This is definitely the story that will be told by the left. This was the narrative before, during and after Trump's reign. But there is another story to be told and I do not have faith that the press in this country will have the courage to tell it. In the end, it took 15 billion dollars, a media 100% on board with siding with one candidate over another, and big tech's insurmountable power over our democracy to defeat Trump and even then it really took a global pandemic and mail-in balloting to bring in those votes for a candidate who barely had to show up, barely had to give a speech, was barely there at all. That has left a good many in this country frustrated and confused. The establishment won this election with very deep pockets and enormous power. Thus, the narrative had to be true. They could not afford for it not to be. For all of Trump's faults, and there were many, it was malpractice of journalists not to spend even the smallest effort to make sure every one of the things being said about him and his supporters was true. The narrative, by the end, turned out to be a dangerous machine that led to dehumanization on a large scale. That dehumanization has now led to paranoia and witch hunts, censorship and who knows what else. No, I'm afraid the insistence to tell this story only one way is yet more gaslighting to American people who lived through it and know much of it is not true. Perhaps to many that seemed like Democracy at work. I'm not sure what it was. I fear for the future if this is how elections will work from now on.
That is the thinking on the left, I get it. I wish I had not seen this year so much lying and deception at the NYT and CNN. I can't unsee it now. So why wouldn't Americans believe Fox? They saw with their own eyes gaslighting and overreach. I don't agree that all of the people who watch Fox are the same who listen to Rush Limbaugh. Maybe the hard core Trump supporters do but Fox (and I know because I watched all of the networks this year) tended much more towards the objective line than CNN. Talk about mind control. They convinced people that 74 million who voted for Trump are actual white supremacists, even the non-white voters.
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all other non-left media *combined* have almost no substantive influence over the US government, public/private learning and policy institutions, or societal norms. Yet they're wildly popular among the general population. Curious, no?
Obama/Elections/Etc -- Indeed. Puzzling? Or do you just think that half the country took the short bus to school?
The NYT and CNN are wildly subjective and far off the journalistic rails. If you choose to read/watch them, great. That's your business. But to pretend they're something other than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh in all but the most superficial ways... well, that's not gonna get you (or us) very far.
I tend to concur. I'd say that the most important duty of journalists is to get their facts right. Most journalists seem unwilling or unable to critique their actions except from a Woke perspective, while most of the right-wing journalists seem refractory to any critique except from the extreme right. Part of the problem likely arises from contemporary funding constraints that reward extremism.
And it must be said that social media has encouraged hot takes in journalism. It used to be just clickbait headlines but now they can't really get much traction unless they give us what we want to hear so that they can get the engagement they need to satisfy their employers. Also, journalists are viciously attacked, threatened and some even lose their jobs if they step out of line. How many can actually withstand that. Take the recent appearance of Ben Shapiro at Politico. Even the tiniest bit of objectivity about Trump feeds Twitter's outrage machine for three days or so. That is a broken system.
Sasha Stone writes: "it was malpractice of journalists not to spend even the smallest effort to make sure every one of the things being said about him and his supporters was true. The narrative, by the end, turned out to be a dangerous machine that led to dehumanization on a large scale. That dehumanization has now led to paranoia and witch hunts, censorship and who knows what else." No, I'm afraid that making this argument strenuously and with certainty doesn't make it true. "Malpractice . . . smallest effort . . . dangerous machine . . . dehumanization . . . large scale . . . paranoia and witch hunts, censorship . . . gaslighting." This simplistic if-then argument wraps up the case in a far-too neat ideological package, which it seems is the point. The situation that has prevailed for the past four years--to say nothing of the groundwork over many more years--is much too complicated for your rhetorical bulldozing.
I disagree. And again, I was on the side of those who accepted this without taking the time to figure out what was true and what wasn't. I changed that. I did the research. I listened, I watched, I studied and I came to the conclusion that much of what was written was cherry picking facts to suit a broader narrative and it was not true. It isn't too much to ask for journalists to do the same. It is, after all, their job.
