« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Commentary Podcast: Advertisements for Themselves

2017-02-06 | 🔗
On today's podcast, the COMMENTARY team—Noah Rothman, Abe Greenwald, and I—point out that an uncommonly Trumpian audience watching the Super Bowl was subjected to ads attacking its views. Will that matter? Are these companies shooting themselves in the foot by virtue-signaling? And speaking of signaling, what signal was Donald Trump sending with his moral equivalence between the United States and Russia? How much of this can conservatives take because they know they're going to get some good policies out of it? Give a listen.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Some welcomes commentary magazine podcast today is Monday February. Twenty seventeen, I'm John POT horrid the editor of commentary. With me as always, nor Rossman, Associate editor of commentary high Noah and a good wild senior editor of commentary, high Abe Hygiene Commentary Magazine seventy two year old monthly. That brings the best in criticism analysis, political discussion Join us at commentary magazine dot com, where we give you a few free reads and asked you to subscribe for one thousand, nine hundred and ninety five for a digital subscription
twenty nine. Eighty five for an all access subscription give it away you'll be happy. Delighted that you join the more than thirty thousand people who are listening to these pod casts twice a week, happened. Listening, thank you and if you just new, thank you double time, so It is too oh fourteen hours after the most amazing super bowl in history and the astounding. Thirty one unanswered points scored by the patriots the second half but for our purposes. The interesting question is that this event that was watched by half it television sets on in the United States, shared a series of commercials, as they always do, some of them costing as much as five million dollars a minute in the first quarter a lot of them seem to have as ever
was noted, explicit Political content about nature of the country and the nature of immigrants and the country's stance towards immigrants that function effectively is a gigantic sub tweed of Donald Trump and the Trump voter and the feeling I'm beliefs of both and It struck me as interesting and now turned to aim to expand on this is. This event is a basically fifth five, forty five male audience. You know some akin to eighty or ninety million people are watching fifty five percent mail given that sixty five percent mail. That means that it's probably about fifty five forty five trump voter turnout, on trumped voter and these
companies and advertising agencies that are making the commercial decided to basically use their time and this unbelievable expense to throw political arguments against the Trump voter am trump himself. And it seems self destructive, on the one hand, because they're trying to sell you, know beer and tires and Cars in all kinds of stuff commercials, are designed to sell to men. Men, voted for Trump and they're, making commercials that are Anti Trump, so bubble prevails at its at its own peril. I am fascinated by I am fascinated by. I remember there was this moment right after the election. It lasted Twenty four hours when it where many elite said. Ok, it's clear that there is a huge, segment of the american population at their that's being ignored. We ve been speaking
and to we ve been ignoring them. We ve been, we ve, been assuming that our issues are their issues and we need to rethink, rethink our appeal show how we treat the rest of the country clear. Clearly, that's that's all gone and it's also interesting to me that sort of generally everything is so politicize. Now everyone has to choose aside every corporation every country, every company you have to choose aside on every issue of of the day, and None of them are coming down on the side of the trunk vote, it is exhausting that agreed which life now involves politics in a way that it didn't or if it did, the politics worser secondary or tertiary. Sir flowed repent of present In the way things were framed, but not explicit, and now it's all very
listen speaking as somebody who has lived my entire life in that kind of atmosphere, it is very tiresome untiring to live. That way. Just happened the by product of me a career and our careers, it certainly isn't the way that you have. Ninety five percent of people in the United States have lived until recently will admit today, point the amazing commercial. To me. I think it was our duty I didn't confusing, be out in the upper Mayo commercials, but the outer commercial did not sell the car the engineering or the history it sold wage equality behold message of that commercial. Commercial was wage equality. That's what they were selling that was their product, we're here for wage equality. One of the things. I think we learned from the election that that one wants to learn excessively about the behaviour of people from an election result? But it's the one thing that we all do at the same time at once, every four years was
the presumption that political messages that were tailored to you, no specific groups, like The presumption that you know Trump would get a fraction of the hispanic vote that Mitt Romney God, because he was so openly hostile to Mexicans and to judge Curio and all of that, and then here we're here was that it turned out that, despite all these expectations, the vote was pretty much the same that Romney God in this notion that you appeal to groups by profit by profit. Liberal messages it turns out, isn't necessarily you know is either heart, mingle, you're, just as a matter of fact it's just not successful way to go. That pillory and the Democrats and people like that assume that they had all the certain populations in their pocket book. As they lived in this bubble, and they thought that the way to appeal to them was the way you appealed to.
