Debate Week Monday

Doubly Dismayed

I used to love writing “Mood of the People” stories. When I took my road trips for Time Magazine, I’d hold town meetings and write one such every day. I don’t like reading them so much, though—and, in truth, neither did Time readers. They preferred pieces were about politicians, what they said and did, and what I thought about them. (Actually, no: they preferred pieces about celebrities, which is one reason why celebrity-pols of tangerine hue have prospered.) There is, I think, a reason for inevitable failure of “mood of the people” pieces. Several reasons, actually:

1. The reporter may have an agenda…may be trying to “find” a story where none exists, may have a theme in mind going in, to feed his or her surmise about where “the people” have roosted.

2. The sample is usually unreliable—not a real reflection of the local population, much less the national mood. The quotes may be juicy, but they signify nothing.

3. The people are unreliable. They vent. They’re dismayed. They change their minds. Frank Luntz—a master interviewer in focus group settings—has found very few citizens who weren’t dyspeptic over the past 30 years. (More on Frank tomorrow.) The vast majority of American lives are okay; indeed, I believe—given the sordid history of our species—most Americans are relatively happy. But it’s boring to say that. You’ve got a reporter asking your opinion—well, there must be something somewhere that’s annoying.

4. In fact, the most value in reporting a “mood of the people” piece is prospective—if you’re lucky, you learn what folks are interested in and want to know more about. You can bring home valuable ideas to explore and report; you can learn stuff…and the most valuable is the stuff that doesn’t conform to your world view.

So I dipped into Ashley Parker’s mood of the people piece on Sunday with a certain amount of skepticism. But Ashley’s a fine journo—I rode the campaign buses with her back in the day—and she’s done a nice job reporting the obvious in small town Wisconsin: people aren’t satisfied with their presidential choices this election year. Well, duh. Of course, in my experience, they rarely are (for reason number 3 above). But moreso this geriatric year. Except I don’t trust them—and I detest the sobriquet of the moment: double-haters. As I read Parker’s piece, I sensed more dismay than hatred. They’re frustrated. (I don’t know anyone who isn’t.) And they’re waffling in their indecision, which makes this a more volatile electorate than the polls would indicate.

There was one fascinating nugget. I found the Democrats interviewed by Parker more interesting than the Republicans: they are more concerned about Gaza than I would have expected. I mean, Gaza is way over there, very far away…and we don’t have any troops in the fray. But the Dems aren’t happy about the pummeling that Israel has put on the Palestinians, or about Biden’s support for Bibi Netanyahu. This may prove harmful for Biden—though I’m skeptical about that; Trump will give these Dems plenty to be angry about by November. But Netanyahu’s behavior, his sucking up to right-wing extremists in order to remain in power, is long-term disastrous for Israel.

Netanyahu’s arrogance seems to know no bounds. The New York Times reported this last week:

[Netanyahu] is picking a high-stakes fight with the Biden administration, which has provided political cover for Israel’s devastating military campaign while supplying it with key weapons. On Monday, President Biden overcame congressional opposition to finalize one of the biggest U.S. arms sales ever to Israel, an $18 billion deal for F-15 jets.

The next day, however, Mr. Netanyahu posted a video lashing out at the United States for withholding some heavy munitions, an apparent reference to the Biden administration’s decision to withhold a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs over concerns about their use in densely populated parts of Gaza.

The noive of him, as my grandmother would say. The folks Parker interviewed in Wisconsin may not be aware of these details, but they sense what’s happening. And what’s happening is that we’re being bullied by an ungrateful ally, which is embarked on a very questionable enterprise. Israel has tarnished its once-sterling reputation as a beacon of democracy in a difficult neighborhood. I suspect—well, I hope—that the American public hasn’t romanticized the Pals the way the college protesters did, but liberals just don’t like the sight of crushed buildings and bleeding babies. Nor should anyone.

I’m pretty certain that when Democrats get a chance to pull the lever against Trump, they will. And, with any luck, Gaza will seem ancient history by November. But Biden is conveying weakness here, a deflating wound in a President, and at some point, he may have to slap Bibi down publicly. I’d pay good money for that ticket.

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, Trump proposed putting illegal immigrants in an outlaw UFC league. This is so unlike him, so milquetoast. Why not go all the way, give the immigrants swords and cudgels, and put them in the ring with lions?

The Squad Implodes

Congressman Jamaal Bowman is a fool and he proved it yet again in a rally with—mark these names for future opprobrium—Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders in the Bronx on Sunday. AOC was nothing to write home about, but her speech existed, just barely, within the bounds of acceptable political behavior; Bernie was restrained, compared to….Well Bowman was just nuts. Screaming f-bombs, slamming bar stools and most despicable of all, accusing his white liberal opponent, George Latimer, of being a racist. There is nothing lower. A black politician calling a white politicion—who incidentally, has been his career trying to help poor people—a racist is the equivalent of a white politician calling a black pol…well, you can fill in the blanks. I just don’t want to go there. Bowman is despicable. If he wins the primary, I’ll vote for his Republican opponent (so long as he or she is not a Trumper). I simply can’t vote for anyone who plays the race card, whatever their melanin level.

I’d also leave you, my Sanity squad, to judge these articles about the race in the New York Times and The Washington Post. To my jaundiced eye, they are both biased. Indeed, they are classic examples of why moderate conservatives tear their hair out over the “news” coverage in the mainstream media. Blacks righteous, whites racist. Progressives…progressive; moderates, reactionary. AIPAC’s support for Latimer is emphasized, but without context. AIPAC is described as “conservative,” which it sort of is…but it also supports Democrats, like Latimer, who back Joe Biden and want to see a cease fire in Gaza. (The latter isn’t mentioned.) Bowman’s outrageous assertions that the reports of rape and torture on October 7 were Israeli “lies” and “propaganda” are mentioned in passing, but not explored. He apologized, sort of. Neither of the reporters asks Bowman, “What on earth were you thinking when you said that?”

This fits with a deep, slow current of public opinion in recent politics: The mainstream media allow black candidates to say almost anything, without calling them on it. This has done more justifiable damage to the Democratic Party than you can begin to imagine.

This is a busy week…debate week. I’m going to try to write every day and then enjoy a bibulous 4th of July. I hope you’ll think about subscribing to Sanity Clause, free or, preferably paid.