen a lot of hand-wringing and umbrage about Biden suggesting that he might consider a Republican for a running mate, but I think you have to take it for what it is: he was asked a question that was framed in the context of "pulling out all the stops" and that it was proposed by the questioner's 21-year old kid. In that context he said he'd consider a Republican, but he couldn't think of one.

Couldn't think of one. It wasn't his proposal, he doesn't have a Republican in mind to run with, and he probably has no intention to do that at all; he just wasn't going to be dismissive of the whole concept, and is aware that for some people (and he seems to be one) the possibility of some kind of bipartisanship for some issues stays alive. (But not a damn Republican on the ticket!)

I don't personally think this country is at a place where bipartisanship is something I'm really optimistic about. If hit with the same question, myself, I'd be more inclined to say something like, "A Republican, you say? I just don't think that would work very well." What I think a lot of lefties were hoping for as a response is more along the lines of "Are you kidding me? Have you seen those Morlocks lately?"

But that wasn't what that questioner was hoping to hear, and that might not have resonated with that crowd. It's a question of responding with a message that matches the time and place. A politician just isn't able to always say exactly the thing you want them to say exactly when you think they should say it. But obviously, this is a non-issue--a hypothetical.

And yet, I'm literally grinding my teeth that some vapid doofus is going to bring this up at a future debate. Damn, politics are dumb.

The Difference Between Hearing and Listening

The nail-bitten and wash-raw hands of Donald Trump in the image above clutch a note in the handwriting of some aide counseling him to say, clearly, a few things:

1) What would you want me to know about your experience?

2) What can we do to help you feel safe? 

and

5) I hear you. 

"I hear you" can be meant in a lot of ways, you know. "I hear you" can mean "I am listening to you because what you say is important to me". It can mean "I recognize your importance." When folks regularly say "I hear you" or "I hear that", it easily means "I know where you are coming from. I recognize and see you".  I don't know why things so anodyne and basic to the human political response even needed to be written down. Who needs to be told to acknowledge the person asking you things? Who needs to be told that the survivors of a gun-related tragedy should be invited to speak from their experience?

(Someone who probably does not care, is my guess.)

These notes were given to Trump so he could remember how to not look like someone bought and paid for by a shit-ton of NRA money. He was supposed to be interested in what the folks had to say, seem welcoming to input, try to reassure his hearers that he wanted to keep their security in mind, like some kind of chief executive of a very large nation might. And then he was supposed to reassure his querents that he was not just a mighty oracle, but a benign one, by ensuring them that he was "hearing them".

It might have been better if he was actively listening to them (not that I know he has ever actively listened to anyone in his life). Many hearers of his talk came away with the idea that he was not listening at all.  Who, for example, comes away from a group of people agreeing that no more guns is the answer, and then states like a super-genius--"Let's arm teachers!"    

Someone who isn't listening and can't even read a room, I would say.

I did not watch the CNN Townhall with the students and Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch from the NRA, so I don't even know how that went. But I feel like this discussion needs a crash course in people understanding how to not just hear one another, but listen. But especially to survivors who would not feel protected if they had a gun. 

Pravderp

To be working in the Trump White House? Eventually, sure

I don't know how it can be true, but Melissa McCarthy's over-the-top representation of Press Secretary Spicer's occasionally bombastic style on SNL sort of makes me look forward to tuning in to the real thing. I feel like he's settling down so far as questions are kind of ordinary and procedural about the President's schedule and ordinary things, and those exchanges even show a little humor.

Still some howling moments though. 

Questions regarding whether certain internal loyalty requirements or micromanagement are slowing the staffing of key WH positions was met with a claim that the Trump Administrations was "ahead of the curve". That was pretty much true--in November and December. But it seems like it is lagging now, and not because of Senate delays. The relationship with Mexico was described as "phenomenal"--I guess "awkward" is definitely a phenomenon when one country decides to deport people to another country even if they aren't from there. Spicer also spoke positively about the task force VP Pence will be heading to look into the non-existent voter fraud. Which is happening eventually because we won't have an agency that does that.  Shame, too, because people who know there wasn't actually any voter fraud are asking for receipts (and they don't exist). Are they going to look for proof that the vocal people at town halls are getting paid next?

The narrative presented at these press briefings does look a bit different from objective reality. I've been mentally thinking of labelling it "Pravderp". You  know, part Pravda, the state-run paper that did what I guess RT does now, for the Soviet state. And "derp", because I don't know that our actual journos really buy into it. After all, the media were mostly trained at some point to know when to smell a rat, and dissembling right in front of them is bound to awaken even the most ossified nasal passages to the whiff of rodent scat.

Anyhow, it's my portmanteau, and I think I shall stick with it.