Literally the interest groups that raise money and function in Washington and New York and LOS Angeles and places like that by you know. Playing on liberal Galton, liberal sympathies and all that and that people are much more complicated and don't fall so readily into these categories and have their buttons pushed the way liberals think that their buttons are pushed and so out he is the same way. So maybe I trying to sell cars to women and so out he's wave selling cars to women. The push wage equality as opposed to what people did years ago, which, as they would push safety, they would push airbags, they would push. You know the council if a family and a car or just have women driving a car, which is the other way classically that you feel to women if you're selling a car which, as you have a woman driving the car, so that it makes a thinkable that that's the car that a woman would drive, so so, maybe in the in the other case, almost a sort of marketing savvy to it affects in fact what was what was going on, but more broadly, how does this get
asked market research. You know have when you're saying our we're gonna try to sell beer and lumber to soup. Of yours using anti Trump pro pro immigration messages. While there's this two considerations there for the admin, one is that you're selling a product to is that you want to get this thing out there, and have it. You know reverberate beyond the five million dollars that he put out too for the actual advertisements or we're doing right now is assisting the bottom line in talking about these products. A point that I would like to make and get your gentleman's opinion on here as I am generally, I don't, I think, we're we run the risk of overstating the social impact of events like these. If all of these add by the way targeted people with identity politics be at the outset,
Add targeting women or the Budweiser add targeting immigration than the notions that were being conveyed here will were identical politics, which appeal primarily to liberals, but I also appeal to lower information voters. Identity. Politics is super easy to get. You don't have to have a lot of policy background and knowledge and politics. All you have to do is be aware of your identity and the identity of others, and that's it zero barrier to entry to jump into that political conversation, and I have a real problem with what I think is this phenomenon of low barrier to entry pilot X, which isn't really politics its entry level, emotional discussions that masquerade as political engagement and give you the satisfaction of engaging politically when all they are is really just emotionally gratified cod, that was no Rossman neighbouring won't. I mean I agree with your disdain for those things, and I think this brings up a question which is just like in the end,
our larger political reality, leftwing identity, politics gave way to white working class right wing identity, politics. How long is it before The majority of the american population see commercials like this rejected and say what will now will play that game on the advertising field as well. We, but he can what we will appeal to. We will appeal to white identity, part c. To my mind, that's why these commercials were of the feeling I mean I don't really care whether out he sells more cars a dozen. I don't care what cut what commercials they make in its of no some. This is only interesting as a man means discussion. But the fact is that, thirty years ago people didn't view tomorrow politically and now they do and if they Veuve commercials. Politically people are gonna view commercials as hostile and therefore they are gonna have a hostile. Feeling about the products a Google home
Google now selling its version of Alexa the box. You talk to your house, so Google home puts at this multi cultural, commercial, which I, why was perfectly happy with her Mozilla's in it than you know People are asking questions and spanish and they are asking for had a substitute spices and if you like tat, the add very pointedly there was no one in it that looked white That's right. I mean it's not that they work they were, like every every woman at Brown, hair remain and brown hair. Everything was, you know it wasn't like. There was some blonde. There was like some personal look like they lived in a lower middle class. How somewhere, then. Maybe they know that that's on who's gonna buy a google how machine, but but less it's kind of striking. So you spend your thirty years at identity politics that at some point what happens, is some white
can class personal how's. It look at that and say they don't like me. There there's! No one in that add that looks like me wanting to buy and one of the things that we learn about this election. That we forgot- because we were so hammered by this- is that seventy four percent of the country is white and christian, and you know- and you know only thirty percent of Americans graduate from college. So this notion that you're selling to upscale in everyone's changing and all this. So if you're pushing as set if you're, pushing identity politics for thirty years, you're bringing you're gonna bring consciousness of the majorities elimination from the from these imagery of the United States, which is presented by the commercials on the Superbowl. Here's what I mean about the risk of possibly overstating the sort of thing I didn't see, the any of that I saw that commercial. I didn't see no Arians, didn't register with me and I'm going,
but I'm print, but that does not mean trying to shrink nor my virtue here, I'm trying to suggest that I dont think that just about that, we run the risk of saying everybody using these sort of things. When maybe they're not we don't know how many people look at our commercial and said. Well, everybody in this motion Brown, I think everybody really thinks that were. I look, I agree and I'm not saying it's: everybody, I'm saying that when you have a hundred million people, watering stumbled ale, but they ve already habit of advertising or advertising is not supposed to do it's not he's not was to serve divide the audience and then make people manage as if they had, just as on a majority, would see that commercial and say well good. Where were work programme in ITALY represented here and a white person would look at that and say: why aren't I represented here both of those are the same coin. Two sides of the same very talk out of his cell. You, I'm ok, I'm not gonna! I am now going to be. Oh you're, Syria out of the water so
