eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Présidence Trump: Vous avez dit surréaliste ? (It’s the unbearable smugness of the press, stupid !)

Posté le dimanche 19 février 2017 par jc durbant

walk-on-water-otrum-meltdown-time-cover

 

Attention: un surréalisme peut en cacher un autre !

Surréaliste, hallucinant, déjanté …

Au lendemain d’une première conférence de presse du président Trump …

Pour laquelle nos médias n’avaient à nouveau pas de mots assez durs …

Alors qu’entre vote populaire, piratage russe, taille de la foule ou boycotts de l’investiture, fuites des services secrets, prétendues analyses psychiatriques ou appels explicites à l’assassinat …

Tout est bon, du premier DJ venu aux prétendus historiens, pour remettre en question la légitimité du choix du peuple américain …

Pendant qu’à coups de fuites judiciaires désormais quotidiennes et au profit d’un énième démagogue du déni et du « hope and change » …

L’hallali continue en France contre le seul véritable candidat de l’alternance …

Comment ne pas voir …

Non seulement l’incroyable deux poids deux mesures comparé à l’élection d’un Barack Obama …

Présenté il y a huit ans  comme le nouveau messie …

Mais l’incapacité proprement surréaliste des médias à prendre toute la mesure …

Non seulement de la dimension historique d’une victoire (Congrès et postes de gouverneurs compris) que tout le monde annonçait impossible …

Face à la machine infernale qui avait laminé avant lui les trop gentils McCain et Romney …

Pendant qu’à coups de fuites judiciaires désormais quotidiennes et au profit d’un énième maitre-démagogue,  l’hallali continue en France contre le seul véritable espoir de changement …

Comment ne pas voir …

Non seulement l’incroyable deux poids deux mesures comparé à l’élection d’un Barack Obama …

Présenté il y a huit ans  comme le nouveau messie …

Mais l’incapacité proprement surréaliste des médias, sauf rares exceptions, à prendre toute la mesure …

Non seulement de la dimension historique  d’une victoire que tout le monde annonçait impossible …

Mais aussi de la défiance et de la colère de toute une partie de l’électorat américain …

Que les interminables chipotages actuels ne peuvent que renforcer ?



Laisser un commentaire


20 réponses à “Présidence Trump: Vous avez dit surréaliste ? (It’s the unbearable smugness of the press, stupid !)”

  • 20
    jc durbant:

    « se faire empapatouer sans vaseline… »

    Oui, déjà qu’il a reçu Abbas avant… Kim Jong-Un ?

  • 19
    Zoubor:

    Vaseline

  • 18
    Zoubor:

    On assiste, en Israel, à l’aiguisage des couteaux!
    Les mecs de l’Administration font des merdes – la derniere en date etant la presentation par l’equipe de Trump d’une carte d’Israel selon les lignes du 4 Juin 1967 (armistice de 1948) sans le Golan et sans la West Bank….
    Les pros Trumps bétaristes et du Likoud ainsi que le PM vont se faire empapatouer sans vaseline… 😈👿😡

  • 17
    jc durbant:

    A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

    They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

    Every outlet was negative more often than positive. Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

    Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least when it comes to recent history, he’s right…

    https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

  • 16
    jc durbant:

    WHAT MEDIA BIAS ?

    “The President’s first seven weeks have been a whirlwind, with often dramatic movement in all directions, on all fronts: the economy, health care, two wars and today education reform.”

    Brian Williams (NBC Nightly News, March 10, 2009)

    “I was blown away by President Obama’s grasp of the subject, how he connected the dots, how he answered the questions without any script.”

    Dr. Tim Johnson (ABC World News, March 1, 2009)

    As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.

    Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

    Eight years ago, the networks’ treatment of President Obama’s first 100 days was very different. Back then, the networks delivered most of their coverage to Obama’s key policy priorities, topped by the nearly $1 trillion “stimulus” package (150 stories, or 15% of the total). The network spin for that legislation: 58% positive, vs. 42% negative.

    As MRC analysts calculated at the time, the networks also doled mostly positive coverage for Obama’s intervention in the housing market (59% positive), his decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive), as well as his push for more government action on global warming (78% positive).

    The networks also broadcast dozens of stories that treated Obama and his family as pop culture celebrities. “From the moment the Obamas landed in Britain, hand in hand, many here were already star-struck,” NBC’s Dawna Friesen enthused on the April 1, 2009 Nightly News. Covering a European leaders summit a few days later, ABC’s David Muir warmly referred to Obama as “the cool kid in the class.”

    Needless to say, President Trump and his family have received no such positive reviews. Instead, the media’s reaction this President has been unremittingly hostile, with aggressively negative coverage of both the new administration’s policy agenda as well as his character.

    When the President shares the media’s liberal mindset, journalists are willing to be seen as cheerleaders, shaking their pom-poms on behalf of the White House. But when voters select a President who challenges the liberal establishment, those cheerleaders morph into unleashed pitbulls, ferociously attacking both the President and his agenda…

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/04/18/honeymoon-hell-liberal-media-vs-president-trump

  • 15
    Polémos:

    Je suis bien d’accord madimaxi. Ce n’est pas Internet qui envoie des reporters sur place en Syrie. Les grands groupes de presse ont encore leur utilité. Tous les soirs vers 22 heures, je me tape le JT de France Info avec Pujadas et les autres. Curieux exercice pour moi qui habite au Québec que de suivre l’actualité d’un pays quand même étranger, même si francophone, ce qui m’offre une sorte de distance (aussi au sens figuré) que j’aime bien par rapport aux événements. Pourtant, le JT de France Info est tout aussi biaisé que le Téléjournal de Radio-Canada (que je n’écoute plus!).

    Je fais comme vous, je sépare le bon grain de l’ivraie, en visionnant entre autres l’émission I-Média sur TV Libertés et en fréquentant évidemment ExtremeCentre.org, mon site de prédilection. Il y a bien sûr le site de « référence » Wikipédia où l’on trouve, oh surprise! un article intitulé Extrême-droite sur Internet (où est classé TV Libertés !), mais pas d’article intitulé Extrême-gauche sur Internet! Ce qui prouve que Wikipédia est lui aussi biaisé! Tout comme le Décodex du Monde!

  • 14
    madimaxi:

    C’est un chouilla plus compliqué, Polémos. Le web ne peut pas se substituer aux mass-médias faute de moyens tout simplement. On ne peut pas donner une information fiable restant rivé devant son écran. On peut, en revanche, la relayer après avoir appris à séparer le bon grain de l’ivraie.

    Je viens ici pour consulter ce tri déjà fait par les documentalistes-stakhanovistes tels Jean-Claude, James, Letel, vous y compris. Cela m’évite de perdre du temps à consacrer aux navets. Quoique, lire la presse mainstream procure parfois un véritable régal tellement c’est fendard.

  • 13
    Polémos:

    Et ça ne s’améliore pas chez les journaleux …

    http://h16free.com/2017/03/17/57771-la-presse-traditionnelle-sur-la-pente-finale

  • 12
    Polémos:

    «That’s OUR job

    She said it!

    http://www.delitdimages.org/cest-aux-medias-de-controler-gens-pensent-lapsus-dune-journaliste-de-nbc-video/

  • 11
    jc durbant:

    PARTNERS IN CRIME (Could the media’s constant attacks on Trump turn his presidency into a perverse, mutually destructive spiral ?)

    More ink equals more blood, newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks. It’s a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a « common-interest game. Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers.

