Sunday Sermon: Contemptible Politics


If your opponent goes low, you should either respond in kind, or stake out a position from which you arguably look superior. Let’s get a case study from Joe Biden on how to do that wrong.

Remember, Joe Biden is supposed to be the democrats’ answer to Trump: he’s going to get right down in the mud and manure with him, pull his ridiculous coiffure of toxic masculinity with one red-blooded American fist, while squeezing his nut-sack with the other, until he cries for his lawyer. Or something like that. It’s stupid, of course, but it’s how Americans seem to want their politics, nowadays. Perhaps that’s not it – perhaps the media (and democrats) think that’s what Americans want because, after all, if Trump is a crass mobbed-up asshole, and he got elected, then half or so of the electorate wants President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

I hated Idiocracy because the movie accidentally, itself, represented American ignorance about eugenics. But it does seem like it’s a bit of a documentary. It does make me wonder whether there’s some sort of genetic damage diluting our precious bodily fluids – perhaps it’s something in the paint they use in the McMansions in Montauk?

None of that could have affected Biden because, like most of the US gerontocracy, he’s genetically closer to the humans that came out of Kenya, by a couple of generations at least. Biden’s a guy who grew up when “fiddlesticks” was harsh language, indeed. The same can be said for Trump (and Pelosi) – which is probably why Trump feels sly and edgy when he calls his political opponents names. Can you imagine Genghis Khan doing that?

Here’s a hint for Trump and Biden and the rest: weak bullies talk about the other guy. Ghenghis Khan would not call you “poopy drawers” he’d come over with something along the lines of:

I am the poopy drawers of GOD come to rule over you. Drape me over your face and breathe deep of me, for this is what your eternity will smell like.

It’s sad that a lowly blogger like myself has to try to teach these baby tough guys how it’s done. I used to sit there gnawing my knuckles with rage when Hillary “We came, we saw, he died” Clinton sat there and took it instead of turning to Trump with a (forced) silvery laugh, “‘Crooked Hillary’? Is that the best you can do, tough guy? Are you ever going to stop projecting your inadequacy on others?” #SAD.

The Daily Beast reports this performance from Biden: [beast]

Joe Biden Gives Trump Nickname ‘Clown’

Former Vice President Joe Biden told a South Carolina campaign rally crowd on Saturday night that he had a lot of names he could call the president, but he would start with “clown.” Biden, on a two-day swing through the state, then mistakenly referred to Margaret Thatcher as the U.K. prime minister as he tried to boast about his knowledge of foreign leaders. Thatcher led the U.K from 1979 to 1990. “One I can say is Margaret Thatcher, um, excuse me, Margaret Thatcher – Freudian slip,” Biden said, according to Politico. “But I knew her too. The prime minister of Great Britain, Theresa May.” Going back to Trump, who refers to Biden as ‘Sleepy Joe,’ he said he would not stoop to the level of the president’s name calling. “On every single issue and on every demeaning thing he says about other people, I have no problem responding directly,” Biden said. “What I’m not going to do is get into what he wants me to do. He wants this to be a mud wrestling match.”

Joe, you sad, sad, man. First off, you didn’t even call Trump a “clown” – you said you’d call him a “clown” if you called him a “clown.” Apparently you want to have your cake and eat it too: you want to be a tough guy who calls Trump a “clown” but you want to simultaneously be above all that name-calling. Except you then wrap up by saying, in effect,”I’m above all that name-calling but it he wants name-calling then look out because I’m a real toughie.”