nineteen, seventeen and nineteen eightys, the main commercial, that dominated the commercial that dominate the Superbowl. Could be summed up as the commercial for cars that said baseball hot dog, apple pie and generally right. So that was the add it was small towns and a baseball field and the fourth of July parade and flags- and you know this the image of America that Madison Avenue both you know tailored to the american myths, the serb Disney Fide American without the main street USA, Disneyworld myths and assume that it would it would serve Oak happy mistake, I'll jig positive feelings in an audience that would
lend themselves to the thought that a shiver lay as a really nice thing and ended evokes all these wonderful american qualities, thirty years later, the allocation of american wonderfulness, which has a lot of these adds, is America's a nation of immigrants. Now, as it happens, I love that I'm all into that. It's just striking that we just had the most anti immigration president person. Ever to run for office. You know, since added of the eighteen, fifty since that no nothing party, we the presidency and the Nonetheless, that is how they are selling soap. If I was being honest- and I think we all should be honest- that the people who This sort of commercial believe themselves to be mission, oriented believe that there are not just selling a car or product, but that their conveying a political matter
there's that at this time in american history is uniquely important to convey particularly to the segment of the population that that is, attentive to it? Will that gives us back to a point which is that welcome to the bubble so now the bubble? The mission of the bubble now interferes with the mission of the simple purpose of Van advertising on which to sell a car under that we don't open its own cars. Well, we know that if something is apparently more important than his own eyes, tick off a certain segment of population, but we haven't seen that been sales yet but the whole point is design unless you're designing an ad to be deliberately divisive because you're the purposes to
single out an individual demographic people to say you you're cool enough to get this and don't worry about everybody else, but that is not the purpose of advertising on the Superbowl, which is to use the whole purpose of ours, that is, that you're reaching the entire country. Once that's, why you advertise on the super bowl and pay these insane rates. To do so, and, of course, the funny thing about this is that in talking about car advertising and talking about foreign car advertising and and and luxury, It did. The message used to be this aspiration. Look at this beautiful, high and thing that its healthy for you to want and and and and and aspire to get. This thing and now I think it was still out one of the sort of hashtag endings at the commercial literally had put the word progress in it. Was it was to have we learnt? Yes? Yes, so you know they have. They have to serve. We figure out what what appeal of our high and car is in, like you know, Sandra I was asian see, I was very struck by the commercial,
the militia, Mccarthy, car commercial, and maybe it wasn't successful since I can't remember what the car was so the joke, and it was very funny, it was easily the best commercial of the night, Israel. Some are currently has a big environmentalist and so, and so they they say, Melissa you gotta come help, save the whale. So she goes to help save a whale and the way jumps on our boat and smashes, earned to the side of the Greenpeace explore ship that was out trying to save the whales and then she's on it saved the tree Is someone cuts the tree down and she falls off a cliff and get killed, and then she saving the ice. Apps and the ice cap cracks and she falls to the crevice and dies, and the message was look if you want to save the and it just by our hybrid, the car is a hybrid, and so you could just do that now. If you think about it, it's very, funny. But that is a commercial for the Sanders. Voter that's not
crucial for an ordinary person. That's a commercial! It says, look tat what you want to save the whales you want to save the earth. You want to save this. You can you know it's too much trouble, but if you buy our hybrid That's enough perhaps we're missing something here because we are talking about corporations that are invested in the bottom line ever fiduciary responsibility to the bondholders. Are there stockholder. Rather they are not. We'll be putting out messages that are contradictory. And undermine that mission? Maybe there is research of which we don't have access to. Maybe they believe that the people who watch these commercials? These Superbowl adds as tenderly, as some of us have been. Apparently I missed all of who is TAT was drinking beers but Maybe they they haven't your audience resource that suggests there,
They have more women more liberal policy, while maybe they do, but, as I said it, I'm going to let you down with a rather like that we Ashura they can that's the point. That's that's the quaint, that's where we, started is: are they showed themselves? The foot? Are you right Hillary Clinton but a billion dollars and got everything wrong. So it certainly plausible that you know that that whoever sold the noisome, Mccarthy car bad add. Since I can remember what company was. I remember, Lissom cried. This is why commercials historically never had celebrities in them by the way all idea of not having celebrity commercials was you want to focus on the product? If you have famous people in the ad people will sail. That's the Jennifer, Garner commercial. You might remember what the Doesn't that happened in this case, and there is another problem here with it, which is that if the message of every commercial is the same, you're not can be able to distinguish brand from if it's all, if it's all about virtues signalling and and how to be good, progressive
Yes, everything love the point. We don't know any the answers were disposing of questions valets. Let's move on to the controversy of the two, the multiple controversies of the weekend? I think for us, the most dead, disheartening and depressing one was was the president going on with the bill, O Reilly and bill arising, saying? Why are you closing of two Putin he's a killer and the President United Sates saying their allotted killers? What you think we're so innocent? We in the United States were so innocent, thus dry. Complete moral equivalence between food and a man who you know poisons his rivals with radiation. Both inside I am in London and opposition figures killed has reported whip. He apparently, though, no we do not know link can be made, has report