    Bruno S. Frey and Dominic Rohner

    Media criticism makes Trump irrationally angry. The president’s habit of firing off replies to critical media outlets is well known, but Palmeri provides more details of his vulnerability to psychic distress when presented with criticism: One Trump associate said it’s important to show Trump deference and offer him praise and respect, as that will lead him to more often listen. And If Trump becomes obsessed with a grudge, aides need to try and change the subject, friends say…

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/staffers-plant-alternative-facts-to-stop-trump-from-tweeting.html

  • 10
    jc durbant:

    VOUS AVEZ DIT IGNORANCE ?

    The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing. (…) We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.

    Ben Rhodes (conseiller-adjoint à la sécurité extérieure d’Obama)

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/i-dont-know-what-youre-referring-to-nbcs-katy-tur-doesnt-remember-obama-promising-putin-flexibility/ (merci james)

  • 9
    jc durbant:

    WHAT REFUGEE PROBLEMS IN SWEDEN ?

    “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden! They took in large numbers, they’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

    Donald Trump

    Despite widespread debunking of his claims, it has since emerged a largely underreported attack did, in fact, occur last month. Three suspected neo-Nazis were arrested in January after a Gothenburg Asylum centre became the target of a homemade bomb attack, leaving one person seriously injured. Security services said all three suspects had previously been members of the Nordic Resistance Movement (NMR), a group that openly promotes racist and anti-Semitic views and has vocally opposed non-white immigration to the country. The Swedish intelligence service Säpo said the incident on 5 January, which was also linked to two others in Gothenburg in recent months, appeared to be politically motivated.

    Sweden took in more refugees per capita than any other European country in 2016, which Mr Trump cited in his speech as creating problems « they never thought possible. »

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/trump-right-swedens-refugee-policy-led-problems-never-thought-possible/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-terror-attack-claim-sweden-neo-nazis-refugee-centre-florida-rally-a7588516.html

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/swedens-ugly-immigration-problem/article26338254/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/12103667/Suddenly-the-Swedes-are-talking-about-their-refugee-problem.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/12128598/Sweden-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-not-to-handle-the-Great-Migration.html

  • 8
    jc durbant:

    Deux poids deux mesures ?

    To the First Lady, With Love Four thank-you notes to Michelle Obama, who has spent the past eight years quietly and confidently changing the course of American history.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/t-magazine/michelle-obama-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-gloria-steinem-letter.html

    Private, self-conscious, and smarting from some harsh, even mocking press, Melania is “struggling with the realities of her new role and the scrutiny that comes with it,” US Weekly says in its Feb. 27 cover story, citing family sources. (…) In the much-covered lawsuit, Melania sued the Mail for implying she’d once worked as a high-end escort, an implication that the newspaper later retracted. Celebrities and fashion designers, critical of her husband’s policies, have publicly shunned the Trumps, another blow. And while she’s fluent in five languages, Melania is self-conscious of her heavy Slovenian accent, US claims, an accent that has also been fodder for late-night jibes. With pickets surrounding her building, she’s even given up her chauffeured trips escorting Barron to and from his private school…

    http://nypost.com/2017/02/15/melania-trump-is-absolutely-miserable-as-first-lady/

  • 7
    jc durbant:

    Vous avez dit deux poids deux mesures ?

    Buried deep beneath the Michael Flynn hysteria this week was Judicial Watch’s release of newly obtained State Department documents related to the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. One email confirms—again—that the Obama administration knew the day after the attack it was not a random act of violence stemming from an anti-Muslim video. That was the excuse shamefully propagated by top Obama administration officials (including the president himself) and swallowed whole by a media establishment desperate to help Obama win re-election six weeks later. According to the summary of a call on September 12, 2012 between State Department Under-Secretary Patrick Kennedy and several congressional staffers, Kennedy was asked if the attack came under cover of protest: “No this was a direct breaching attack,” he answered. Kennedy also denied the attack was coordinated with the protests in Cairo over the video: “Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint.”It’s somewhat ironic—galling?—that this email was disclosed the same day the anti-Trump universe was spinning into the stratosphere over Flynn’s resignation as President Trump’s national security advisor. It begs for a little trip down memory lane, to a kinder, gentler time when the media gave a great big pass to another national security advisor in the days after four Americans, including an ambassador, were murdered in Libya by Islamic terrorists under her watch. Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012, three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13. So as we now suffer through yet another patch of media mania, conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about how Trump hearts Russia, as well as the daily beatings endured by Spicer, let’s reminisce to when the media and Obama’s press flaks spun, deflected—even joked about golf and “Saturday Night Live!”—less than a week after Benghazi. (…) But of course nothing matches the audacity of trope by Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice on September 16, 2012. Rice went on several Sunday shows to peddle a story she knew was completely phony, one that was already quickly unraveling even as most in the media and administration tried to keep it intact. (…) In a press gaggle on Air Force One the next day, guess how many times Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about Rice’s comments? Ten? Five? One? Not once. Let me repeat that. The day after Obama’s national security advisor was on five news programs to blame a terrorist attack on a YouTube video, not one reporter asked the White House about it. I actually had to re-read the transcripts several times, even checking the date over and over, to make sure this was accurate. Her name did not even come up. (…) Sometimes the hypocrisy, double standard, and outright lies by the media under the Trump presidency is funny. Sometimes it is infuriating. But never was the media’s complicit sheep-like coverage more evident than in the days after Benghazi, behavior you can never imagine now. They have yet to admit their mistakes and failures, even as more evidence is revealed. Remember that the next time you want to worry about how Trump is responsible for undermining the media’s integrity and credibility.

    Julie Kelly (merci james)

  • 6
    jc durbant:

    Sur le bilan d’Hussein:

