I don’t really care that much that John Judis is going back on his emerging Democratic majority thesis (again), but what is weird is the odd, bad faith argumentation he’s using to rebut it. I mean, he’s going with the 2014 midterm exit polls of Asian voters instead of the 2016 ones? Acting as though Marco Rubio’s win among Hispanics is poignant even though it’s Florida that is the outlier there, particularly with its older Cuban population? And the anecdata about assimilation is perhaps worth something but who can say how much? You go to Western Pennsylvania and there’s no shortage of indicators of white “hyphenates” around–lots of people who still connect with their Croatian or Czech or Polish heritage in a direct way, perhaps indicating that whiteness isn’t the universally undifferentiated mass it’s said to be by some (including Judis!). Sure, that’s an anecdote, but really with anecdata one is as good as another.

I’m perfectly willing to read an updated critique of the theory but the fact that Hillary Clinton won Millennials by 20 points kind of speaks for itself. And Clinton wasn’t a particularly good fit for Millennials at all–she promised them little and her vision of politics didn’t inspire the way Obama’s did. But she still won by a huge margin. And Trump didn’t really improve upon Romney’s vote percentage either. Judis doesn’t even address these facts. Perhaps he wants to be the new Dick Morris? I honestly don’t know.

 

Share

You should get this, by the way

I finally, recently got around to watching Rogue One: A Star Wars Story and I was actually kind of stunned by how bad it was. My basic reaction to The Force Awakens was, “Well, the movie didn’t get me to feel anything, let alone think anything*, but it was skillfully enough done and fun enough, I get why people like it.” My reaction to Rogue One was, “What is this shit?” Or perhaps, what isn’t it:

  • It’s not a heist film. Heist films tend to be very tightly plotted and feature certain character types (the charismatic leader, the oddball, the wild card, etc.). Such films have well thought-out plans that are explained carefully to the audience so that they’ll be able to understand when the plan fails. And the theme of virtually any heist film is greed: what it makes people do, what it leads to, which is (spoiler alert) nothing good. See: Rififi, or Kubrick’s The Killing. Hell, even the remake of Ocean’s Eleven is a good reference point. Needless to say, Rogue One lacks any of these elements. Just because it’s about people trying to acquire something at great peril doesn’t mean it’s a heist film. The Maltese Falcon has the same basic idea and it’s no heist film.
  • It’s not a war film. There are lots of different kinds of war film and Rogue One is none of them. It’s not a meditation on what war does to people like Breaker Morant, or of the essential madness of war like Apocalypse Now. It’s not a docudrama-level look at it like The Battle Of Algiers. It’s not even really an action-adventure film set in a wartime setting like Three Kings. There’s no real examination of the murkiness of battlefield morality, no look at what war does to people, which is just sort of entry level stuff to be a war film. There is a war going on in it of course–one can hardly ignore the setpieces! But there may as well not be.

What it is, ultimately, is a western. A space western. If you compare it to, say, For A Few Dollars More, it matches up nicely if you diagrammed it out. It’s episodic, with characters who roam around looking for a treasure of some sort or other, trying to evade the people who want to keep it for themselves. The protagonist is stoic and taciturn. The movie’s admittedly lovely cinematography is a giveaway: beautiful nature and landscape shots are a staple of westerns but typically do not figure into war or heist films, unless it’s intended to comment ironically in some way (like the ending of The Asphalt Jungle, when a dying character trying to make it back to the country gets his wish at the end of the movie). In heist films particularly, the gritty urban environment–preferably with as much brutalism as you can capture–is more how it’s done. Anyway, as a western, Rogue One is just awful. For A Few Dollars More features varied characters, but virtually all the characters in Rogue One are the same: gruff, taciturn, and jaded. It would be as though everyone were Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name, which predictably gets tiresome quickly. Killing them all off at the end, therefore, has little impact. Honestly, this really just shows how superficial peoples’ problems with the prequels really were: this is, The Phantom Menace, essentially a bunch of setpieces with obligatory connective tissue featuring shallow, unengaging characters, but minus even the ambition of trying to do something slightly different with Star Wars than had been done before. Which makes the result much more dispiriting. “How the Death Star plans were stolen” is definitely a hook for a movie, but this is a tremendously poor embodiment of that idea. I wonder how long until these standalone movies are phased out and it goes to a once-every-two-years film franchise. If the Han Solo movie is anywhere near as bad as this, maybe not so long.

* Well, sort of. With derivative junk like this, my brain spends too much energy trying to track down all the lifts from earlier stuff, so watching a brainless sequel is actually the most tiring thing there is.

Share
Lev filed this under:  

To a large degree, rich, elite white liberals really are the problem. Not all of them, of course. I mean, you have your Patton Oswalts and the like. But in general, “solidarity” is not really a concept you see them putting into practice. This Harvard professor just reminds me of Larry Sanders, obviously one of the best examples of the type:

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

This is a pretty good response to the moronic Mark Lilla book and the not idiotic Ta-Naheisi Coates piece on Trump.