was assassinated in their lobbies, for getting too close shuts down. You know, shuts down media and takes it over for the state. Has some em Edison and his wholesale invading other countries next door to take over there. You know just material resources, so the United States has many historical, has many flaws at many historic, but that you know there if you could name a president, a name, an individual american leader who had people killed with radiation American read domestic in a political opponents had them killed with a we going to radiation umbrella. Then it would be really nice for him to. Let us know who that was so we could. We can handle history. But I mean in general we have here is this his mouth. Fear of being challenged on his, eccentric, semi radical foreign policy,
Two is to take out against the United. Aids, this is now I've YO historical pattern. On his part, he has a weird behaviour of just being unable to back down from operating a rhetorical position he might have taken and peak and not really well thought out, and he cannot at retreat from a single hill. Every hill is the one to die upon, interesting observation that we can from me. I am profoundly disappointed by this there's. No other word describe it needs observation of the weekends from James A tell Ansell? Rather, I'm not sure what were german and Jim Answer daily Ellie collar who's, who correctly observed that don't trumps nationalism and the supposed patriotism that goes along with that which I have some problem. With, but we'll just assume for the sake of argument, nationalism, patriotism are virtually synonymous, so there's that
take it for granted and dropped, so he can go out and apologize for the United States and with Brok, Obama never could because Barack Obama Patriotism was very much in doubt and his body American exceptionalism, so that the american laugh, which has cringing over this heart, namely, should perhaps I consider this position because he's doing something that Barack Obama never could in a fashion, that's much more effective. I frankly, don't understand the presumption of pay, treats as I'm Donald Trump. To be perfectly honest. This is this is the part of it that that that eludes me. His line. And apparently it's been his line for more than thirty years. Is that this country is a laughing stock? That people think that the in the world- things that were stupid, that are our actions abroad or self defeating that we are, we have created, the conditions under which you know millions People, like tens of millions of people, are unemployment. We don't even know that people,
wash in opiate abuse, because the country is so unfair in what What degree does this differ from her? our decision or from any you know far. Leftist critique of the United States and our cat capitalism is unjust, that our are arm our programme, save posture outside the United States is. Is both self defeating an immoral I dont actually see some explain to me what the difference is I'll, try at in the answer that I have still doesn't equate to patriotism. But the difference, I think, is that I examined trumps as well being of things is: those things as they may be. We should have he's to use our power and strengthen influence to get things from the world. And two and to better ourselves, better, better, better our material lot. Right, we known as national right right, really have to apologize
So the left, his view is, were terrible and we need to apologize to everybody and and a base ourselves and pay reparations and do all these things to show that we are stand or moral depredations is are this is the the world is America socks, everybody else sucks to we're, gonna get things from people and I'm gonna hand, and I'm gonna give the people who are suffering this country. You know something never had before, which has a president who would like has their back and is going to give them things, even if they don't do whatever. Bill, a very unpatriotic vision of american, no matter how you slice right emanate because the problem is, he has zero background in search of understanding the good or the virtuous or the ideological underpinnings of american patriotism, which is very different than than nationalism. Well, a random, so Rich Lowry and remit. Plural attempting to grapple with what Trump may mean
four conservatism. In the latest national view, a cover story lay out the press, lay at the idea. That Trump is American Nationalist and american nationalism is not a bad thing that american nationalism properly understood is patriotic, and you know that it's about pushing american interests him and- and to find the right balance between. The economy and the personal then all this and its it very interesting piece and I think, a very flawed peace, because that's not what nationalism is in America by definition in some odd way, not precisely a country in which nationalism can flower, because it is based in its national and is based in the idea that name hood priests, its system has to say,
german nation, the even the jewish, nay whatever you want to call the chinese nation that these are the enduring things and that the systems come and go, there's a monarchy them. There's a republic then there's a dictatorship that public is re established, but the consistent. Quality. Is german what what but whatever I may, even if you want to make it less italian, being Italian, like are being English or you know this sceptred, I you know the greatest english patriotic speeches, the speech of John of Gaunt and Richard the second about you know that this sceptred I'll and that, of course, during a medieval kingship, so the United, it doesn't function that with the United States doesn't come into existence, except as a system that name the system proceeded the nation if I were adopted, a little bit of the self plug. I commend to you attention a piece I read on this in March of last year. Its call, what's the matter with nationalism, was a problem with that something along those lines