Right....when your argument falls apart resort to insults. Hate to break it to you but everything I'm saying here hurts my job as a film blogger. My substack is free. So what branding are you talking about?
I agree with Mr. Dayton's comments, but I think he dodges the two most important facts surrounding Mr. Trump's loss: He surely would NOT have lost except for the pandemic, which was completely unpredictable; and despite Covid-19 he came disturbingly close to winning. Accordingly, while we can breathe a sigh of relief, I think we need to look hard at why Trump came so close to re-election.
Of course the electoral college system contributed, but that's part of the US electoral system that was baked into it from the beginning. In my opinion, part of the blame lies with the extreme faction of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, though there are many other factors, ranging from the disruptive effects of social media, to the widespread impression of bias in mainstream journalism, to the growth of social bubbles. Accordingly, I think that responsible Republicans need to look hard at what's wrong with their party, and so do responsible Democrats.
I am not so sure that COVID 19 defeated Trump. Many people believed that he was the best person to bring the economy back in the wake of COVID and saw the Democrats as the party of shutdowns and austerity. Not that this is the key issue - Trump got far more votes than he deserved to, and all decent people need to figure out why.
Personally I think COVID 19 was a major part of the reason, though as you say, not all of it. I likely share your views of Mr. Trump, but I'm not comfortable with the phrase "all decent people." For example, I'd say that a sizable fraction of people who voted for the guy are "decent people."
Well, I suppose there might be decent Trump supporters who could be curious about his winning so many votes, but you are right, I certainly implied that Trump's voters are not decent people and that isn't fair. In my view, they did vote for an indecent candidate and we should all be shocked at the state of American democracy if he was the standard bearer for a major political party.
How many votes did Donald Trump deserve? I suppose it's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think that Trump's moral turpitude and foolish remarks would mean he deserved zero votes, but obviously others weren't troubled by these and saw something in him that is completely invisible to me.
You're almost there. You're staring at something that you recognize as deeply important but admittedly don't understand yet (most people don't, not even most Trump supporters). The official line (NAZI! EVIL! TERRORISTS!), while attractive and encouraged, probably causes you some discomfort. And it should.
The only real way to get your arms around it is to begin digging into how "liberal democracy" works, the aims of the democrats and conservatives ( what are their actual roles and endgames), how policy is made, how government funding works, etc.
I have theories, but I usually keep them to myself. I think people are discomfited by rapid change, social institutions are collapsing so people feel alone, people like simple explanations and answers, people are fearful, and someone like Trump fills those voids for them, but I really don't know how to make life kinder and gentler than it is, which I think would be the only way to make people less extreme.
Understandable, but too superficial. Keep digging. For example:
- Change: People aren't afraid of change, they're afraid of perceived harms. But change that benefits them can't happen fast enough (overnight would be fine!). So, what are millions upon millions of Americans afraid of? (fwiw: it's not black or trans people)
- Trump: Sure, he "fills those voids"... but so would an unlimited number of other people. Why him? Also, it's a useful exercise for people that are strongly anti-Trump to ask themselves: what did he do, /exactly/? Is your opposition based in action or style? Unfortunately, it's often style.
-Hard life: I believe this is off-base. While society more broadly seeks to provide the public with a more efficient, productive, satisfactory lifestyle, I don't think that's a key gripe (or fear) among people that oppose progressives. I think you're actually more much likely to find that attitude across the aisle.
I completely agree with you here. What do you think is the possibility of movement to bring together a center R and center D party merging to eliminate the extreme wings of both parties? Is this a point that a third party could succeed for a bit???
I think a third party is totally hosed from the get-go. I'm no political scientist, and don't really know how to make this work. I see the contemporary primary system as part of the problem, and it seems to me that Schwartzenegger's reforms in California might provide an example. For example, open primaries might help.
