Political Theatre category archive

Mangy comments on the Youtube page:

Nobody does ‘snowflake’ quite as well as Donald Trump. There is no issue out there in which Trump can’t figure out a way to paint himself as the victim. Women’s rights? Trump’s suffered because of it. Global warming? Trump’s unjustly victimized by talk of it. Gay rights? Trump’s chances for success are hindered by it. The metric system? Trump says it was designed to make him look fat. Gravity? Just a theory meant to keep Trump down. With all the melting down that Trump does, Mangy Fetlocks thought he deserved a song.

Steve M. notes a disparity in the press coverage, which leads him to remark upon what he argues is a longstanding trend. I’m not sure I agree with all his conclusions, but, given that today’s reportage is sweating bullets over Biden’s being three years older than Trump while ignoring (or, at least, de-emphasizing) Trump’s raving falsehoods and fantastic fabrications, methinks his piece is worth a read.

Here’s a bit of his article:

But even if you believe that Trump’s brain is full of failing neurons rather than right-wing disinformation, it’s hard to believe that the media has a categorical bias toward portraying major-party candidates as coherent. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have had months of stories in the media questioning the mental fitness of Joe Biden.

What we have instead is a bias toward normalizing Republicans, a process that’s usually accompanied by an “othering” of Democrats. This has been going on for decades: Walter Mondale was a gloomy wimp, Michael Dukakis was an effete Ivy League weirdo, Al Gore was a prissy egghead, Hillary Clinton was a cackling ballbuster. Their opponents were Real Americans, fond of country music, pickup trucks, and plain-spoken common sense.

At Psychology Today Blogs, Robert N. McCauley takes a look at a recent book by Paul Thagard, Falsehoods Fly: Why Misinformation Spreads and How to Stop It. I commend his piece to your attention, especially now, when one can spout unsourced anything. A snippet (emphasis added):

Making stuff up often works because, as Thagard notes, people tend to believe what they are told unless something is clearly untoward either about the statement itself or about the person making it. Since, currently, so many get so much of their information from social media, people typically haven’t a clue about who originally advanced most of the claims that they encounter. Consequently, just as with hearsay, unless the stuff that people make up is obviously faulty, recipients are unlikely to bring their critical faculties to bear. Thagard observes that one of the less attractive features of the new AI systems is precisely their ability to make things up (known as AI “hallucinations”).

Afterthought:

You can’t “consider the source” when you can’t identify the source.

Michael-in-Norfolk has a memory:

During my years as a Republican City Committee member and activist . . . I was exposed to a number of what I now call Christofascist. Two things were striking about these individuals: (i) they were far right religious fanatics who wanted to inflict their beliefs on all Americans, and (ii) they lived in a bubble and did not grasp that a majority of Americans did not want to embrace their extreme religious beliefs.

More memories and a straw at which to grasp at the link.

Mangy test drives some songs.

Via PoliticalProf.

Historian Allan Lichtman argues forcefully that the media coverage of the recent presidential debate is missing the point.

Via C&L, which has commentary.

Jim Wright fears we are in such a time and warns against it.

Via Juanita Jean.