    Tiré à quatre épingles, col blanc éclatant et cravate rouge vif, l’homme grand, noir, élégant, fait son apparition sur scène devant des milliers de drapeaux américains portés par une marée humaine en délire. Des applaudissements se mélangent aux cris hystériques, pleurs et voix hurlant en chœur « Yes we can ». Les larmes coulent sur les joues du révérend Jesse Jackson qui vient d’apprendre que le rêve de Martin Luther King s’est réalisé en ce 4 novembre 2008. Et le monde entier assiste, le souffle coupé, à cette scène inédite de l’histoire. « Hello Chicago », lance le quadragénaire avec un sourire tiré des publicités de dentifrice. « S’il y a encore quelqu’un qui doute que l’Amérique est un endroit où tout est possible, ce soir, vous avez votre réponse. » Et la foule s’enflamme. Ce soir-là, Barack Obama a réussi son pari en devenant le premier président noir des Etats-Unis. Aux yeux de ses électeurs, il n’était pas seulement l’incarnation de l’ » American dream ». Il était aussi celui qui allait tendre l’oreille aux difficultés des minorités, sortir une nation de la pire crise économique depuis la Grande Dépression, ramasser les pots cassés de George W. Bush, soigner les plaies d’un pays hanté par la guerre et l’insécurité, rendre aux familles leurs soldats partis en Irak et en Afghanistan, offrir des soins de santé aux plus démunis… La liste est sans fin. (…) Les attentes étaient particulièrement grandes au sein de la communauté afro-américaine (…) « Tout le monde a cru qu’avec Obama nous allions rentrer dans une ère post-raciale. C’est donc assez ironique que la race soit devenue un problème majeur sous sa présidence », affirme Robert Shapiro, politologue à l’université new-yorkaise de Columbia. (…) Outre quelques discours, le Président se distingue par le peu d’initiatives prises en faveur de sa communauté. Certes, il a nommé un nombre sans précédent de juges noirs. Et, paradoxalement, cette reprise de la lutte pour l’égalité est parfois notée comme une victoire du Président, malgré lui. (…) Dans un premier temps, l’ancien sénateur a aussi suscité la colère des immigrés en situation irrégulière en autorisant un nombre record d’expulsions. Barack Obama finira par faire volte-face et s’engagera dans une lutte féroce pour faire passer au Congrès le « Dream Act », projet de loi légalisant 2 millions de jeunes sans-papiers. En vain. Furieux, le chef d’Etat signera alors un décret permettant à ceux-ci d’obtenir un permis de travail et donc de les protéger. Aussi, peu de présidents américains peuvent se targuer d’avoir fait autant progresser la protection des droits des homosexuels. En mai 2012, « Newsweek » surnommait Barack Obama « the first gay president », pour saluer sa décision de soutenir le mariage homosexuel. Quelques mois plus tard, la loi « Don’t ask, don’t tell », interdisant aux militaires d’afficher leur homosexualité, était abrogée. Et, en 2015, Barack Obama criait « victoire », alors que la Cour suprême venait de légaliser le mariage gay. Reste que le natif de Hawaii n’est pas parvenu à réduire les inégalités sociales et raciales qui sévissent toujours aux Etats-Unis. En 2012, 27,2 % des Afro-Américains et 25,6 % des Latinos vivaient sous le seuil de pauvreté, contre 9,7 % des Blancs. Autre épine dans le pied du Démocrate : la débâcle de la ville de Detroit, majoritairement peuplée par des Noirs et déclarée en banqueroute de 2013 à 2014. (…) Peut-être était-il trop dépensier. Surnommé « Monsieur 20 trillions », Barack Obama est accusé d’avoir doublé la dette publique. (…) L’histoire se souviendra d’Obama comme de celui qui aura doté les Etats-Unis d’un système d’assurance santé universelle. L’ »Affordable Care Act », lancé en 2010 après quinze mois de tractations, est « la » grande victoire du Démocrate. (…) Mais (…) le système montre-t-il ses limites puisque (…) il comprend (…) trop de personnes malades, nécessitant des soins, et pas assez de personnes en bonne santé. Ce problème est devenu récurrent et des compagnies d’assurances quittent le programme », explique Victor Fuchs, spécialiste américain de l’économie de la santé. (…) En 2009, le Président envoie 30 000 hommes supplémentaires en Afghanistan, pour ensuite déclarer la fin des opérations militaires en Irak, avant de bombarder la Libye. (…) Sa crédibilité en prend un coup lorsqu’il refuse de frapper la Syrie, même après que Bachar Al-Assad eut franchi la fameuse ligne rouge, tracée par Obama lui-même, en utilisant des armes chimiques contre les rebelles. En huit ans, le prix Nobel de la paix, arrivé au pouvoir comme un Président antiguerre, aura entériné le recours à la force militaire dans neuf pays (Afghanistan, Irak, Syrie, Pakistan, Libye, Yémen, Somalie, Ouganda et Cameroun). Le « New York Times » indique d’ailleurs que « si les Etats-Unis restent au combat en Afghanistan, Irak et Syrie jusqu’à la fin de son mandat […] il deviendra de façon assez improbable le seul président dans l’histoire du pays à accomplir deux mandats entiers à la tête d’un pays en guerre ». Le Congrès aura été le talon d’Achille de Barack Obama. (…) Résultat : l’adepte du « centrisme » laissera derrière lui un paysage politique plus polarisé que jamais. « Il n’y a pas une Amérique libérale et une Amérique conservatrice, il y a les Etats-Unis d’Amérique. Les érudits aiment à découper notre pays entre Etats rouges et Etats bleus […] mais j’ai une nouvelle pour eux. Nous formons un seul peuple », avait-il pourtant déclaré lors de la Convention démocrate de Boston le 27 juillet 2004. Ce jour-là, une star politique était née. Barack Obama avait tout : la rhétorique enflammée, le charisme hors norme, l’intelligence, le parcours au parfum de rêve américain et la famille idéale. Avec son style châtié, son allure juvénile, sa capacité à susciter l’enthousiasme des jeunes électeurs, il était le candidat parfait du XXIe siècle. Trop parfait, peut être. A tel point qu’il aura suscité plus d’espoirs qu’il ne pouvait en porter. « Il a été meilleur candidat en campagne qu’il n’a été président », regrette M. McKee.

    La Libre Belgique

  • 5
    jc durbant:

    « On dirait une version française de Yes We Can! » …

    Oui, on est en plein dans le télévangélisme du « hope end change » …

    Nous pourrons nous souvenir de ce jour et dire à nos enfants (…) qu’alors la montée des océans a commencé à ralentir et la planète à guérir.

    Barack Hussein Obama (discours de nomination, St Paul, 04.06.2008)

  • 4
    Polémos:

    J’ai lu le discours de Macron, mais impossible de me rendre jusqu’à la fin toutefois. Quelle logorrhée indigeste et pourtant, paradoxalement, il y a à boire et à manger pour tout le centre (ventre?) mou de la France. Il ratisse tellement large qu’on ne retient rien concrètement dans les mailles de son discours. On dirait une version française de Yes We Can! Un volontarisme sans éloquence particulière, des lieux communs, des clichés, des mots-valises, du lyrisme cheap à l’état pur que n’importe qui peut avaler sans trop réfléchir ni trop se compromettre, puisque les bonnes intentions suffisent. Cette candidature va-t-elle tenir la route jusqu’en mai? Va savoir…

  • 3
    jc durbant:

    Kepel se réveillerait-il ?

    Ces intellectuels tétanisés par la culpabilité postcoloniale battent la campagne médiatique. Ils font de l’islamophobie le ressort exclusif des grandes manifestations antiterroristes du 11 janvier… Proclamer « Je suis Charlie », c’est pour eux faire acte d’islamophobie ! Cette cécité les conduit à minimiser le péril djihadiste de peur de désespérer Molenbeek comme les compagnons de route du Parti communiste s’interdisaient de dénoncer les exactions du stalinisme de peur de « désespérer Billancourt ». Par-delà l’organisation terroriste Daech, qui a fracturé la cohésion rêvée de la patrie, je crois que deux forces de désintégration sont à l’œuvre dans la société française. D’une part, les mouvements communautaristes, qui font prévaloir l’appartenance religieuse et ses marqueurs dans l’espace public. De l’autre, une conception identitaire et étroite de la France, dont le fond est ethno-racial et xénophobe.

    Gilles Kepel

  • 2
    jc durbant:

    Voir aussi sur le énième avatar français cette fois du « hope and change » Macron:

    La politique internationale que je veux conduire pour notre émancipation vraie et donc pour notre sécurité, c’est celle qui respectera l’équilibre, qui préservera l’indépendance française, qui assurera la stabilité des Etats et qui, partout, défendra nos valeurs et nos principes.

