Trump's Infrastructure Press Conference, Blame On Both Sides, CNN Is Downright Dangerous, And Anti-Trump Hysteria
So it probably sounds like I watch a lot of CNN, but I don't... I just sat down to eat an apple about an hour ago, and turned it on just as Trump's infrastructure press conference started. As soon as it was over, the press basically jumped him about Charlottesville. Now, I didn't think his initial statement on Saturday was good, though it was minimally accurate--it's true that there was blame on both sides. It was just damn weird (to say the least) to make that point under those conditions. He blew it--pretty bad, actually.
But, he came out on Monday, and made a good statement. Hardly Obamaesque, but good. He said what needed to be said, and said it in no uncertain terms. A lot of you guys disagree with me on that, but, well, I disagree with you, too.
So then today rolls around, and Trump basically gets pounced by the press. Which is not such a big deal--that's the way press conferences sometimes work. But Trump handled it fairly well. He's not that smart, and not that good on his feet, and, well, Trump's Trump. But he actually handled it ok. There was a fair amount of bullshitting (e.g. his "I was waiting on the facts" excuse. What facts do you need to wait on to know that Nazis: bad?), but on the most important points he was right. In particular, he pointed out:
(a) Some of the blame for the violence lies with the counter-protesters.
and
(b) Not everyone participating in the protest protest was a white supremacist
and
(c) The protesters had a permit; the counter-protesters didn't.
The press blew up. They made no effort whatsoever to understand what he was saying. One asked him about the Alt-Right,and he asked her to define 'Alt-Right'--a perfectly reasonable request. Hell, I STILL HAVE VIRTUALLY NO IDEA WHAT 'ALT-RIGHT' MEANS. Trump then used the term 'Alt-Left' (which has never really caught on, but should), apparently to describe the more radical counter-protesters. A reporter then disingenuously asked whether he was equating the Alt-Left (i.e. the more radical counter-protesters) with the Klan--which he obviously was not doing. But by that point the press had completely lost its shit. Trump was very careful to say that he was merely saying that some of the protesters were partially responsible for the violence. WHICH IS UNDENIABLY TRUE. He was very clear that he was not defending the Klan or the Nazis, but, rather the remainder of the protesters who were there to legally protest the removal of the Lee statue. And that there were such protesters IS UNDENIABLY TRUE. The press conference basically descended into chaos.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. Jake Tapper and company (including Bill Kristol) were on after the presser...and they simply sat and lied their asses off about what had just happened for the next half an hour until I couldn't take it anymore and left. They were not exerting the slightest bit of effort to be even remotely honest about what Trump had just said. Basically, they pretended that Trump was, indeed, saying that the counter-protesters were the equivalent of the Klan/Nazis. They had just sat there and watched the exact same event that I watched. They're either stupid, or they're liars, or they're so firmly in the grip of anti-Trump hysteria that they can't see straight--or, more likely, some combination of all three. They started bringing people in on the phones...Van Jones, Nia-Malika Henderson (the most reasonable of the bunch, actually), somebody else...and then, in hushed tones, they start discussing the terror...the terror...how terrified people must be...people of color...terrified...terrifying...how could the country have descended so quickly into such terror....
And then they switched to...(solemn tone) ....this is the end of the Trump presidency....there is, you see...probably no coming back from this... (Probably...because...when there is...you don't want to be so clearly wrong about something that someone could pin you down on...)
Of course the terrorizers were all on CNN... If they weren't trying to pump up as much fear in the people Trump allegedly hates as possible, they were doing a pretty good job emulating such an effort. I've never seen such a disgusting display of dishonesty nor such an abuse of epistemic authority in my life. They simply lied shamelessly about what had just happened before all of our eyes...
[Forgot to mention: most of the time the CNN crew was losing its shit, they were showing video of a giant fight from the protest--I realized that I'd been sitting there for five minutes subconsciously trying to figure out which side was which while they were talking...and I couldn't tell. So that's how crazy Trump's claim is: in a lot of footage, it's two groups of people going at each other, and you can't tell which is which...but it's beyond the pale to say that both sides contributed to the violence...]
