Collaboration

"History Will Judge the Complicit - Why have Republican leaders abandoned their principles in support of an immoral and dangerous president?": https://bit.ly/3eVkFjO

This was the most e-mailed article in my inbox this week.

It should have been in "The New Yorker."

In case you missed it, the "New Yorker" and the "New York Times" got into a pissing match over Ronan Farrow's #MeToo reporting, to the point where even Matt Lauer came out of his bunker with a new tattoo to set the record straight. The "New Yorker" fought back. But Mr. Lauer's statement was compelling. He did not deny all of his behavior, but went into depth re certain accusations. But Lauer's been taken off the table, kicked out of the casino, he's just a news reader and he's been replaced by the analyst Farrow. But now Farrow's credibility is in question.

And then the "New York Times" took a hit.

Wednesday all hell broke loose, assuming you're on Twitter. You see the "Times" posted an opinion piece by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton entitled "Send In The Troops," and the staff broke the paper's rule and commented on its publication. But even more interesting were the outsiders with their analysis. To what degree was the publication of the opinion piece done to drive up subscriptions? You see news is a business. And the analysis said if the "Times" can appeal to more moderates, its numbers will go up. That's why you're on Twitter, for the analysis, for the insight you don't get from the constant assault of 30,000 feet news headlines all day long on TV and the web.

So, the "Times" did a mea culpa. Said the opinion piece did not meet its standards. Even worse, James Bennett, the editor in charge of the opinion section, said he didn't even read it. This is the plausible deniability Sarah Kendzior keeps going on about. It's like "Casablanca," you're positively shocked and you evade penalty. But Twitter also told us that Bennett was in line to become the next executive editor of the paper, now his ascension is in question, as it should be.

You see journalism is a game. Forget the talking heads, that's showbiz. Journalists are all about paying their dues and moving up the ladder. There's gossip and politics and infighting and what looks to you like a seamless product is not.

But it's so interesting that the Times employees broke the rule on commenting. It's kinda like the Facebook employees standing up to Zuckerberg. We're at that point, do you do what you know is right or are you complicit, to save your job, to continue to be a part of the enterprise.

Now despite the dearly departed Tom Wolfe excoriating the "New Yorker," it is held in the highest regard in journalistic circles. No higher regard than in the cabal comprised of the magazine's employees. And David Remnick improved the magazine, but it's rarely the heartbeat of America. The "Talk of the Town" is always slyly placed publicity. As for the feature articles...they're in-depth, but do they make a difference?

Anne Applebaum's article in the "Atlantic" makes a difference.

People make a difference.

Once upon a time, there was this magazine editor Clay Felker. He was the best in the business. He was responsible for "New York." He redid "Esquire." He created his own magazine, "Manhattan, inc." that was a cover to cover read.

Just like Marty Baron has lifted the "Washington Post" from second-rate to top tier.

But Marty did it with the help of Jeff Bezos.

And the "Atlantic" is doing it with the help of Laurene Powell Jobs.

Give both Bezos and Jobs credit, they're putting their money where their mouth is. They're laying it on the line in pursuit of a better world. And you can criticize Amazon all you want, but only the president believes Jeff is hands-on with the "Post." Murdoch's fingerprints are all over Fox News and the "Wall Street Journal," but it's the right that shoots as the left defends. And the "Times" has taken a hit, but it's not the only game in town.

So, I recommend reading the above article, but you must budget almost an hour. And most people won't dedicate that amount of time.

But in this case, there's a shortcut. You can listen to the NPR podcast. Pull up the NPR app on your favorite podcast platform, or you can listen on the NPR site. And, if podcasts are not your thing, you can read the transcript of the NPR interview. The podcast and transcript are here:

"Journalist Explains Why Republican Leaders Back Trump's 'Proto Authoritarian Cult'": https://n.pr/2XZyMO4

Now there's a dividing line in the public. Either you're open to new ideas, you check different sources, or you don't. If you're someone who remains in their silo, who believes all politics are tribal, that it's a team sport, you might not be open to Anne Applebaum's analysis.

Anne Applebaum is educated. And intelligent. And these are denigrated in today's society. If you got an elite education, you're not entitled to an opinion. Because chances are you're rich and lording it over us.

Unfortunately, in many cases that's true. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And if you have an elite education, unfortunately you are separate from the hoi polloi. Because you've been taught how to analyze.

This is what most Americans can't do. All they can do is gather the facts. But what do they mean? How do you merge all these facts, how do account for conflicting opinions? The dumbing down of America has consequences. And since public schools are underfunded and teach to the test, it's getting even worse.

So, Anne Applebaum uses Nazi analogies, but she says multiple times, the U.S. is not equivalent to Nazi Germany. But the point remains, why did everybody go along with Nazi policy, why were they complicit?

That's what Ms. Applebaum is analyzing here.

Her main analogy is Vichy France.

I recommend once again that you watch the series "A French Village." When it's all said and done, the Nazi collaborators...they were in trouble, they paid the price. Will today's Republicans pay the price for supporting Trump?

History will not be kind to them. But what Applebaum is dissecting is the slippery slope, the stories you tell yourself as you enable authoritarianism.

The article goes into the strange case of Lindsey Graham, how he sacrifices everything he believes in to support Trump. How he basks in the aura of the president after meeting with him.

There are many reasons people are complicit with authoritarians, and Applebaum goes into them, which is why you shouldn't let her story pass you by. She brings up every scenario, every motivation.

Why did the National Park Service doctor photos increasing the attendees at Trump's inauguration. Everybody knew it was a lie, but it's best to satiate the new president, give him a break. But Applebaum's point is it's not about the number of attendees, it's that Trump can lie with impunity, with no consequences. Which leads us to...

Impeachment. Everybody in the Senate knew Trump was guilty. Why did they not vote to convict him?

Well, they were playing a team sport. They liked being in office. And if they stood up, they'd be excoriated by Trump and primaried out of office.

Never underestimate personal motivation. It's rampant in America today. People do what is expedient as opposed to what's right. For themselves.

To stand up is to be an outcast. To be pilloried.

So people go along, they don't want to ruffle the feathers of those around them, never mind those in power.

Meanwhile, the person in power gains more and more power, and exercises it. To the point where you've got elected officials in Russia and Hungary, but they're powerless, the authoritarian rules.

And this is what is happening now in America. Threatening to use the military on the people it's supposed to defend, who are exercising their lawful right to protest, is akin to what they do in dictatorial countries. All in the name of law and order. Yes, the authoritarian says they're protecting the people as they take away their rights. And the truth is the authoritarian is protecting his or her self, not the people. Hell, look at Trump's response to Covid-19. He doesn't care about the people, he cares about himself!

Go online, argue with the Trumpers, it's a fool's errand.

You always have to go to the top. And in this case I'm speaking of D.C. These are the people who are in power, and they keep enabling Trump. As for the Democrats...they keep going on about the rules, say their hands are tied, but when it comes to right and wrong, when democracy hangs in the balance sometimes you've got to break the rules, like the reporters at the "Times." Otherwise, is the organization worth saving?

So start off with the podcast. Applebaum is not histrionic, and she does cover the bases. And listening you'll think...this could happen here.

Sadly, it already has.


--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: https://ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: https://apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1

If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25

To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25




-- powered by phpList, www.phplist.com --