    Emmanuel (« Dieu avec nous ») Macron

    Coup sur coup, Emmanuel Macron nous a dit en deux déclarations son rapport à l’Histoire. Affirmant qu’il n’existe pas de culture française, il s’inscrit , digne enfant du «terranovisme», dans cette perspective sans racines que le rapport avorté du conseiller d’Etat Tuot exaltait en 2013 pour mieux reconstruire un passé accueillant aux vents de tous les communautarismes. L’assimilation de la colonisation française en Algérie à un «crime contre l’humanité», outre qu’elle sur-infecte des plaies mémorielles chez nombre de nos compatriotes pieds noirs et harkis, criminalise notre histoire au service d’une repentance dont la visée électorale n’échappe à personne . Cette double prise de position à quinze jours d’intervalles efface les clins d’œil plus anciens à Jeanne d’Arc et au récit national que sa visite ministérielle au Puy-du-fou en terre vendéenne avait esquissé. Accélérant sa campagne, toute de symboles bien plus que d’offre programmatique, Macron déroule le discours dominant, celui de la com’, celui de la sidération par l’activisme communicant et par l’exaltation d’un imaginaire rallié au culte de l’immédiat . Le jeune Macron n’aime pas l’ancien ; il le fait savoir et à son corps défendant il en vient même parfois à l’avouer jusque dans une rhétorique post-oratoire nourrie d’un phrasé saccadé tout droit issu de cette culture «power-point» qu’il parle couramment à l’instar des nouvelles élites sans lettre ni mémoires. Macron s’installe ainsi, jour après jour, comme la plus exacerbée et exacerbante métaphore de la com’. Il en délivre tous les rythmes et tous les codes. Les premiers se manifestent par une hyper-saturation de l’espace médiatique, par un face-à-face permanent et construit avec les médias, par une économie de la com’ qui circule non pas du candidat au peuple mais du produit au people… Le marketing n’est pas tant celui du préau , du marché – lieux de mémoire des vieilles politiques républicaines – que celui des scènes calculées avec ses plans médias, ses salles chauffées par des agitateurs de shows télévisés, ses photos calculées à destination d’une presse magazine friande de poses prétendument spontanées mais millimétriquement sophistiquées. Macron reflète la société médiatique ; il en est tout à la fois le Narcisse et la Léthé, la déesse de l’oubli … Car là où souffle l’esprit de la com’ se déploie aussi le voile de l’amnésie. La com’ agit par magie ; elle vise d’abord à transformer notre rapport au réel, soit en le liquidant par dénégation et en lui substituant un avenir tout d’optimisme et d’harmonie, soit en exorcisant son passé. Macron joue des deux registres: il promet un horizon de bonheur consumériste et liquide les spectres d’une histoire lourde, belliqueuse, conflictuelle, traumatisante… Il est le héraut des générations mainstream pour lesquelles il n’y a pas d’Histoire mais des histoires qui viennent se greffer les unes aux autres, morceaux d’un puzzle très «united color» à la mode Benetton… Macron préfère la publicité au réel, on l’aura compris. Cette vieille culture française, son Histoire, il n’a sans doute pas appris à les aimer… et en ce sens il est le produit d’un temps où les maîtres ont failli à transmettre . Quand il n’y a plus de transmission reste alors la com’…

    Arnaud Benedetti

    C’est une manière de s’exprimer qui rappelle la campagne de Tony Blair, en Grande-Bretagne. On l’appelait aussi le candidat du flou (« Tony Blur »). Enoncer des lieux communs permet à chacun de comprendre ce qu’il a envie de comprendre. Tout cela est très fluide et offre donc peu de prises à ses adversaires, au-delà du ‘ »ah, mais vous n’avez pas de programme !’ » (…) Ces dix dernières années, nous avons eu des programmes-catalogues de plus en plus précis jusqu’aux 1.000 pages de Bruno Le Maire. Or, ça ne fonctionne pas car les Français n’y croient plus. La présidentielle se joue surtout autour de la confiance en un homme ou une femme politique. Emmanuel Macron préfère donc créer un imaginaire autour de sa candidature en utilisant des mots apaisants. Le programme de Macron, c’est Macron.

    Christian Delporte

    Chaque réunion publique est guettée par les médias car elle révélera une facette inédite, tenue secrète longtemps et indéfiniment annoncée, du ‘produit’ fini (ici le programme), qui est toujours en projet, fruit d’ajustements en fonction du marché politique et des « feedbacks » de clients/électeurs sur les phases bêta.

    Cécile Alduy

  • 1
    jc durbant:

    Morceaux choisis:

    Le plus difficile n’est pas de dire ce que l’on voit mais d’accepter de voir ce que l’on voit.

    Charles Péguy

    Les deux grands partis, c’est l’amicale des boulistes. Mais sans l’amitié et sans les boules…

    Emmanuel Macron

    Coup sur coup, Emmanuel Macron nous a dit en deux déclarations son rapport à l’Histoire. Affirmant qu’il n’existe pas de culture française, il s’inscrit , digne enfant du «terranovisme», dans cette perspective sans racines que le rapport avorté du conseiller d’Etat Tuot exaltait en 2013 pour mieux reconstruire un passé accueillant aux vents de tous les communautarismes. L’assimilation de la colonisation française en Algérie à un «crime contre l’humanité», outre qu’elle sur-infecte des plaies mémorielles chez nombre de nos compatriotes pieds noirs et harkis, criminalise notre histoire au service d’une repentance dont la visée électorale n’échappe à personne . Cette double prise de position à quinze jours d’intervalles efface les clins d’œil plus anciens à Jeanne d’Arc et au récit national que sa visite ministérielle au Puy-du-fou en terre vendéenne avait esquissé. Accélérant sa campagne, toute de symboles bien plus que d’offre programmatique, Macron déroule le discours dominant, celui de la com’, celui de la sidération par l’activisme communicant et par l’exaltation d’un imaginaire rallié au culte de l’immédiat . Le jeune Macron n’aime pas l’ancien ; il le fait savoir et à son corps défendant il en vient même parfois à l’avouer jusque dans une rhétorique post-oratoire nourrie d’un phrasé saccadé tout droit issu de cette culture «power-point» qu’il parle couramment à l’instar des nouvelles élites sans lettre ni mémoires. Macron s’installe ainsi, jour après jour, comme la plus exacerbée et exacerbante métaphore de la com’. Il en délivre tous les rythmes et tous les codes. Les premiers se manifestent par une hyper-saturation de l’espace médiatique, par un face-à-face permanent et construit avec les médias, par une économie de la com’ qui circule non pas du candidat au peuple mais du produit au people… Le marketing n’est pas tant celui du préau , du marché – lieux de mémoire des vieilles politiques républicaines – que celui des scènes calculées avec ses plans médias, ses salles chauffées par des agitateurs de shows télévisés, ses photos calculées à destination d’une presse magazine friande de poses prétendument spontanées mais millimétriquement sophistiquées. Macron reflète la société médiatique ; il en est tout à la fois le Narcisse et la Léthé, la déesse de l’oubli … Car là où souffle l’esprit de la com’ se déploie aussi le voile de l’amnésie. La com’ agit par magie ; elle vise d’abord à transformer notre rapport au réel, soit en le liquidant par dénégation et en lui substituant un avenir tout d’optimisme et d’harmonie, soit en exorcisant son passé. Macron joue des deux registres: il promet un horizon de bonheur consumériste et liquide les spectres d’une histoire lourde, belliqueuse, conflictuelle, traumatisante… Il est le héraut des générations mainstream pour lesquelles il n’y a pas d’Histoire mais des histoires qui viennent se greffer les unes aux autres, morceaux d’un puzzle très «united color» à la mode Benetton… Macron préfère la publicité au réel, on l’aura compris. Cette vieille culture française, son Histoire, il n’a sans doute pas appris à les aimer… et en ce sens il est le produit d’un temps où les maîtres ont failli à transmettre . Quand il n’y a plus de transmission reste alors la com’…

    Arnaud Benedetti

    Nous pourrons nous souvenir de ce jour et dire à nos enfants (…) qu’alors la montée des océans a commencé à ralentir et la planète à guérir.

    Barack Hussein Obama (discours de nomination, St Paul, 04.06.2008)

    Je ne sais pas, on m’a donné cette information. En fait, j’ai vu passer cette information. Mais c’était une victoire très substantielle, vous ne croyez pas ?

    Donald Trump

    When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

    Salena Zito

    Les journalistes prennent toujours Trump au pied de la lettre mais sans le prendre au sérieux. Ses électeurs, en revanche, le prennent au sérieux mais ne le prennent pas au pied de la lettre. Par exemple, quand il propose de construire un mur à la frontière mexicaine, les journalistes exigent des détails, veulent savoir comment il va s’y prendre. Ses électeurs comprennent qu’il ne veut pas vraiment édifier un mur. Ils entendent simplement qu’il propose une politique migratoire plus saine et plus intelligente.