And then Mark Warner came in on the phones...and I thought...come on big guy...you're the voice of sweet reason incarnate...you can do this...
...but no. Mark. F'ing. Warner. just seamlessly joined the circlejerk...
And that was it for me.
I left.
Even before all this, I was as depressed as I've ever been about the state of this country. This really tore it for me. Trump hasn't handled this very well, but he did ok. And what he said in the press conference today was basically right--and very right in some notable ways. More right than what the press is saying, in some ways. I'm totally down with people criticizing him for the Saturday statement. But what I just witnessed on CNN was grotesque...and, yeah, actually kinda terrifying in a way. If you can get away with that kind of blatant misrepresentation immediately after the whole audience has just watched the event that you are maniacally distorting...then we are just downright f*cked.
I've said this before, but now I'm actually pretty convinced of it: the press may be more dangerous than Trump. Trump's gone in 3.5 years max. The press is forever. If CNN is an outlier here, then it's bad, but not catastrophic. If the rest of the press becomes similarly hysterical, then we really are in trouble.
Of course I could be wrong about what happened in that press conference--but I'm not. I'll watch it again as soon as it's available.
[Oh--here's the CNN.com headline, incidentally:
HE STILL BLAMES BOTH SIDES]
Here's the Washington Post's:
Trump Again Blames Both Sides In Charlottesville, Says Some Counterprotesters Were 'Very, Very Violent'
(which is f*cking TRUE...)
But, he came out on Monday, and made a good statement. Hardly Obamaesque, but good. He said what needed to be said, and said it in no uncertain terms. A lot of you guys disagree with me on that, but, well, I disagree with you, too.
So then today rolls around, and Trump basically gets pounced by the press. Which is not such a big deal--that's the way press conferences sometimes work. But Trump handled it fairly well. He's not that smart, and not that good on his feet, and, well, Trump's Trump. But he actually handled it ok. There was a fair amount of bullshitting (e.g. his "I was waiting on the facts" excuse. What facts do you need to wait on to know that Nazis: bad?), but on the most important points he was right. In particular, he pointed out:
(a) Some of the blame for the violence lies with the counter-protesters.
and
(b) Not everyone participating in the protest protest was a white supremacist
and
(c) The protesters had a permit; the counter-protesters didn't.
The press blew up. They made no effort whatsoever to understand what he was saying. One asked him about the Alt-Right,and he asked her to define 'Alt-Right'--a perfectly reasonable request. Hell, I STILL HAVE VIRTUALLY NO IDEA WHAT 'ALT-RIGHT' MEANS. Trump then used the term 'Alt-Left' (which has never really caught on, but should), apparently to describe the more radical counter-protesters. A reporter then disingenuously asked whether he was equating the Alt-Left (i.e. the more radical counter-protesters) with the Klan--which he obviously was not doing. But by that point the press had completely lost its shit. Trump was very careful to say that he was merely saying that some of the protesters were partially responsible for the violence. WHICH IS UNDENIABLY TRUE. He was very clear that he was not defending the Klan or the Nazis, but, rather the remainder of the protesters who were there to legally protest the removal of the Lee statue. And that there were such protesters IS UNDENIABLY TRUE. The press conference basically descended into chaos.
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. Jake Tapper and company (including Bill Kristol) were on after the presser...and they simply sat and lied their asses off about what had just happened for the next half an hour until I couldn't take it anymore and left. They were not exerting the slightest bit of effort to be even remotely honest about what Trump had just said. Basically, they pretended that Trump was, indeed, saying that the counter-protesters were the equivalent of the Klan/Nazis. They had just sat there and watched the exact same event that I watched. They're either stupid, or they're liars, or they're so firmly in the grip of anti-Trump hysteria that they can't see straight--or, more likely, some combination of all three. They started bringing people in on the phones...Van Jones, Nia-Malika Henderson (the most reasonable of the bunch, actually), somebody else...and then, in hushed tones, they start discussing the terror...the terror...how terrified people must be...people of color...terrified...terrifying...how could the country have descended so quickly into such terror....
