2019.10.03 Flyover Man
Since the NYT fucked up so badly on real news, NYT (David Brooks) decided to just invent their own. This is a hypothetical discussion between Urban Guy (Good Liberal) and Flyover Man (Bad Deplorable). Now it is presented as hypothetical based on (as near as I can tell) Brooks experiences never talking to an actual real conservative in his life. But it is nothing but a NY liberal trying to create a Strawman to then sort of empathize with and shred. But it's full of fallacies, and really an embarrassment.
It didn't do it for me. There were elements that rang true, others that seemed like a NY liberal trying to channel what a conservative/moderate might appear like, if other NY liberals were rational and open minded.
This it was wrong on:
- People on the right don't pay attention to Ukrainegate, or they might be outraged, but they support Trump because of other reasons. I'd bet more conservatives pay more attention than more liberals -- based on my experiences with both. Many of those who've looked into the facts more than Urban guy, think there's nothing impeachable there. And most Urban guys I know, have done far less research than conservatives have by just watching Fox News. So the presumption that none/most conservatives just aren't paying attention, is just garbage.
- He completely missed that the left is about feelings, the right is about issues. (Oversimplified). He gets the tone wrong because he imagines the right has the same currency as the left and it's about "he sees us" and feels... instead of that he isn't going to destroy their jobs (or more issue by issue based). Think of the last few Democrat Debates and you had nothing memorable other than "we'll take all your guns" and "we want to take away your healthcare, your cars, make you pay for other people's college and healthcare, including illegal aliens". Oh, and we'll punish you for calling them illegal aliens, just because they're illegally here and aliens. He played to the lefts feelings... not the right's issues (and hypocrisy).
- Brooks misses on the media bias -- and that people that care about rule of law, like justice being blind, or media being fair to both sides, are outraged by the double-standard and hyper-hypocrisy. The left cares about "Trump's insensitive and callous"... by ignoring their own candidates insensitiveness and callousness. Usually the right sees through that hypocrisy and points it out. (And there are many) Brooks didn't key on that, at all. He pretended that his side cared and the other side didn't. But those that supported Clinton or Obama/Holder, or are carrying Biden's water for doing worse, don't get to lecture conservatives on caring about rule of law, and expect them to be impressed by their hypocrisy. Examples:
- Clinton is a serial sexual assaulter... so Trump's locker room talk, or imagined sexual assaults don't come close to a Kennedy or Clinton. When they weight which is worse, dems don't win.
- Quid Pro Joe and Hillary did real payola deals, and bullying and collusion and the Dems want to whine about Trump's lesser crimes?
- Obama and Hillary did REAL obstruction of justice with destroying evidence or shielding Holder, and they want to complain about Trump firing a deep-state incompetent like Comey?
So my family that supports Trump don't think he's a snake... they think ALL politicians are snakes, but Trump is less of one than anything the Dems are putting up. On 95% of the issues the Dems try to make into big deals on Trump, are things that their side is much worse on. And on all the issues that the Conservatives care about, Trump is far less bad than the Democrat candidates. So they're not making a "deal with the devil" for jobs or other issues... it's that if they're looking at the lesser of two evils, and Trump is far better than Democrats on even the issues the Democrats pretend to care about, but really don't. And the dems have complete blinders on not to see it.
Things it was close on:
- Brooks did nail that the left's power of persuasion involves screaming racist/xenophobe/sexist/mis-genderer in the right's face, which besides being wrong, is highly annoying and likely to persuade people against your cause more than for it.
- And he did nail the failure of the left to address the big issues, like the destruction of the family, that redistribution is by nature bad (it incentivizes/rewards the wrong behaviors).
- His points on open borders and the radicalism of the DNC were valid.
So for me, it was hit and miss: 50/50, but the material 50 was the side he missed more on.
If the Times was a credible newspaper, they would just ask one of their Conservative Columnists to write what he/conservatives think, instead of asking one of their liberal authors to imagine what Conservatives think. So by having to imagine it, instead of doing their job and asking (especially easy if they had any balance and staff conservatives) they discredit themselves by fake conversations instead.
You can objectively look at Trump on the issues the Dems complain about... and the Dems are often still worse on those very issues. Then as you look at him the issues that the conservatives care about, and he's the much, much better choice. THEN you put the stuff Brooks was saying about jobs and other stuff on top.
I don't think Brooks even gets that. I think he's in the east coast bubble, where he thinks relenting on the left's points is valid. But it isn't, because they're even wrong on that stuff they claim to care about.