I make a lot of these points. I think it's pretty valuable to make that in this national review article they do often conflate patriotism and nationalism and those two things are uniquely distinct, but there's also a flavor today, particularly with people who our position, who are attempting to wrestle with what the term phenomena means is that MRS response to elite ism and perception that those of us who try to understand this thing and don't just let our its take over and stared deeply into the eyes of the electorate and try to mimic their emotions word there it. This is all a response to a latest belief in the this tasteless of nationalism- and that's true, their history- doesn't really regard people who were in elite is nationalists. Conveying the sentiments of the of the electorate that was otherwise and ignored. Israel
regard them very well and that peace. I cite the the famous commentary event with urban Crystal were here. Had you up my centrally apologize for making I is for Joseph Mccarthy. He was the suggested that just Mccarthy was representative of a particular vision in which liberals were. We were exposing themselves by suggesting that the crimes of, stolen were somehow less of an issue than the crimes of justice, Mccarthy, and they should be at least equivalent in some fashion, Having crystal? I do apologise for them. He was here we did not regard just Mccarthy very well as urban growth made a price and people who embrace the demagogues, because these anti elitist and impossible less channels and nationalist passions of the guy on the bar store. They don't look really gotten posterity while the central,
the problem here- is that the danger for us- and I go into this blog posts that we published yesterday called the problem- is Tromp is gonna. Do conservative things? Do many? Can many already done? Many can appointed meal courses to the Supreme Court. He is going to run this anti regulatory regime. This is very serious embrace of a part of the servitude, conviction about that which is hampering the spread? opportunity, an economic opportunity through the emir, through the use of lead regulatory, administrative power- and you know it can do a lot of good stuff, probably and then he's gonna open his mouth and say that America's no different from Putin and he is Going to a cosy up to putin- and he may well help destroy
by NATO and he will general, as a representative figure, a base and defame our system We were having an argument here about whether he had done just that by tweeting. At the job a true suspended, the the M executive order on extreme vetting and refugees, and the danger for the right is- is that. Whether he is embraced or not, or whether we understand him as a patriot and nationalist, or not that what he becomes so noxious that it will, in fact, and poison The idea of conservatism, self and the policies that he am acts which are going to be mixed up and corrupted by the views that he hoped of the country and of immigrants and of people like that.
And this is a real problem in its not clear that has a solution and it's very frightening. It's like the question of whether a people who disagree with Trump on fundamentals, but you now want to see them I think, for the country. Should they go into the administration? Should they Malka work for the administration has, maybe they can do good things? But what? If? What his coloration is going to discredit the ideas that people believe in. That was by the way the essence of conservative frustrations with Trump during the campaign. Somebody but he was gonna- be a conservative governor, but other people thought maybe he would also reached just change. The definition of what it meant to be. Conservative lets a thing but what I suspect is gonna be in rector irreconcilable- is that Trump has simply, I have no idea of America first right here as if, as a sort of thing out there
its he sees. He sees the country only in practical terms, baby system to exploit its isn't it to work for fur for four benefit. But not as a not as a thing in and of itself in and conservative, collectibles, that's that's the basis from which they proceed, if it does it just intellectuals, is what I was getting to impart about. When I was talking about. The poor peace is that it America's a nation is, system before it is a nation and so are we are governed. We are our entire s. So being define by some pieces of paper, not by the land, not by the land that precedes us not by you know, they're. There are in fact they're just too few people who were here at the time I am of the founding to say you know. Well you see this was their country and did grew from there. You know every atom. You know they.
Eighty percent of the population of the country their descendants came after and they came after because America was structured differently from all other places aside, and so it if it had a system that made it possible for people to prosper and to have freedom and do all that them unless you weren't african, american or We know that, obviously and so, or chinese and working on the railroad. Or an indian but I mean that you have this different understanding, and so, if you trump doesn't have that and big and his understanding is that the system is corrupt and he I understand that the system is scrub, so he'll make it work under he'll make it work better, based on the fact that its corrupt, whereas I think the dominant american conviction is that this
The system is not corrupt that individuals who work in the system or corrupt, that it's the nature of human nature, to try to find ways to corrupt the system, but that system, is the best system that has ever been devised. Bye, bye, bye, mortal men to one to run a society and that, the system- and I think, if you have no grounding in that, if you have no regard through its ideals, ripe, that's The ideas I mean it's like the ideals are the. Gold, that that back up the bills of the system, you know, that's, that's and that's what substantiates the system- and I think, if you have no grounding in that. If you have no regard for that, and certainly no reverence for you can end up tweeting things like if, if there's a terrorist attack, blame the court system, The court system is exactly what he said and that's not a rehash. The argument that we had before when on the work. It was kind of a big argument, but, although that's probably good for the ears of maybe we should do that, but