And then they switched to...(solemn tone) ....this is the end of the Trump presidency....there is, you see...probably no coming back from this... (Probably...because...when there is...you don't want to be so clearly wrong about something that someone could pin you down on...)
Of course the terrorizers were all on CNN... If they weren't trying to pump up as much fear in the people Trump allegedly hates as possible, they were doing a pretty good job emulating such an effort. I've never seen such a disgusting display of dishonesty nor such an abuse of epistemic authority in my life. They simply lied shamelessly about what had just happened before all of our eyes...
[Forgot to mention: most of the time the CNN crew was losing its shit, they were showing video of a giant fight from the protest--I realized that I'd been sitting there for five minutes subconsciously trying to figure out which side was which while they were talking...and I couldn't tell. So that's how crazy Trump's claim is: in a lot of footage, it's two groups of people going at each other, and you can't tell which is which...but it's beyond the pale to say that both sides contributed to the violence...]
And then Mark Warner came in on the phones...and I thought...come on big guy...you're the voice of sweet reason incarnate...you can do this...
...but no. Mark. F'ing. Warner. just seamlessly joined the circlejerk...
And that was it for me.
I left.
Even before all this, I was as depressed as I've ever been about the state of this country. This really tore it for me. Trump hasn't handled this very well, but he did ok. And what he said in the press conference today was basically right--and very right in some notable ways. More right than what the press is saying, in some ways. I'm totally down with people criticizing him for the Saturday statement. But what I just witnessed on CNN was grotesque...and, yeah, actually kinda terrifying in a way. If you can get away with that kind of blatant misrepresentation immediately after the whole audience has just watched the event that you are maniacally distorting...then we are just downright f*cked.
I've said this before, but now I'm actually pretty convinced of it: the press may be more dangerous than Trump. Trump's gone in 3.5 years max. The press is forever. If CNN is an outlier here, then it's bad, but not catastrophic. If the rest of the press becomes similarly hysterical, then we really are in trouble.
Of course I could be wrong about what happened in that press conference--but I'm not. I'll watch it again as soon as it's available.
[Oh--here's the CNN.com headline, incidentally:
HE STILL BLAMES BOTH SIDES]
Here's the Washington Post's:
Trump Again Blames Both Sides In Charlottesville, Says Some Counterprotesters Were 'Very, Very Violent'
(which is f*cking TRUE...)
posted by Winston Smith at
5:46 PM
13 Comments:
I think it's important to point out that the most powerful accelerant of right wing radicalism is the feeling that there is a double standard in how elite institutions treat right wing and left wing ideas. Antifa are by and large literal communists. In almost every objective measure, they should be considered as morally repugnant as the Nazis they claim to be fighting (and my guess is the majority of people they attack are not even close to Nazis). They avow an ideology that has killed, what, over 50 million people in the last century? Imagine a world where Hitler is granted omnipotence and can kill every Jew that has ever existed since the dawn of time. He still does not reach that death count, not by a long shot. They are despicable, and frankly a moral equivalence between them and neo-Nazis is quite defensible (although I wouldn't do it the day of a neo-Nazi killing what seems to have been an honorable woman. Tact matters.).
Yet they are given the freedom to operate as participants in the marketplace of ideas - and they should!, - while anyone who even remotely questions the party line on diversity is hounded out of their jobs, denied the right of assembly, stalked on campus by bat wielding SJWs, etc.
Progressives can't blame people for rejecting liberal ideas when you are rejecting them yourself. And these halfwits keep falling into this trap. It's pathetic.