What if a Sensible Center party arose, got 10% of the vote and did deals with each major party, depending on the issue. Not sure if that would work or not.
I personally don't think a 3rd party of any sort has any meaningful chance in this country. Instead I'd suggest an NGO or some other form of independent advocacy group.
The extremes in both parties are actually coming to light as quite unreasonable and dangerous factions. Does anyone here imagine it might be possible for a new center party, a third party, to arise out of the Republican and the Democratic parties? There is no majority traction for defunding the police or for following the QAnon Shaman.
It's unclear to me how articles like this further Persuasion's stated mission. Frankly, the comments are far more interesting and productive. And while that's great, just think how the breadth and depth of the comments/community could be expanded if we had more nuanced writing.
Mr. Dayton’s analysis reaffirms, for me at least, and underlying truth about the US. Simply, that our governmental institutions are far more solid and trustworthy than the citizens they protect. I truly appreciate his listing the America People first as one of the things that saved us. They did, but we also bear serious responsibility for getting us in such trouble in the first place. I’m a retired engineer with experience in accident analysis and looking at happenings, the election of Trump in 2016 for example, thru that lens is the way I think. I cannot help but ask “what happened here?” Like accidents in general, was it due to a list of factors that by chance came into play together at a specific point in time? What were these factors, how long had they been lurking undetected before tragedy struck, and which pulled the trigger? True, this listing will be long but we desperately need to delineate it. Consider for a start how long we largely ignored the loss of good paying factory jobs to global outsourcing. This wasn’t just a rust belt story. The loss of manufacturing plants in rural America was just as bad as in Pittsburgh, and are those folks not a significant part of a group that feels abandoned? Were they sacrificed for the DOW and the “bottom line?” We need to ask questions like this and, more importantly, we need to take the answers seriously for a change.
This is definitely the story that will be told by the left. This was the narrative before, during and after Trump's reign. But there is another story to be told and I do not have faith that the press in this country will have the courage to tell it. In the end, it took 15 billion dollars, a media 100% on board with siding with one candidate over another, and big tech's insurmountable power over our democracy to defeat Trump and even then it really took a global pandemic and mail-in balloting to bring in those votes for a candidate who barely had to show up, barely had to give a speech, was barely there at all. That has left a good many in this country frustrated and confused. The establishment won this election with very deep pockets and enormous power. Thus, the narrative had to be true. They could not afford for it not to be. For all of Trump's faults, and there were many, it was malpractice of journalists not to spend even the smallest effort to make sure every one of the things being said about him and his supporters was true. The narrative, by the end, turned out to be a dangerous machine that led to dehumanization on a large scale. That dehumanization has now led to paranoia and witch hunts, censorship and who knows what else. No, I'm afraid the insistence to tell this story only one way is yet more gaslighting to American people who lived through it and know much of it is not true. Perhaps to many that seemed like Democracy at work. I'm not sure what it was. I fear for the future if this is how elections will work from now on.
Reminder that the MSM includes Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, the most watched and listened to channels of them all.
Over 50% of Republicans still think Obama was not born in Hawaii. 70% believe the election was stolen.
But sure, it's the NYT and CNN who are the real culprits.
That is the thinking on the left, I get it. I wish I had not seen this year so much lying and deception at the NYT and CNN. I can't unsee it now. So why wouldn't Americans believe Fox? They saw with their own eyes gaslighting and overreach. I don't agree that all of the people who watch Fox are the same who listen to Rush Limbaugh. Maybe the hard core Trump supporters do but Fox (and I know because I watched all of the networks this year) tended much more towards the objective line than CNN. Talk about mind control. They convinced people that 74 million who voted for Trump are actual white supremacists, even the non-white voters.
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all other non-left media *combined* have almost no substantive influence over the US government, public/private learning and policy institutions, or societal norms. Yet they're wildly popular among the general population. Curious, no?
Obama/Elections/Etc -- Indeed. Puzzling? Or do you just think that half the country took the short bus to school?