yeah. I did the notion that Donald from kid sort of just haphazard, let's say: okay, if the next terrorist attack happens, it's not my fault. It's the court systems fault, as, in this whole, other system of branch of government, that's not normal, does not acceptable as a kind of thing that could convey to the american public that maybe the system itself is corrupt. Maybe these institutions are corrupt. Maybe we shouldn't have any faith in them. In fact, we have a cry. Of confidence in these institutions already right. Well, no Rossman. My disagreement with you very simply was that as as these are coequal branches, The judiciary is not above being criticized by other branches of government. In fact, bravo I would criticise the Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision during the state of the union and laid. The president may be form of four days From saying: hey, you lift this if you like,
this ban, and do you know when there's a terrorist attack? Don't blame me blamed, judge Robart of out and out in Washington State not just a endless and the court system right. Well, so I'm just saying that there is no, it's not people, I think or too quick to say that trumps. I'll get means that it is illegitimate for the executive branch to complain when the judicial branch- interferes with what the executive branch believes as its primary authority in a matter. It's perfectly acceptable. The judiciary is not the president. Not subservient to the judiciary. These are coequal branches of government and the judiciary is a check on the president, but the president can be a check, our balance on the present presents also check and balance on the judiciary. So it is, understandable in a word, like the,
it's not acceptable to say the downturn has no right to say what he had to say about the judiciary. You can say that the way he said it is horrendous but the way you said everything is horrendous. As far as I'm concerned, I mean III. Why would like? I don't want exception of the state that most of what he said about judge by Judge Gorsuch on to, tonight, there's like literally nothing that he said is president that hasn't chilled my blood, so You know I do want to minimize it by just saying: ok, while he says terrible things, that's just him. Certainly you don't want to minimize it. I want to minimize love you're right, I don't know that's, why said words? Oh no! No! No, it doesn't want to minimize it. You made very clear I'm saying that he set it in a horrible way, and maybe it's not your might have this as that measureless. Ok. So this is the chrysalis of the problem that we were just discussing, which is that it, they perfectly legitimate thing for the president not to act as though he is subservient to, judiciary, but if he says, blame the judge,
court system if there's a terrorist attack. He and poisons the legitimate argument the president has to say I'm sorry, but the courts are wrong here and I'm right, which is a perfectly not only that that's the healthy health. In a democracy for the present does something is I am sorry I guess you know a judge and Washington said I was wrong, so I better be don't bout, my head and be you know, silent, doesn't have to just like If Nancy Pelosi says that he's a murderer shouldn't doesn't say, is a murderer, but if she says he's a good reason, Putin's pocket and he says, nasty things went Nancy Pelosi he's not attacking the he's. Not attacking the legitimacy of the legislative branch of government either what point as it unacceptable for him to say this, this block on my authority. I now it's the cords. But maybe eventually it's a supreme court at some point,
its Congress at what point as it is it is. It is unacceptable for him to say blame that says that the constitution is that if the our institution is the obstacle that has all, but I mean we're everything everything he's. This is the problems I dont want to minimize it either but serve everything he says of this in this matter. If you're talking about how our system of justice government works his acceptable, so and he is the president. So you know our understanding of what is and what is not unacceptable is gonna have to change, because this is I'll think about how we can't normalized Trump. What do you mean we get its? He is normalized. He is the president. We have. No choice. He defines what the presidency is. While he is president, it's not a pretty picture. But that's what happened? You know it Walk round saying he, kids Abacha had a fight with somebody on Twitter yesterday at the parent, school. Who was like her can't say this and I said it's nonsensical to say that
a man who just said something can't say what he just said. He didn't say it. So the question is what what flows from it? What follows from it- and I don't think, that's the definition of normalization that he can't say it said he shouldn't say it ideally. Go but cannot accept judgment, but more or less that's, that's it have let him normalization. Nobody can say you can set. You can say that doesn't make us all so shouldn't say something is I am so we shouldn't say something but to say that it is annexed the ball. For the now I mean even the criticisms find to say its unacceptable from the same. What I'm saying is that we can't spend the next four years saying I can't believe it just savvy can't say that is the stray allowed to have been no one's ever said, but Obviously this is where we are, and we are not not, that you have to make peace with it, but you have to fight, What is going on with better tools, then sort of sputtering outrage, because sputtering outrage is a form of impotence. Not it
there's no way to stop it or prevented or doing it is just responsive, and it's like lit. You know it's like Stimulus response and he tweets are. We all go home, I got out and then what you're talking about buttering outraged. I can't imagine a better example than these impotence. Tweets please convey he's are imminent, but he is the opposite of impotence, he's the powers, and now this executive order has been stayed. No. Impotent it's going to the courts, the Supreme Court, but that doesn't make him impotence that make a member that that means that his his idea of using you know plenipotentiary executive authority. You know, through the you know, the the genius visionary idea of Steve Bannon that you could do to throw all this stuff, throw it throw it out so