    Peter Thiel

    Je ne considère pas le président-élu comme un président légitime. Je pense que les Russes ont contribué à aider cet homme à être élu. Et ils ont aidé à détruire la candidature d’Hillary Clinton. Ça n’est pas bien, ça n’est pas juste et ça n’est pas le processus démocratique. Je n’irai pas à l’investiture. John Lewis
    It was a wild press conference. (…) He spent the first part of his remarks talking about accomplishments that he thought the media, the fake media, whatever he wants to call us, we’re not paying enough attention to. But then, instead of focusing on these accomplishments and offering an optimistic, positive view of what he’s doing for this country, it was an airing of grievances. It was Festivus. It was complaints about the media. At one point, he said the leaks were real, but the news is fake, which doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. He said things that were not true. Peter Alexander from NBC pointed out one of them when (Trump) said he had the biggest electoral victory win since Ronald Reagan. That’s not true. Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Obama, George H. W. Bush, all were bigger. But, moving on. If you are a soldier in harm’s way right now, if you are a hungry child in Appalachia or the inner city, if you are an unemployed worker in a hollow shell of a steel town, that’s not a President that seemed focused on your particular needs and wants. That’s a President focused on his bad press. It was unhinged, it was wild and I can’t believe that there are Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House who don’t understand that might play well with the 44% of the population that voted for the President, but a lot of Americans are going to watch that press conference and think ‘That guy isn’t focused on me.’ I don’t know even what he’s focused on.

    Jack Tapper (CNN)

    How can we get rid of Trump ? We’re just a month into the Trump presidency, and already so many are wondering: How can we end it? One poll from Public Policy Polling found that as many Americans — 46 percent — favor impeachment of President Trump as oppose it. Ladbrokes, the betting website, offers even odds that Trump will resign or leave office through impeachment before his term ends. Sky Bet, another site, is taking wagers on whether Trump will be out of office by July. (…) Trump still has significant political support, so the obstacles are gargantuan. But the cleanest and quickest way to remove a president involves Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and has never been attempted. It provides that the cabinet can, by a simple majority vote, strip the president of his powers and immediately hand power to the vice president. The catch is that the ousted president can object, and in that case Congress must approve the ouster by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or the president regains office. The 25th Amendment route is to be used when a president is “unable” to carry out his duties. I asked Laurence Tribe, the Harvard professor of constitutional law, whether that could mean not just physical incapacity, but also mental instability. Or, say, the taint of having secretly colluded with Russia to steal an election? Tribe said that he believed Section 4 could be used in such a situation. (…) The better known route is impeachment. But for now it’s hard to imagine a majority of the House voting to impeach, and even less conceivable that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict so that Trump would be removed. Moreover, impeachment and trial in the Senate would drag on for months, paralyzing America and leaving Trump in office with his finger on the nuclear trigger. My take is that unless things get much worse, removal may be a liberal fantasy. Progressives thought that Trump would never win the nomination or the election. He survived the “Access Hollywood” tape and countless crises that pundits thought would doom him, so it’s not clear why Republicans would desert him now that he’s president. Some people believe that the 2018 midterm elections will be so catastrophic for the G.O.P. that everyone will be ready to get rid of him. I’m skeptical. In the Senate, the map is disastrous for Democrats in 2018: The Republicans will be defending only eight Senate seats, while Democrats will in effect be defending 25. (…) And what does it say about a presidency that, just one month into it, we’re already discussing whether it can be ended early?

    Nicholas Kristof

    En août dernier, Donald Trump avait qualifié Barack Obama de «pire président» de l’histoire américaine. Avide consommateur de médias (même s’il les déteste), Donald Trump a sans doute vu passer l’enquête réalisée par la chaîne parlementaire C-SPAN. Et il n’a sans doute pas apprécié les résultats. Selon cette étude, publiée vendredi, les historiens classent Barack Obama au douzième rang des présidents américains, la meilleure performance depuis la neuvième place de Ronald Reagan en 1988. Dans trois catégories, Obama entre dans le top 10 : «quête d’une justice égale pour tous» (3e), «autorité morale» (7e) et «gestion économique» (8e). En revanche, il se classe parmi les derniers (39e sur 44) en matière de relations avec le Congrès et termine à une très moyenne 24e place en relations internationales. A en croire cette étude, les trois meilleurs présidents de l’histoire se nomment Abraham Lincoln, George Washington et Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Libération

    L’enjeu est trop important pour demeurer silencieux (…) Nous croyons que la grave instabilité émotionnelle révélée par le discours et les actions de M Trump le rend incapable de servir comme président de façon sécuritaire.

    Lettre ouverte de 35 psychiatres et personnels psychiatriques

    Lancer des insultes psychiatriques est une mauvaise façon de répliquer aux attaques de M Trump contre la démocratie.

    Allen Frances

    How can we get rid of Trump ?

    Nicholas Kristof

    Avec son sens du détail et son éloquence habituels, Donald Trump résume ainsi sa position : «Je regarde deux Etats ou un Etat, et j’aime la solution que les deux parties aiment. Les deux me conviennent». En une petite phrase digne d’un élève de CM1, Donald Trump balaie plusieurs décennies de diplomatie américaine. Le négociateur-en-chef est déjà au travail.

    Libération

    We have never taken seriously from the very beginning Russia hacked our election. That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our very democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event. Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton were where Trump was, what the right would be doing on this issue? This goes to the very core of our democracy.

    Thomas Friedman

    I’ve got to say, with all due respect, Mika, you and immediate members of your family didn’t care four years ago or eight years ago when you all were running around screaming hope and change. Hope and change. What does that mean? And Barack Obama, remember? He said when I get elected, people will look back on this as the moment when the oceans began to recede.

    Joe Scarborough (July 2016)

    Have you heard the one about the presidential candidate who was once so popular that comedians were frightened to make jokes about him? (…) Mr Obama has provided rich fodder for comedians looking to prick his pomposity, predicting that people would look back at his nomination as the moment « when the rise of the oceans began to slow ». He also told Congressmen that his campaign was « the moment . . . that the world is waiting for ». The attitude was summed up by Dana Milbank, the Washington Post’s resident political humourist, who declared: « Barack Obama has long been his party’s presumptive nominee. Now he’s becoming its presumptuous nominee. » Mr Letterman listed top ten signs that Barack Obama is overconfident, which included « Offered Bush 20 bucks for the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner » and « Having head measured for Mount Rushmore. » Mr Obama is also under fire for moving politically towards the centre ground, moderating positions he had once boasted were evidence of his unique appeal. Jay Leno, of the long-running Tonight Show, said: « Barack Obama now says he’s open to offshore oil drilling. So, apparently, when he promised change, he was talking about his mind. »

    The Telegraph (09 Aug 2008)