The NYT and CNN are wildly subjective and far off the journalistic rails. If you choose to read/watch them, great. That's your business. But to pretend they're something other than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh in all but the most superficial ways... well, that's not gonna get you (or us) very far.
I tend to concur. I'd say that the most important duty of journalists is to get their facts right. Most journalists seem unwilling or unable to critique their actions except from a Woke perspective, while most of the right-wing journalists seem refractory to any critique except from the extreme right. Part of the problem likely arises from contemporary funding constraints that reward extremism.
And it must be said that social media has encouraged hot takes in journalism. It used to be just clickbait headlines but now they can't really get much traction unless they give us what we want to hear so that they can get the engagement they need to satisfy their employers. Also, journalists are viciously attacked, threatened and some even lose their jobs if they step out of line. How many can actually withstand that. Take the recent appearance of Ben Shapiro at Politico. Even the tiniest bit of objectivity about Trump feeds Twitter's outrage machine for three days or so. That is a broken system.
Sasha Stone writes: "it was malpractice of journalists not to spend even the smallest effort to make sure every one of the things being said about him and his supporters was true. The narrative, by the end, turned out to be a dangerous machine that led to dehumanization on a large scale. That dehumanization has now led to paranoia and witch hunts, censorship and who knows what else." No, I'm afraid that making this argument strenuously and with certainty doesn't make it true. "Malpractice . . . smallest effort . . . dangerous machine . . . dehumanization . . . large scale . . . paranoia and witch hunts, censorship . . . gaslighting." This simplistic if-then argument wraps up the case in a far-too neat ideological package, which it seems is the point. The situation that has prevailed for the past four years--to say nothing of the groundwork over many more years--is much too complicated for your rhetorical bulldozing.
I disagree. And again, I was on the side of those who accepted this without taking the time to figure out what was true and what wasn't. I changed that. I did the research. I listened, I watched, I studied and I came to the conclusion that much of what was written was cherry picking facts to suit a broader narrative and it was not true. It isn't too much to ask for journalists to do the same. It is, after all, their job.
What you wrote above and this response sound like branding more than a serious analysis. I see you're a film blogger.
Right....when your argument falls apart resort to insults. Hate to break it to you but everything I'm saying here hurts my job as a film blogger. My substack is free. So what branding are you talking about?
I agree with Mr. Dayton's comments, but I think he dodges the two most important facts surrounding Mr. Trump's loss: He surely would NOT have lost except for the pandemic, which was completely unpredictable; and despite Covid-19 he came disturbingly close to winning. Accordingly, while we can breathe a sigh of relief, I think we need to look hard at why Trump came so close to re-election.
Of course the electoral college system contributed, but that's part of the US electoral system that was baked into it from the beginning. In my opinion, part of the blame lies with the extreme faction of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, though there are many other factors, ranging from the disruptive effects of social media, to the widespread impression of bias in mainstream journalism, to the growth of social bubbles. Accordingly, I think that responsible Republicans need to look hard at what's wrong with their party, and so do responsible Democrats.
I am not so sure that COVID 19 defeated Trump. Many people believed that he was the best person to bring the economy back in the wake of COVID and saw the Democrats as the party of shutdowns and austerity. Not that this is the key issue - Trump got far more votes than he deserved to, and all decent people need to figure out why.
Personally I think COVID 19 was a major part of the reason, though as you say, not all of it. I likely share your views of Mr. Trump, but I'm not comfortable with the phrase "all decent people." For example, I'd say that a sizable fraction of people who voted for the guy are "decent people."
Well, I suppose there might be decent Trump supporters who could be curious about his winning so many votes, but you are right, I certainly implied that Trump's voters are not decent people and that isn't fair. In my view, they did vote for an indecent candidate and we should all be shocked at the state of American democracy if he was the standard bearer for a major political party.
Agree that covid didn't defeat Trump. Superior democratic organizing did.
"got far more votes than he deserved to" - can you expand on that?