I watched the same thing and honestly didn't think Trump's statements were as horrible as the media portrayed them. I'm sure both sides were behaving badly, even if I think one side was representing a reprehensible moral and political position (white nationalism and nazism just to be clear). I think you're missing the point of the critique to some degree though, and it may be that an anti-media hostility is shaping it. Is this really the right place and time for the president to come across defending neo nazis? I think that's the mistake he made here. He just made his problems worse and obliterated his good statements yesterday (though in my view weakly delivered and much too late). He's not even attempting in good faith to help the nation heal or provide moral authority. That's what a lot of people find outrageous. And another problem: why is he defending the people among the white supremacist crowd as "good people"? What is that except for a way to defend them? I think that's part of why there was such a strong reaction, though it seemed a bit unhinged to me.
I don't want to drive the point into the ground, but I do kind of find this interesting. So let's continue the comparison of hypothetical, omnipotent, time traveling Hitler and just Stalin and Mao Zetong. Mao's death toll is estimated at up to 50 million and Stalin is 20-60 million. The total historical Jewish population is something like 40-50 million I believe (could be wrong, just guessing from the current Jewish population of like 15 million). So for super Hitler to match these two, you need to grant the inherent evil of Hitler's ideology to be equivalent to the murder of something like 20-60 million people. Which seems like a really ballsy claim (and I'm technically sanding away non-murderous evils done here, like the near total decimation of the Russian and Chinese cultures done by those regimes, both of which are millenia old and incredibly rich).
Or you have to be a recalcitrant Kantian and only countenance categorical imperatives, but then both seem to be maximally in error anyway. No way either are treating men as ends instead of means.
" I think you're missing the point of the critique to some degree though, and it may be that an anti-media hostility is shaping it. Is this really the right place and time for the president to come across defending neo nazis? I think that's the mistake he made here. He just made his problems worse and obliterated his good statements yesterday (though in my view weakly delivered and much too late). He's not even attempting in good faith to help the nation heal or provide moral authority. That's what a lot of people find outrageous. And another problem: why is he defending the people among the white supremacist crowd as "good people"? "
Ok, OG, this makes a bit more sense to me than the nonsense that was being aired on CNN...but I still disagree. But maybe this is a largely psychological disagreement.
First, if you listen to what Trump is saying, he *doesn't* come across as defending Nazis--and it's not some subtle distinction. He just flat-out is not defending them. I understand someone saying that he doesn't want to tread on that thin ice...but I just don't see that he is.
As for helping the nation heal...well...ok. I see that... I, myself, despite having lived about 30% of my adult life in c'ville, and loving the place dearly, and hating the Klan with an undying passion, do not in any way feel the need for "healing." I mean this whole thing sucked...and one person was killed...but...do we really need to "heal" from it? Do we really need help doing so?
As for providing moral authority...I guess I kinda get that, too, though, again, not really my thing.
As for defending people "among the white supremacist crowd"--he *wasn't* doing that. He was pointing out that there were people attending the protest that were not white supremacists. I'm led to believe this is true--but it's an empirical question.
I'm not trying to niggle. And I don't think the guy is doing what you'd call a fantastic job. But I think even mainstream liberals are going totally batshit on this one.
Basically, they pretended that Trump was, indeed, saying that the counter-protesters were the equivalent of the Klan/Nazis.
That this is what Trump was saying is perfectly correct. Trump was saying that the counter-protestors were, more or less, the equivalent of the people they were attacking. The people they were attacking were, as a matter of fact, overwhelmingly neo-Nazis, KKK, and other white-nationalist types. Are we supposed to cut Trump slack here because he also claimed, falsely, that there were many on that side of the conflict who were good people and not white nationalists? He can say that if he wants, but everyone knows they were predominantly white nationalists -- many of them avowing support for him, Trump.
Tapper, Kristol et all would only have been 'lying their asses off' if there were only one way to resolve what is in fact a genuine ambiguity arising from quantification in the vicinity of opaque contexts. It is perfectly legitimate to read them as saying that Trump was saying that the counter-protestors were the equivalent of a bunch of people who were, as a matter of easily-ascertained fact, predominantly neo-Nazis, KKK, and other white nationalists. And that is, in fact, true. Trump was saying that. The fact that Trump was denying that that bunch of people were, as a matter of fact, predominantly neo-Nazis, KKK, and other white nationalists is neither here nor there -- or rather, only makes what he said worse, especially given what he said about always wanting to know the facts before he makes a statement. (Seriously, how can you listen to a birther say that and then say he did an OK job and the real story is the media feeding frenzy?)