    Nobody could describe Donald Trump as lacking in self-confidence, but the billionaire egomaniac is emotional jelly compared with King Barack. Even before he won the Nobel peace prize, Obama was telling America that his elevation to the presidency would be remembered as ‘the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow’. He doesn’t have Mr Trump’s gold-plated helicopter, private jet, penthouse and yacht. But when it comes to self-reverence and sheer hauteur there is no one to beat him. Someone who believes his political personality can reverse global warming will have no doubts about his ability to persuade the British people to stay in the European Union. Just a few of his mellifluous sentences and a flash of those teeth and surely the British people will go weak at the knees! The polls show that Britain is split on the EU, so King Barack will come and help the nation resolve its indecision — to the delight of David Cameron and George Osborne. The timing of his visit, halfway through the EU referendum debate, is no accident. There is a longstanding international understanding that world leaders don’t visit during election campaigns — but such conventions were obviously designed for lesser mortals. Obama has no qualms and the Prime Minister has no shame: he needs every endorsement he can get. The Chancellor is pulling all the strings he can so the likes of the IMF’s Christine Lagarde ask us to stay in. Short of engineering a Second Coming, a visitation from King Barack is to their minds the best plug imaginable. That enthusiasm does not seem to be shared as much by British voters. Polls show that only 4 per cent of us think Mr -Obama’s primary reason for wanting us to stay in the EU is because ‘he cares about Britain’. A majority of us recognise that Mr Obama finds it easier ‘to deal with Europe as one bloc’. It’s not, as some Tory MPs have alleged, that Obama hates Britain. It’s just that he cares less about us — and our neighbours — than any of his recent predecessors. The ‘pivot’ to Asia, turning America’s strategic gaze away from Europe and towards the Pacific, has been his chief international objective. The turmoil in Europe and the Middle East — the Ukraine and Syrian refugee crises which have, at the very least, been encouraged by US withdrawal from the world — were distractions from his focus on China and the rising economies of East Asia. The world has not become a safer place as a result of Obama’s policy of ‘leading from behind’. (…) The arrogance is breathtaking but it is far from the only manifestation of, dare I say it, the madness of King Barack. Mr Obama does not let any adviser, voter or foreign leader get in his way. During his two-term presidency, his Democratic party has lost control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. But King Barack was unimpressed at the verdicts of the people. By royal decree, or as the White House calls it, executive order, he has attempted to stop illegal immigrants being deported, increase the minimum wage, intensify gun regulation and cut greenhouse gas emissions. All of these policies may be cheered from Europe. But the US constitution is quite clear: it’s the job of the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass laws and it’s the job of the President to either veto or implement them. There is a word for ignoring and overruling the legislative branches of the American government and that word is ‘undemocratic’. It was not supposed to be this way when Mr Obama launched his transformational bid for the presidency. He came to national attention with an uplifting speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention. He told his party about gay Americans living in red-leaning Republican states and how blue-leaning Democratic states worshipped ‘an awesome God’. There weren’t red states or blue states but ‘one America: red, white, and blue’. An America demoralised by the Iraq war, the global recession and bitterness towards the often tongue-tied George W. Bush embraced Obama and his soaring oratory in 2008, in the hope that he would unite an unhappy, fractious nation. It has not come to pass, of course. Whether it’s the Black Lives Matter protests at police violence or the fact that only 1 per cent of Americans think the people who caused the 2008 crash have been brought to justice, the American left is as energised and angry as the right. Today, barely a quarter of Americans think their country is heading in the right direction. They are more pessimistic about their economic prospects than the Brits or Germans. You would, perhaps, expect the American right to be angry, because Mr Obama does little to build ties with them. He didn’t attend the funeral of the conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia or that of Nancy Reagan — choosing to speak at a music festival instead. But his lack of respect and charity is not confined to Republicans. It recently emerged that Obama declined to invite the Clintons to dinner at the White House because Michelle, the First Lady, has struggled to forgive Bill Clinton for criticising her husband. Jeffrey Goldberg’s extraordinary recent essay in the Atlantic magazine about Obama’s foreign policy gave insight after insight into the President’s arrogance. Angela Merkel is ‘one of the few foreign leaders Obama respects’. When Obama reversed his Syrian policy and decided that President Assad’s crossing of those famous ‘red lines’ would not, after all, be punished, his secretary of state, John Kerry, and defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, found out hours after he’d told his advisers. It’s a common experience for so many of his colleagues. Hillary Clinton was overruled on Syria, generals were overruled on Iraq. Obama blamed David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy for the Libyan ‘shit show’. It is never King Barack’s fault. Obama’s election in 2008 inspired the world. But after eight years, it’s hard not to blame his abrasive style of politics for the rise of anti-politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Americans are rebelling against the emergence of an imperial presidency. As Barack Obama offers his hand to the Queen this week, and lectures the British on their place in the world, voters here might feel somewhat resentful, too.

    Tim Montgomerie

    My frustration (…) is that for eight years, I wanted the press to press President Obama on things like the jayvees, the red line, leading from behind, Aleppo, and they didn’t. And in the first month, they’re pressing Trump, and they’re upset that he’s not saying (…) things that Manhattan-Beltway media elites want him to say. Instead, he says this. Let me play for you, I think, the key line in the 77 minute press conference yesterday, is this one, cut number four: « Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press, the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. » (…) that’s the key. The public doesn’t believe you people anymore. (…) He never corrects anything that he says, and he says lots of wrong things. But that one comment, they don’t trust you anymore, is a summation of where we are in America, because I really do think Manhattan-Beltway elites have lost the country. They’ve lost it. There’s just no confidence in, I’m not going to say us, because I am neither in nor of the Beltway-Manhattan media elite. I live in California still.

    Hugh Hewitt

    It’s not because of anything obviously Donald Trump did. The press did all that good work ruining its reputation on its own, and we can have a long conversation about what created that. Part of it, though, is what you mentioned about the local weather report, which is to say a lot of hysterical coverage about every little last thing that doesn’t warrant it.

    John Dickerson

    Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white, working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?

    Bill Kristol

    I think she’s the favorite. I have a sense that it would have happened anyway and that, at the end of the day, people were going to come home to who they were. And what’s depressed me, frankly, most about this race is, we went into this country a divided nation, and now the chasms are just solidified, so divided along race, divided along gender, urban/rural, college-educated/non-college-educated. We can go down the list. And, basically, less educated or high school-educated whites are going to Trump. It doesn’t matter what the guy does. And college-educated going to Clinton. Everyone is dividing based on demographic categories. And, sometimes, you get the sense that the campaign barely matters. People are just going with their gene pool and whatever it is. And that is one of the more depressing aspects of this race for me. (…) And, well, it’s a campaign of hate. Obama is a campaign of at least hope. At least his first campaign was. This is just a campaign of hate. And, you know, people who don’t like Trump really don’t like Trump. And I guess I’m among them. And we just saw in our report about the Trump voters in Pennsylvania. Did you see — when they were shouting on the road, did you see anything nice about Trump? No. Send Clinton to jail. (…) So we had a lot of good things over the years that were really good for America. I think globalization has been really good for America. I think the influx of immigrants has been really good for America. Feminism has been really good for America. But there are a lot of people who used to be up in society, because of those three good things, are now down, a lot of high school-educated white guys. And they have been displaced. And shame on us for not paying attention to that and helping them out. And, therefore, as a result, what happened was, they were alienated, they got super cynical, because they really were being shafted. And so they react in an angry way.

    David Brooks (November 5, 2016)

    Theodore White wrote that America is Republican until 5:00 or 6:00 at night. And that’s when working people and their families got off work, had supper, and if America is going to vote — be Democratic, it’s going to happen between 5:30 and 8:00 at night. That has been totally turned on its ear. The working-class, blue-collar, non-college-educated base of the Democratic Party is the base of Donald Trump’s campaign this year. And the Democrats are now an upscale party.
    If there are winners and losers in America, I know the losers. They lost jobs to China and Vietnam. And they’re dying younger, caught in an endless cycle of jail, drug charges and applying for disability to pay the child support bill. They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they’re angry. They’re angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they’re voting now for Donald Trump. My Republican friends are for Trump. My state representative is for Trump. People who haven’t voted in years are for Trump. He’ll win the primary here on March 15 and he will carry this county in the general. His supporters realize he’s a joke. They do not care. They know he’s authoritarian, nationalist, almost un-American, and they love him anyway, because he disrupts a broken political process and beats establishment candidates who’ve long ignored their interests.

