Thursday, September 8, 2016

- Cracks In The Liberal Levee

Debate might be a bit too strong a word to describe the political conversation last night that was hosted by Matt Lauer, but by all accounts something important happened anyway. The left leaning portion of the web is hyperbolic today about Matt’s modest efforts to ask Hillary actual questions about those issues which are haunting her campaign.

I didn’t watch the thing. I had a drink with a friend at the Soho House instead. It’s fashion week and he thought the place would be loaded with beautiful women, but instead it was mostly dumpy PR girls and politically aggressive looking wanna be 20 something guys in sneakers. Except for us. We were two business looking middle aged guys in tailored suits and $1,000 dollar shoes, having a discussion they no doubt found horrifying.

The Soho House is a private members only club, and my friend is a member. He’s also black, my age, close to my weight, close to my height, and very polished and professional. We’ve known each other for years. He and I were PM’s at a hedge fund together, and are extremely like minded on a ton of issues including politics. You could easily replace one of us with the other in many situations, and no one would notice, until they looked at the color of our skin. Which of course means absolutely nothing to either of us.

We talked Alt-Right politics and issues of race very loudly, and if the snotty looks and rolled eyes of the other people there were any indication, we deeply offended many (which was fun). It turned out that my friend had ideas on the topic even further to the right than mine. While I was talking about modifying behavior by treating anyone on the dole as something less than a man, he was talking about work camps and forced relocations for anyone who chooses not to get a job.

It’s strange the way things change huh? There were dozens of press and ‘entertainment industry’ people in the place watching these two guys openly discussing topics that they all think should be completely out of bounds, and doing so in a way that shattered all their views of how the conversation should go. Me, the Alt-Right Trump supporting racist (according to them anyway), openly laughing and joking with a black man, and he a black man floating ideas even further to the hard right than the Alt-Right racist Trump supporter.

We were both thrilled with our effect on the crowd.

This was a walking talking example of the shift of the Overton window, dropped right smack down in the middle of one of New York’s most liberal ‘safe spaces’. And while my friend and I were busy offending half the (universally liberal) media types in the Meatpacking district, Matt Lauer was doing the same to the rest of America by gingerly asking Hillary Clinton real questions about things she doesn’t want asked.

The web is all a flutter today with liberal horror and dismay, at the idea that Matt Lauer thought more of his personal credibility than sticking to the liberal narrative. That narrative, is all they have. And if the conversation starts shifting to include facts and information that liberals can’t control, they know their story and the power of their like minded politico’s, will crumble. That’s the reason for the ‘no trigger warning/safe space' suppression of speech thing. They need to keep control of the message, regardless of the facts on the ground. But apparently Matt Lauer, didn’t see his long term prospects being served by religious devotion to American liberalism, and the open suppression of free speech.

So the left’s only choice is to heap mounds of disgust on the media person who dares drift off the standard liberal line. That narrative: liberal=good/conservative=evil, is the only defense they have. If that levee breaks American liberalism and all that they’ve invested in it, will wash down stream behind the facts and statistics that the Alt-Right uses to define its views. The result would be good for the American people, but bad, bad, BAD for liberals. They hold the positions they do not because they believe in them, who could? They hold them because it’s in their interests, and the interest of their connections to hold them.

The fun thing about last night though was that the message is creeping out anyway. Those who decided to go to the Soho House last night instead of watch the ‘debate’ ended up being subjected to the same kind of changing tide of message that the TV audience did. And my friend and I looked so sharp and polished that the people in the club were too afraid to challenge us. For all they knew we were Studio execs or something, so they may need us one day. Instead they had to just sit there and listen while their worldview was loudly and unashamedly shattered. The most devoted of them may be calling us assholes this morning, but they shut up and took it last night. And for anyone who is less than a true believer, that's the kind of thing that changes minds. The message is entering the acceptable range of normal.

Big fun this election.


chess said...

This is that awkward time in CHESS between check and checkmate. Your king is in peril but there is a glimmer of hope he can escape the checkmate. If this was Biden or Bernie it would already be checkmate. I still think it ends that way but there is a little hope.
Even with a crack in the levee the math is very simple as Romney explained it. There is that 47% that he would NEVER get. It is now 48-49 and in 4 years it will be 52-54%. It is not trickery it is math. Every alien coming in will be labeled a democrat. Texas will either succeed or go dem along with AZ. Checkmate.I am packing to move to Texas

chess said...

Meanwhile, criminal genius Lex Luthor has developed a plan to make a fortune in real estate by buying large amounts of barren desert land and then diverting a nuclear missile test flight to the San Andreas Fault. It will sink California and leave Luthor's desert as the new West Coast of the United States, greatly increasing its value.

I think this idea actually has some merit. Tom I will put in some vc $$ with others and we will just all move to the new west coast... Sinking California would go a long way to solving social security etc...

Tom said...

I disagree with your (and Romney's) math chess. I don't think it's 47% for Trump. I think it's more like 35% and even that number will shift with the tide. People make political decisions based on all kinds of things. It's a binary decision made by people measuring candidates against a slurry of multi-dimensional distributions. Just look at who is considered more honest vs who is more corrupt? Both of those sort of say the same thing, but Hillary is seen as only slightly less 'honest' than Trump but much much more 'corrupt'. It isn't purely linear.

And I think Trump's style matters as well. I hear talk of him getting as much as 20% of the male minority vote. But even if he doesn't do that and only puts enough doubt in the minds of that many that they end up thinking 'it just doesn't matter' and stay home, Trump wins it. People aren't as logical about things as you, and you can't impart your logic, to the illogical decision making of others. They aren't as sure of their facts as you are.

chess said...

Honestly I dont think either will make a difference where the world is going.Maybe just change the speed of getting there.The health and Assange plays might make a difference but even with that Trump is a break even candidate...
If the democratic ground machine fails it could go for Trump. But overall I still think the numbers gradually roll to a higher percentage of dems over the next 4-8 years.
Since Mo. seems a lock for Trump so far not a lot of money is being spent here. I havent seen a single ad.