you don't. You can dazzle everybody with how much you're doing and how much you known than the system goes all hold on their minute, Buddy that's not the way we work things you're gonna, like you're gonna, totally come up immigration system. Without you know even telling an ugly is reduced to table pounding on Twitter, how much out with what a better definition of impotence. Is there. Oh, by the way he could redraft executive order be probably nobody. Nobody can do it right. Now I as an individual right now and say you know what we took. Judge Robarts concerns into account. So what we're gonna do is have a process at a refugee that in English, because this for the same reason he says we're killers too just like prudent, because to do so would be an admission of folder retreat and he cannot retreat from anything. Well, you know what, if he can, retreat from anything honestly, I mean this is the true if he cannot retreat from anything if he cannot make a mistake and back off, if you can't you
we'll have a disastrously, unsuccessful presidency. There not a case of the sick zestful or even the durable presidencies that you don't want to call the George W Bush presidency successful if you dont want to but the durable presidencies feature course corrections off the time and also by the way, adopt Adele she's, a policies that you're not really that excited by, because you need to do them for political reasons, like you know like the like of Medicare Party thing and night, an which, at the end of two thousand three, which you know was against republican orthodoxy, but Bush promised to do it in the election we had to do before the reelection. They they pushed through and very, very questionable circumstances. But that's how presidencies endure you do have to do a lot of course, corrections. If he cannot course correct, he will be here, be Jimmy Carter Times a billion or he'll, be George H, W Bush. I'm a billion moment interested the fact of life. My question is
I agree that did sputtering outrage in response to everything he does even it, even when he does is outrageous is, is a show their brains and is not the way to oppose them, but what it because they leave the outrage, remains you know so people are you people operate around, outraged and and sort of with, with an inability to to to turn that into any functional. Ok it's been this conversation on the left about how everybody should ignore him right or not book. His people on talk shows because they lie or anything like that, but fact overtime, if he, using this medium over and over and over again, you know in the EU Twitter, over and over and over again as a kind of whatever it is expression of his it or an effort to sort of DR his populist To communicate over the heads of the media to his Weena loading block and all of that,
these things, lose their snap after what you can't just presume that, just as the outrageous gonna burn out, so it's so is the effectiveness of this communication tool at some wait. You need to like him sustained a policy series of policy, successes and not you know and not stand when he has them he's not going to want it. Let's he has one or the economy grows going at that. If he tweets. Past all nonsense, in the middle of that, when the administration is trying to pound the notion that they're having a great success. He will step on his own story and ruin his own ability he gonna bring new people to support at this whole episode by the way exposes how the law fitted utility and diminishing returns of his initial approach to eat
revitalization, which was to pressure companies to keep jobs in the United States is just like a hundred jobs thousand jobs may be. Clearly disappeared totally off the rain. Are those people stories are no longer in the news. These events gestures disappeared into the either one court, stay on a major policy objective of this administration has created, oppression that this administration is on its that sort of how these political new cycles work and eventually they're gonna have get a hold of it. The economic message I think I think, I'd rather less, where their base. So the final thing that's going on in the last couple of days. Is this what clear emergence through? the press of a battle line or assertive of the civil war going on inside the incredibly Mason, rather empty Trump White House and witch Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, the former communications
to Jeff Sessions, who is apparently now become. You know, sort of like the Henry Kissinger of the domestic policy staff, our bureau. Writing all these things and getting Trump into trouble, and then from reading news stories in the New York Times and elsewhere. You get the sense that there is this other camp, that it seems to be made up of rights previous and Kelly and Conway impossibly Jared at a vodka saying bet bantams crazy and he is doing you damage and he and everyone's calling him. Then we'll president- and you know, he's doing things too fast and there's no policy consultation, and you know what worked the course which thing worked, and you know who was involved in that not famine. So why don't you take what looks good and then eliminate? What's bad, we don't know if this is actually what
happening or not what's happening, and what we do know is the trump likes. Apparently likes a certain degree of chaos around him, but the questions gonna be at some point that a war can't go on forever inside of incentive policy shopper. I just can't, because the good working order has to be established, in which you know somebody is setting the agenda and what the president does every day and who is talks too in what's they get rolled out on the hill and all of that. But this is a pretty striking its again, it's only been seventeenth at its we been office. Seventeen days like these are everyday, honour, the sorts of things that emerge after months and months of you no trouble in a very, very, very dysfunctional White House, like the early Clinton White House, the first year of the Clinton White House, all which is played out you know in length piper speed. As is weird sputum like quality, that there are sort of conveying onto steep ban and which I don't know if it is applied,