Never mind what CNN and the NYT are saying. What are all other prominent Republicans saying? What is Fox News saying?
It is an absolute disgrace that the President of the US should say such things. The media is the real problem? I fear you're losing it, Winston.
That is absolutely, positively *not* what Trump said. He explicitly denies that. I watched the news conference, and it was clear that that's not what he was saying. I just read the transcript, and that's not what he's saying. The reporters keep trying to get him to say that, and he denies it explicitly.
I'll put aside our disagreement about what a leader of a nation is should do in terms of calming the country, encouraging unity, and trying to project American values. I'll just state my strong disagreement with your statement that "Trump *doesnt* come across as defending nazis". You act like you're the only one who saw the press conference. He tried pathetically to muddy the waters about who was to blame for the violence when *one side* was responsible for murdering someone. He couldn't even muster the word "terrorism" because now he's so concerned about "legal semantics". And he wanted to get his facts straight? When did he ever want to get his facts straight before when there is a Muslim suspected of terrorism? That's the problem I have with your analysis. It totally ignores the false moral equivalency he was expressing and his total double standard for white nationalist terrorism. So maybe the media is hyperventilating. They did that a lot over Hillary's emails too. Why is that such a surprise? They are sensationalistic, what else is new? But there's an element of truth in the reaction in my view.
Also let me ask you a question: why even go there with the "both sides are to blame" argument when one side is clearly nazis and white supremacists? Is Trump suddenly a model of fairness and reason and moderation? Come on. It's a blatant attempt to make the events in Cville appear like it was a fight of equally bad sides. He's throwing his nazi supporters a bone. That's what is so despicable to me about this.
If I hadn't also read the transcript, I'd think I'd just misheard the press conference. All I can say is: if you listen to what the guy actually says, it's clear that he isn't defending Nazis. I'm not applying any weird standards, nor engaging in any philosopher's bullshit--does he come across as if he is? Well...not if you even kinda pay attention to what he's actually saying...but it's starting to seem like people just aren't interested in doing that. It's starting to seem to me like people either have some ability to discern meanings that I don't have, or that they're engaged in some other endeavor, or that they're just too pissed off to care must past *Nazi.* Which I get. But I guess I'm not quite that pissed off.
The whole "I wanted to get my facts straight" thing was total bullshit. Not just because he doesn't care about that stuff, but also because, in the context, he'd have had to have been saying something damn close to *I had to do some research to see whether Nazis are bad.*
As for the terrorism thing, again, what he said seemed right to me: it was awful, it was murder, the dude who did it sucks...but it may not meet technical legal definitions of terrorism. It's true that he hasn't shown that kind of thoughtfulness in other cases...so I don't think a consistency argument against him there is crazy. That's a reasonable point.
Why is the media hyperventilating a story? Well, I really only saw CNN. It's a story because *it was absolutely f*cking insane.* Not like...a little nuts. Totally divorced from reality. Presumably real news channels weren't as bad. I never saw *anything* that bad about Hilary's emails. Nothing 1/100th that bad. In fact, I've never seen anything that nuts from any alleged news channel ever before, Fox included. I sat there and watched 6-7 alleged journalists just flat-out get basically everything wrong about an event that they and their audience had all just watched. It was *Pravda*-esque. Hell, I'd be surprised if *Pravda* had ever been so bold.
And, again, he absolutely wasn't expressing the moral equivalency you seem to think he was expressing. Read the transcript. He was saying that both sides deserved blame for the violence. And he's right about that. He wasn't saying that the protesters were the moral equivalent of the Nazis. He explicitly denies that.
Well, maybe I'd better just wait and watch it again tomorrow to see if I can see what everyone else is seeing in it.