    Michael Cooper (writer, attorney, and liberal Democrat who lives in rural North
    Carolina, March 2016)

    The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on. This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic. So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time. And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid. It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel? We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice. You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized. This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence! That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement. Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological. That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong. As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further — fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup — which starts the cycle anew. There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well. Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover. What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline.

    Will Rahn (CBS, 10.11.2016)

    I expected some broken dishes, some firings, some chaos, and some rookie mistakes. We got all of that. But I also expect a systems-thinker to tame the chaos over time as he learns on the job. For example, the leaks will stop as soon as Trump fires the right people. He’ll figure out which meetings he can skip. He’ll know who to trust. He’ll learn where all the buttons and levers are. It’s a process. If you are comparing the incoming Trump administration to the smooth transfer of power that defines our modern history, that’s an irrational comparison. If the country wanted a smooth ride it would have elected Hillary Clinton. Instead, voters opted to “drain the swamp.“ And you can’t drain the swamp without angering the alligators and getting some swamp water on your pants. That’s what we’re watching now. My liberal friends are gleefully scouring the semi-fake news and sending me articles that show Trump is “incompetent.” That’s the new narrative on the left. The Hitler illusion is starting to fade because Trump refuses to build concentration camps as his critics hallucinated he would. And Israel likes Trump, which is making the Hitler illusion harder to maintain. So the critics are evolving their main line of attack from Hitler to “incompetent,” with a dash of “chaos.” You’ll see those two words all over the Opposition Media’s coverage. It isn’t a coincidence. Persuasion-wise, focusing on incompetence and chaos is a strong play by the anti-Trumpers. One would expect the new Trump administration to have lots of growing pains. That means the Opposition Media will have plenty of fodder that they can frame as incompetence and chaos. Confirmation bias will make it all seem to fit the narrative. This is the same persuasion play that Trump used when he assigned to his opponents nicknames such as Lyin’ Ted and Crooked Hillary. He depended on future news cycles to serve up lots of confirmation bias to make his labels more credible over time. Trump’s opposition is running the same persuasion play on him. Now everything he does will be seen through their frame of “incompetence” and “chaos.” Even if it isn’t. That is strong persuasion. If you step out of the Opposition Media’s framing of Trump, another frame that fits the data is that he’s learning on the job, just like he learned every other field that he entered and eventually mastered. I don’t know what you expected when Trump went to Washington, but it isn’t too different from what I imagined. I assumed there would be broken dishes. And I assumed it would take him months to get his systems in place. When I worked in corporate America, I was usually involved in setting goals for the department. When we didn’t meet those goals, I always pointed out that the problem could be on either end. Either the goals were unrealistic or the performance was bad. Both explanations fits the data. Likewise, Trump’s first few weeks do look exactly like “incompetence” and “chaos” if you are primed to see it that way. But they also look like a systems-thinker simultaneously draining the swamp and learning on the job.

    Scott Adams

    We live in our own personal movies. This is a perfect example. Millions of Americans looked at the same press conference and half of us came away thinking we saw an entirely different movie than the other half. Many of us saw Trump talking the way he normally does, and saying the things he normally says. Other people saw a raving lunatic, melting down. Those are not the same movies. So how can we know who is hallucinating in this case? The best way to tell is by looking for the trigger for cognitive dissonance. In this case, the trigger is clear. Trump’s unexpected win forced the Huffington Post to rewrite their mental movies from one in which they were extra-clever writers to one in which they were the dumbest political observers in the entire solar system. You might recall that the Huffington Post made a big deal of refusing to cover Trump on their political pages when he first announced his candidacy. They only carried him on their entertainment pages because they were so smart they knew he could not win. Then he won. When reality violates your ego that rudely, you either have to rewrite the movie in your head to recast yourself as an idiot, or you rewrite the movie to make yourself the hero who could see what others missed. Apparently the Huffington Post chose to rewrite their movie so Trump is a deranged monster, just like they warned us. That’s what they see. This isn’t an example of so-called “fake” news as we generally understand it. This is literally imaginary news. I believe the Huffington Post’s description of the press conference is literally what they saw. If you gave them lie detector tests, they would swear they saw a meltdown, and the lie detector would say they were telling the truth. There are two clues that the Huffington Post is hallucinating and I’m not. The first clue is that they have a trigger and I don’t. Reality violated their egos, whereas I was predicting a Trump win all along. My world has been consistent with my ego. No trigger. All I have is a warm feeling of rightness. The second clue is that the Huffington Post is seeing something that half the country doesn’t see. As a general rule, the person who sees the elephant in the room is the one hallucinating, not the one who can’t see the elephant. The Huffington Post is literally seeing something that is invisible to me and other observers. We see a President Trump talking the way he normally talks. They see a 77-minute meltdown.

    Scott Adams

    The United States (…) is one of the few successful multiracial societies in history. America has survived slavery, civil war, the Japanese-American internment, and Jim Crow—and largely because it has upheld three principles for unifying, rather than dividing, individuals. The first concerns the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, which were unique documents for their time and proved transcendent across time and space. Both documents enshrined the ideal that all people were created equal and were human first, with inalienable rights from God that were protected by government. These founding principles would eventually trump innate tribal biases and prejudices to grant all citizens their basic rights. Second, given America’s two-ocean buffer, the United States could control its own demographic destiny. Americans usually supported liberal immigration policies largely because of the country’s ability to monitor the numbers of new arrivals and the melting pot’s ability to assimilate, integrate, and intermarry immigrants, who would soon relegate their racial, religious, and ethnic affinities to secondary importance. Finally, the United States is the most individualistic and capitalistic of the Western democracies. The nation was blessed with robust economic growth, rich natural resources, and plenty of space. It assumed that its limited government and ethos of entrepreneurialism would create enough widespread prosperity and upward mobility that affluence—or at least the shared quest for it—would create a common bond superseding superficial Old World ties based on appearance or creed. In the late 1960s, however, these three principles took a hit. The federal government lost confidence in the notion that civil rights legislation, the melting pot, and a growing economy could unite Americans and move society in the direction of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision (…) This shift from the ideal of the melting pot to the triumph of salad-bowl separatism occurred, in part, because the Democratic Party found electoral resonance in big government’s generous entitlements and social programs tailored to particular groups. By then, immigration into the United States had radically shifted and become less diverse. Rather than including states in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, most immigrants were poorer and almost exclusively hailed from the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, resulting in poorer immigrants who, upon arrival, needed more government help. Another reason for the shift was the general protest culture of the Vietnam era, which led to radical changes in everything from environmental policy to sexual identity, and thus saw identity politics as another grievance against the status quo. A half-century later, affirmative action and identity politics have created a huge diversity industry, in which millions in government, universities, and the private sector are entrusted with teaching the values of the Other and administering de facto quotas in hiring and admissions. In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on identity politics, banking on the notion that she could reassemble various slices of the American electorate, in the fashion that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012, to win a majority of voters. She succeeded, as did Obama, in winning the popular vote by appealing directly to the unique identities of gays, Muslims, feminists, blacks, Latinos, and an array of other groups, but misjudged the Electoral College and so learned that a numerical majority of disparate groups does not always translate into winning key swing states. At one point Clinton defined her notion of identity politics by describing Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up… Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” (…) but (…) ethnic solidarity can cut both ways. In the 2016 elections, Trump won an overwhelming and nearly unprecedented number of working class whites in critical swing states. Many either had not voted in prior elections or had voted Democratic. The culture’s obsession with tribalism and special ethnic interests—often couched in terms of opposing “white privilege”—had alienated millions of less well-off white voters. Quietly, many thought that if ethnic activists were right that the white majority was shrinking into irrelevance, and if it was acceptable for everyone to seek solidarity through their tribal affiliations, then poor whites could also rally under the banner of their own identity politics. If such trends were to continue in a nation that is still 70 percent white, it would prove disastrous for the Democratic Party in a way never envisioned during the era of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton discovered that Obama’s identity politics constituencies were not transferrable to herself in the same exceptional numbers, and the effort to ensure that they were often created new tribal opponents. (…) it is not certain that immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue at its current near record rate, which has resulted in over 40 million immigrants now residing in America—constituting some 13 percent of the present population. Trump is likely not just to curtail illegal immigration, but also to return legal immigration to a more meritocratic, diverse, and individual basis. Were immigration to slow down and become more diverse, the formidable powers of integration and intermarriage would perhaps do to the La Raza community what it once did to the Italian-American minority after the cessation of mass immigration from Italy. There are currently no Italian-American quotas, no Italian university departments, and no predictable voting blocs. (…) class is finally reemerging as a better barometer of privilege than is race—a point that Republican populists are starting to hammer home. The children of Barack Obama, for example, have far more privilege than do the sons of Appalachian coal miners—and many Asian groups already exceed American per capita income averages. When activist Michael Eric Dyson calls for blanket reparations for slavery, his argument does not resonate with an unemployed working-class youth from Kentucky, who was born more than 30 years after the emergence of affirmative action—and enjoys a fraction of Dyson’s own income, net worth, and cultural opportunities. Finally, ideology is eroding the diversity industry. Conservative minorities and women are not considered genuine voices of the Other, given their incorrect politics. For all its emphasis on appearance, diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics. It is not biology that gives authenticity to feminism, but leftwing assertions; African-American conservatives are often derided as inauthentic, not because of purported mixed racial pedigrees, but due to their unorthodox beliefs. The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power.