Share
Lev filed this under:  

I remember there was a time where a lot of people who had fought wars hated war. Dwight Eisenhower said as much often, but then again, he actually seemed to mean it. He could have escalated with the USSR over the Hungary crackdown and over China over Quemoy and Matsu, but he didn’t. He didn’t try to implement the “rollback” doctrine that he promised, thankfully betraying the wingnuts. And he even cut defense spending to lower the deficit. Which is not to say more of him than he deserves–the farewell speech he gave that precedes every antiwar documentary strikes me as a monument to hypocrisy more than anything–but the basic fact is that if he had wanted war, he could have had it. He didn’t want it. And while it’s very far from the truth that anybody who lived through WWII was turned into a dove by the experience–this is a group that includes Curtis LeMay as well as the architects of Vietnam, of course, and mostly the same people decided to fight another war five years after WWII ended–but quite a lot of people who had fought it came to the conclusion that war was not at all a good thing. Many of them served in office in both parties afterward, and are probably why we’re all alive.

I think about this when Jim Mattis rattles Kim Jong Un’s cage. I don’t know if Mattis really wants to go to war with North Korea. But he doesn’t act like somebody who doesn’t want war. Perhaps he does, most likely he thinks what he’s doing will make it less likely, though I’m not really sure if that makes it better. As someone who’s read a dozen books on WWI I’m not at all confident in that approach (also not for nothing his nickname is “Mad Dog”). But aside from him, I’m hard pressed to think of a top well-known military officer who seems to hate the whole idea of war, even if admitting that it times it may be necessary. All the ones I read basically think we need to stay in Afghanistan forever and many hate that we got out of Iraq in the first place. Probably a lot of reasons for that. But I think it is something to bear in mind.

Share
{ 1 comment }
Lev filed this under:  

What to even say about this argument? After basically saying that passing single-payer would be hard for a few paragraphs, Bill Scher makes a fundamental mistake with his argument:

However, single payer is not a moral imperative; it is just one means to an end. The ACA is another.

The framework is already built. The ACA’s individual mandate requires most to purchase insurance or pay a penalty, save for those with a hardship exemption. As a result, nearly 20 million more Americans are now covered. In 2016, 6.5 million chose the penalty instead of getting coverage (paying an average of $470), and another 12.7 million were exempted. Instead of building an entirely new system, a willing Congress could less dramatically and disruptively build on the current system, stiffening the penalties for noncompliance, increasing subsidies and pursuing further cost controls to eliminate the need for hardship exemptions.

The implicit contrast here is between the market-oriented ACA and statist, Big Government single-payer. But this mistake (while not Scher’s alone) is fundamental: the market-oriented parts of the ACA are by far the worst-working and most unpopular–fluctuating premiums, plenty of local markets with only a single provider–not to mention the most damaging politically (remember when the website broke)? On the other hand, the supposedly kludgy, statist components–the Medicaid expansion, however compromised by John Roberts’s pen, and the regulations on pre-existing conditions and benefit caps among others–are by far the most effective and popular, with no real issues to speak of. It was a major mistake for Obama and other Democrats to make the former and not the latter the focus of the pitch and later the face of the program–Republicans knew about the statist parts too, after all, and I suspect that the policy wonk community was so excited about the challenge of designing the mechanics of the exchanges than the relatively simple task of expanding state insurance. But that’s why you don’t let coders create the user interface. While the results vary wildly depending on who’s running the marketplace, it’s not as easy as simply signing up for free state insurance that is popular and cheaper than the private variety.

In essence, you could easily make the argument that the ACA proves that expanding state insurance is the easiest way to go, both politically and policy-wise. But Scher wants to get in this sick burn:

Do you know who thought Obamacare was worth defending? Single-payer advocates like Sanders! As the New Republic’s Brian Beutler noted in June, the Machiavellian move for the left would have been to get out of the way, let Republicans destroy Obamacare and watch the health insurance markets turn to rubble. Then, Beutler wrote, “single payer will suddenly become much more urgent and politically viable.”

Instead, progressive populists and democratic socialists rallied to save the status quo of a regulated private insurance system. Why? Because they knew Obamacare saves lives.

Actually, as Scott Lemieux has noted on many occasions, preserving the ACA makes it easier to get to single-payer, because of the Medicaid expansion among other things. The apparent conflict does not exist. So after that, Scher lists some other things he things liberals ought to spend their time on, and that’s it. Obviously Scher has also been talking about this on Twitter, and his arguments there trend toward the “Bernie sucks” topic that you see a lot in the wake of this. (Hillary Clinton could do herself a lot of good by endorsing this effort and defusing the tribal bullshit, but I’m not holding my breath.) He does accurately state that this is Bernie trying to take power from the traditional establishment and that is completely correct. It’s been awhile since Democrats didn’t try to include a healthy dose of business friendliness into a major proposal like this. But a very solid argument could be made that this is because of what worked in the ACA, not in spite of it. At any rate, as for the argument that the ACA proves that private insurance markets work best? Eh. Not seeing it.

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

Jesus Christ:

I get that the desire for a short and pithy description, but isolationists vs. interventionists is neither a neutral nor an accurate way of framing this. It’s really a fight between “people who want endless war” and “people who want somewhat less than endless war.” And not wanting to fight wars doesn’t even make a nation isolationist! There are other components to foreign policy, acting as though the choices are “endless war” and nothing is a parody of a parody of clueless elites. Neither Rand Paul nor Tim Kaine wants to recreate 18th century Japan here. And the headline and the description seem to offer different takes on what the narrative should be, which is obviously what’s important. Great job, people!

Share
Lev filed this under: ,  

My operating theory now is that Dean Heller has completely given up on winning another term and is just setting himself up for wingnut welfare. Wonder if he even ultimately runs.

Share
Lev filed this under: , ,