"Also let me ask you a question: why even go there with the "both sides are to blame" argument when one side is clearly nazis and white supremacists? Is Trump suddenly a model of fairness and reason and moderation? Come on. It's a blatant attempt to make the events in Cville appear like it was a fight of equally bad sides. He's throwing his nazi supporters a bone. That's what is so despicable to me about this."
Well, again, since that's not what he said, and he explicitly denies that that's what he means, and he explicitly says that what he means is just that the counter-protesters share some of the blame for initiating the violence, and since they undoubtedly *do*...
I mean...why say what's true and deny what's false? Is that the question?
He explicitly says that the white supremacists are evil, and that he's not putting the protesters "on a [the same] moral plane"...but that both sides aimed to start violence.
For Trump, he was unusually clear about all that.
"The whole "I wanted to get my facts straight" thing was total bullshit. Not just because he doesn't care about that stuff, but also because, in the context, he'd have had to have been saying something damn close to *I had to do some research to see whether Nazis are bad.* "
So, I'm just going to gently point out that the day of the attack you thought there was a live possibility the driver was spooked by protesters attacking his car off camera. Trump got more forceful after the driver was caught and police opened the murder investigation (and not to mention Sessions, the presumptive white supremacist, opened a civil rights investigation).
This isn't like Omar Mateen where the guy literally calls the police and pledges support for ISIS before the shooting. We didn't even know who the driver was for a while; you literally did need to get the facts straight. The consistency argument is legit, but it's a case where the inconsistency made Trump more mature in his response.
...you had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say it right now.
You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible.
I do think there’s blame. Yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it.
you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.
You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. O.K.? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group too.
Did Trump say 'The counter-protestors were the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis, KKK and other white nationalists'? No, he didn't. Did he talk in a way that very strongly implied that there was no serious moral distinction to be drawn between the counter-protestors and the people they were fighting, who were in fact predominantly neo-Nazis, KKK and other white naitonalists? Yes, Winston, he absolutely did that.
His cover was a totally specious denial that the protestors were predominantly neo-Nazis, KKK and other white nationalists, and false claims that 'You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists' who were 'very fine people'. The rally was organized by Richard Spencer.
Were there violent troublemakers among the counter-demonstrators? Undoubtedly. Should they be condemned? Certainly. But there are distinctions to be drawn even between these people and overt racists shouting things like 'Jews will not replace us'. Trump did, eventually, condemn white supremacists as such. But by falsely denying that the marchers were predominantly white supremacists, he gave himself room to talk as though there was no important moral difference between the two sides -- that is, to talk as though the counter-protestors were the moral equivalent of people who were, in fact, predominantly white supremacists.
Did some sections of the media lose their sh*t, start hyperventilating, and accuse Trump of saying things he didn't say? Of course they did! But that's just 'Dog Bites Man'. And more generally, people do tend to start hyperventilating when the Nazis start marching with torches. How you get from there to 'the press may be more dangerous than Trump' -- Trump! Who's the actual President! -- is utterly beyond me.
Furthermore, it's not just CNN, the NYT and the 'liberal media', by any means:
It’s honestly crazy for me to have to comment on this right now because I’m still in the phase where I’m wondering if it was actually real life what I just watched. It was one of the biggest messes that I’ve ever seen. I can’t believe it happened. . . . It shouldn’t be some kind of bold statement to say, ‘Yes, a gathering full of white supremacist Nazis doesn’t have good people in it. Those are all bad people, period.
That's Fox News's Kat Timpf, contributor to the National Review, Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh, immediately after the press conference.
As the primaries wound down, the imperative for unity intensified. Why look under rocks when you can use them as steppingstones to victory? Besides Trump was making it as clear as possible that he welcomed support and praise from any quarter.
The right’s game of footsie with the alt-right ostensibly ended when Trump won. Bannon disavowed them once he made it to the White House. Like France after the liberation, it seemed everyone was suddenly a member of the resistance and nobody was a collaborator. At least, that is, until Saturday, when the president invited speculation that the old popular front is still operational.
That's Jonah Goldberg, writing yesterday.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home