    Victor Davis Hanson

    Struggling rural America proved disenchanted with the country’s trajectory into something like a continental version of Belgium or the Netherlands: borderless, with a global rather than national sense of self; identity politics in lieu of unity and assimilation; a statist and ossified economy with a few winners moralizing to lots of losers—perhaps as a way of alleviating transitory guilt over their own privilege. The full lessons of the 2016 election are still being digested (or indeed amplified), but one constant is emerging that the world outside our bi-coastal dynamic, hip, and affluent culture is not very well understood by those who lead the country. The Left feels that the interior is a veritable cultural wasteland of obesity, Christianists, nihilist self-destructive behavior, and evenings that shut down at dusk in desperate need of federal moral and regulatory oversight. The doctrinaire Right advises the interior losers of globalization to hit the road in search of good jobs and take a hard look in the mirror and cure their self-inflicted pathologies. Such stereotyped pessimism about rural America are no exaggeration. (…) The plight of the contemporary rural America in a word was not due to an epidemic of laziness or of innate genetic ineptness, but more likely the onslaught of globalism, a sort of Tolkien master ring that gave its coastal wearers enormous power to create and manage worldwide wealth, prosperity, and power, but by its very use proved corrupting to those in its midst. (…) But the rural shakedown did not mean that our red-state interior tuned out from politics, big business, universities, government, popular culture and mass entertainment. Far from it; cable TV, the Internet, and smart phones plugged rural America into coastal culture as never before. And what fly over country saw and heard each day, it often did not like. The first disconnect between coastal and interior America was the elevation of race over class—with a twist of scapegoating the losers of globalization as somehow culpable winners because of their supposed “white privilege.” Fairly or not, the lower middle classes heard a nonstop message from mostly affluent white liberals and well-off minority activists, virtue-signaling one another by blaming those far less well off as somehow beyond redemption. So-called middle and rural America—oddly people more likely to put their children in public schools and assimilate and integrate than was the elite—grew accustomed to being insulted by Barack Obama as clingers, or by Hillary Clinton as “irredeemables” and “deplorables,” as popular culture became fixated on privileged whiteness. And that tired message soon became surreal: coastal white people with the money were liberal and accusatory; interior white people without it were conservative and thus culpable. The villains of television and Hollywood, when not corporate conspiracists, Russian oligarchs, or South African residual Nazis, were often redneck Americans with southern drawls. The new minstrel shows were reality television’s ventures into the swamps, the seas, the forests, the Alaskan wilderness, and the empty and endless highways, where each week with condescension we saw smoking, overweight and gap-toothed fishermen, loggers, and truckers do funny and stupid things with boats, saws, and semis. The second unwelcome message was the politicization of almost everything. Beyoncé turned her 2016 Super Bowl show, traditionally non-political entertainment, into a peaen to Black Lives Matter and the old Black Panther party. Multimillionaire Colin Kaepernick deflected attention from his own poor play on the field for the San Francisco 49ers by scapegoating America for its supposed -ologies and –isms—but of course himself did not take the trouble to vote. Hollywood actors, who make more in an hour than most do in a year, periodically finger-pointed at Middle America for its ethical shortcomings. Turn on late night talk shows or early morning chat sessions to receive the monotonous message that entertainment is properly indoctrination. Even charity became progressive politics. The locus classicus of multimillionaire moralizing was the Clinton team: she selling influence at the State Department, he collecting the ensuing checks at the Foundation; both veneering the shake-down with left-wing moralistic preening. (…) Third, the gulf in America between concrete and abstract things widened. Banking, insurance, universities, government, social media, and programing were reflections of the work of the mind and well compensated; fabrication, construction, transportation, drilling, mining, logging and farming were still muscular, essential for the good modern life—and yet deprecated as ossified and passé. The ancient wisdom of the necessary balance between thought and deed, muscle and mind, was forgotten in the popular culture of the coasts. Yet rural America assumed it could still learn how to use iPhones, search the web, and write in Microsoft Word; but coastal America did not know a chainsaw from a snow blower. A tractor or semi might as well have been a spaceship. And those with expansive lawns soon had no idea how to mow them. That divide by 2016 posed a Euripidean question: What is wisdom and who were the real dullards, who were the real smart ones: the supposed idiots with Trump posters on their lawn who swore they were undercounted, or the sophisticated pollsters and pundits who wrote off their confidence as delusional if not pathetic? Finally, speech, dress, and comportment bifurcated in a way not seen since the 19th century. Ashley Judd and Madonna might have thought screaming obscenities, vulgarities, and threats established their progressive fides, but to half the country they only confirmed they were both crude and talentless. What do Ben Rhodes, Pajama Boy, and Lena Dunham have in common? They all appeared to the rest of the country as arrogant, young, hip, and worldly without knowing anything of the world beyond them. Some object that Trumpism is pure nihilism and a vandal act rather than a constructive recalibration. Perhaps. But red-state America shouted back that if those who demanded open borders never themselves lived the consequences of open borders, then there would be no open borders. If those who proposed absolute free transfers of capital and jobs always expected others to lose money and jobs as the cost of the bargain, then there would be no such unlimited free flows. If the media were continually to stereotype and condescend to others, then they themselves would be stereotyped and talked down to. For a brief moment in 2016, rural America shouted that the last shall be first, and first shall be last. Before we write off this retort that led to Trump as a mindless paroxysm, remember that it was not those in Toledo, Billings, Montgomery, or Red Bluff who piled up $20 trillion in collective debt, nearly destroyed the health care system, set the Middle East afire, turned the campus into Animal Farm, or transformed Hollywood into 1984-style widescreen indoctrination. Trump was rural America’s shout back. One way or another, he will be its last. Either Trump will fail to restore prosperity and influence to the hinterland and thus even as president go the way of a flash-in-the-pan, would-be president Ross Perot—or he will succeed and thus make a like-minded successor superfluous.

    Victor Davis Hanson
















  • Notice: Undefined property: wpdb::$is_admin in /home3/baraka/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 684