I think, that's from the president, the goods from the way out of this. This it was in camp that that we think is just existing- that there's sort of this analysis gave the little father knew what was going on in the countryside. He wouldn't he would intervene on our behalf and well by men. I think it's not knowing from personally I was here. I think it's. It strikes me as wise to try to build up the case. The ban is stealing the spotlight from him, a man to me that strikes me as something that that that would get to him and end cause him in time to to push a man. Look we the reason that we share. I believe that people like us seem to share the scepticism and worry but Bannon as influence and as a force in the White House is based on the way here characterizes his own view of the world at his own beliefs, which are that you know
is a Leninist who wants to blow up the system and he wants to reestablish America on a different set of grounds on nationalist grounds. We serve work, capitalism under this kind of like insanely, ambitious and quite vulgar and kind of horrifying notion that America has been run off the rails by this evil elite. That is destroying everything that happened, way. Himself was a part of so you know you read that using that, and you think this is the is to go conservative thing. I've ever heard, like that. It's one thing to say that it's actually a progressive goal, take the system and revolutionise that that is not the conservative goal is to wish is to keep the system going and changes and reforms to it as it goes that's Burke in and it is resolving in Oregon. Oh
mark, see America, everyone or Leninist, as as as as Bannon himself says, to say that the system itself is fundamentally corrupt and needs to be revolution, airily overhauled. That is again everything conservative supposedly believe about the good working order of the universe, I would add, and to do so in a style that really enjoys being the black hat, that is conveyed that it is put on it by the left. He really likes the two too live down to the expectations to which the left has has seen. Conservatives a very long time that sort of how he guided the the development of bright Bart I thought you know in the ninety late nineteen Seventys when I was a student at the University of Chicago, their group emerged invisibly, putting up posts authors on ashes and forever Clodagh, was like fascism forever club. That was your horses version of this, so the
group nobody who, who they were they never nothing ever they would. They call themselves the bourgeois capitalist, running dog, lackey society and they put up posters around camp. As that said, things like use the poor for firewood stuff, like that, So this idea this form of humor, which is concerned derivative humour that is, oh, you think, I'm you want me to be a villain great. Let me you know what I'm gonna do its total. I'm totally happy to be of. Let me show you how bad I can be rashly partook of this in his early years, you now calling not the EU feminist famine, nazis running these hilarious mock commercials about Teddy Kennedy, drowning people and stuff like that it is a sort of a it's an it's a right wing id guy. It is now It is a counter cultural right wing view of it said,
knowing rightwing view of itself, which is say, you're, never gonna treat me as anything other than being a monster. So the hell with you. Disguised in the White House like that, how do you know he is now the second, the one of the two most powerful advisers, the present United States in the White House like he is some guy and a college campuses having to hide behind anonymous posters and there where he is required of him by history and by precedent and by the simple fact of being elementary human decency to conduct himself with to treat his office was spect and the country with respect and the voters with respect and everybody else and everybody else who was trying to do things and government who warrant monsters with respect and clearly doesn't have that and its comes a real power
our full impulse on the right and even humble em? The left has it famously pulse land. There were humorists on the left to do the same thing. Well, the humours over you know. I also think there is a potential tension between ban in Trump on this point, because, while Bannon lives to be thought of as the dark force, I think from does to be loved and want to be accepted by the leading by Hollywood and used spent decades. Units are working to that end and part part the angry, semi, urban and tweeting. I think, as is his expression of frustration over the fact that he sees losing, has lost that New York Times. Editorial board will forever be the unattainable my entire structural approach in the world is to say that if the New York Times ruled everything I wouldn't be here in the first place conservative
you dont, you don't care has only as yet. No you don't you ve already written them all out, and you say: ok, fine, so they have these view. It knows nothing. I can do that's gonna, please them so you know they can. My entire structural approach in the world is to say that if the New York Times ruled everything I wouldn't be here in the first place, but that is not where here probably hit home that first White House Correspondence dinner where the air of levity is just gone, and it's this joyless shore, in which every participant save true trump fans really is reflect. Upon their their place in the universe. That sounds like the Republic International Convention. I attended in Cleveland. The only time of the White House corresponds. There could be likened to a Republican national convention
but that's that's all we have time for today. I have given you lot of giving a lot to think about and chew over and be depressed by and get outraged by the angry it s about me. Angry Trump abandoned be angry. The liberals abandoned be angry bandit about, but please Is join Us Commentary magazine dot com, where we have a more considered way to make you depressed all day and all night, with our posts of arab and and constructive. Happy in some really wonderful fiction essays that will enlighten and and end and noble you're. Here lives in existence of comcare magazine, dot com, a few free reeds, and then we ask you to subscribe for ninety. Ninety five. Maybe I'm frightened subscription twenty nine ninety eight for eight all access subject involved, including our beautiful monthly magazine, delivered to your mailbox, has a monthly would be
just a necessarily used the word month, monthly twice. In the same sense, that's why we should be aiming for Horace, when a remote John put words, keep the candle burning.
Transcript generated on 2020-02-26.