How many votes did Donald Trump deserve? I suppose it's like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think that Trump's moral turpitude and foolish remarks would mean he deserved zero votes, but obviously others weren't troubled by these and saw something in him that is completely invisible to me.
You're almost there. You're staring at something that you recognize as deeply important but admittedly don't understand yet (most people don't, not even most Trump supporters). The official line (NAZI! EVIL! TERRORISTS!), while attractive and encouraged, probably causes you some discomfort. And it should.
The only real way to get your arms around it is to begin digging into how "liberal democracy" works, the aims of the democrats and conservatives ( what are their actual roles and endgames), how policy is made, how government funding works, etc.
I have theories, but I usually keep them to myself. I think people are discomfited by rapid change, social institutions are collapsing so people feel alone, people like simple explanations and answers, people are fearful, and someone like Trump fills those voids for them, but I really don't know how to make life kinder and gentler than it is, which I think would be the only way to make people less extreme.
Understandable, but too superficial. Keep digging. For example:
- Change: People aren't afraid of change, they're afraid of perceived harms. But change that benefits them can't happen fast enough (overnight would be fine!). So, what are millions upon millions of Americans afraid of? (fwiw: it's not black or trans people)
- Trump: Sure, he "fills those voids"... but so would an unlimited number of other people. Why him? Also, it's a useful exercise for people that are strongly anti-Trump to ask themselves: what did he do, /exactly/? Is your opposition based in action or style? Unfortunately, it's often style.
-Hard life: I believe this is off-base. While society more broadly seeks to provide the public with a more efficient, productive, satisfactory lifestyle, I don't think that's a key gripe (or fear) among people that oppose progressives. I think you're actually more much likely to find that attitude across the aisle.
I completely agree with you here. What do you think is the possibility of movement to bring together a center R and center D party merging to eliminate the extreme wings of both parties? Is this a point that a third party could succeed for a bit???
I think a third party is totally hosed from the get-go. I'm no political scientist, and don't really know how to make this work. I see the contemporary primary system as part of the problem, and it seems to me that Schwartzenegger's reforms in California might provide an example. For example, open primaries might help.
What if a Sensible Center party arose, got 10% of the vote and did deals with each major party, depending on the issue. Not sure if that would work or not.
I personally don't think a 3rd party of any sort has any meaningful chance in this country. Instead I'd suggest an NGO or some other form of independent advocacy group.
The extremes in both parties are actually coming to light as quite unreasonable and dangerous factions. Does anyone here imagine it might be possible for a new center party, a third party, to arise out of the Republican and the Democratic parties? There is no majority traction for defunding the police or for following the QAnon Shaman.
It's unclear to me how articles like this further Persuasion's stated mission. Frankly, the comments are far more interesting and productive. And while that's great, just think how the breadth and depth of the comments/community could be expanded if we had more nuanced writing.
Mr. Dayton’s analysis reaffirms, for me at least, and underlying truth about the US. Simply, that our governmental institutions are far more solid and trustworthy than the citizens they protect. I truly appreciate his listing the America People first as one of the things that saved us. They did, but we also bear serious responsibility for getting us in such trouble in the first place. I’m a retired engineer with experience in accident analysis and looking at happenings, the election of Trump in 2016 for example, thru that lens is the way I think. I cannot help but ask “what happened here?” Like accidents in general, was it due to a list of factors that by chance came into play together at a specific point in time? What were these factors, how long had they been lurking undetected before tragedy struck, and which pulled the trigger? True, this listing will be long but we desperately need to delineate it. Consider for a start how long we largely ignored the loss of good paying factory jobs to global outsourcing. This wasn’t just a rust belt story. The loss of manufacturing plants in rural America was just as bad as in Pittsburgh, and are those folks not a significant part of a group that feels abandoned? Were they sacrificed for the DOW and the “bottom line?” We need to ask questions like this and, more importantly, we need to take the answers seriously for a change.