I have tougher cookies in my cookie-jar than Joe Biden, but that’s because they’re old and dried up. I also don’t think it was a great strategic move for Biden to remind us that he was a friend of Benjamin Disraeli and that Talleyrand was “just doing his job.” [And PS to democrats who were complaining about how McCain put Sarah Palin “within a few heartbeats of the white house” but are now promoting Biden: you are why you lose]

The sad thing is that there are democrats who want Biden to run because they feel that he’ll be able to go toe-to-toe with Trump. The guy is – literally – not even worth talking to. He’s incoherent; it’s like talking to someone whose brain is dissolving from tertiary syphillis, except he does not inspire sympathy. “I’ll argue with Trump after he’s shown that he can string a few sentences together into something coherent – maybe by doing something like giving Congressional testimony about his attempts to interfere with the Mueller investigation, or explaining his taxes to the public. In the meantime he’s not worth talking to – his great political innovation is calling other heads of state things like ‘Rocket Man’ – of course he wants to get into a name-calling contest: that’s all he’s got. You can see how well his ‘diplomacy’ works, it’s as bad as his ‘restauranteur’ and ‘airline magnate’ and maybe ‘husband’ and ‘father.'”

What a completely lame performance. They way to show you’re a tough guy and enough of a nihilist to call the president names is to conjure up the sight of two old men stomping on each other in a mud puddle while the Secret Service stands by with towels and refreshments for afterward. It ain’t Valhalla Rising.

Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time-ah.

------ divider ------

It’s not sure if he really said it this way, but this is how Ghengis Khan justified a clampdown:

O people, know that you have committed great sins, and that the great ones among you have committed these sins. If you ask me what proof I have for these words, I say it is because I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.

I have been watching The Expanse lately (it’s OK) and have been impressed as hell by the vivid performance given by Shoreh Aghdashloo as Chrisjen. She should hire herself out as an acting coach to politicians.

I would like to bring back “beyond basic” sentence structure for politicians. That is my request. Let’s get sentences that are things of beauty, please, not powerpoint bullets.

Comments

  1. says

    I hated Idiocracy because the movie accidentally, itself, represented American ignorance about eugenics. But it does seem like it’s a bit of a documentary.

    My main problem with the movie were the logical inconsistencies, for example, people were pretty stupid, yet they still had access to modern technology. Who was designing, building, and maintaining all those machines that people were using in the movie? Without proper maintenance, machines created by past generations quickly stop being functional.

    Anyway, back to your point about ignorance—this movie represented not only American ignorance about eugenics, but also their worst fears.

    Which reminds me, several years ago I participated in a debate tournament, where one of the motions was “this house will give money to smart people who have children.” The first proposition team defined the motion to mean that every citizen will be given an IQ test and those with high scores will be given extra money for every kid they have. Thus smarter people will have more children compared to less intelligent people who won’t be getting the same monetary benefits. I was debating in the opposition. My argument was that there is no proof that smarter parents also have smarter children; therefore, if we want a smart future generation, the country is better off spending money on educating all the kids we have regardless of who their parents are. The adjudicators decided that I had lost that debate. The winning team was in the proposition. They argued that this proposal will give us smarter next generation. Humans may not know for certain how genes that determine intellect work, but even if higher intelligence isn’t inherited genetically, smarter parents will still raise their kids to be smarter compared to children who come from families with less intelligent parents. As the adjudicators were explaining their reasoning for why I had lost the debate, I realized with horror that I seemed to be the only person in the room who was skeptical about the assumption that more intelligent parents also have more intelligent children. Everybody else just took it for a proven fact.

    This debate happened some years ago, that was before I read The Mismeasure of Man. Anyway, I remember this debate so vividly, because it’s rare to lose debates because of disagreeing with everybody else in the room about basic facts.

  2. says

    Andreas Avester@#1:
    Thus smarter people will have more children compared to less intelligent people who won’t be getting the same monetary benefits

    Of course, either set of kids would perform better if their parents had more money. That is what we learn from SAT and IQ tests.

    I think part of the problem is that evolution is easy enough to understand that it can replace religion in thoughtless peoples’ minds, but they stop at Mendelian genetics, which is enough for mistakes like social darwinism. I have often wondered if the American conservatives’ hatred of Darwin is really about atheism so much as it is about class consciousness.

  3. says

    Of course, either set of kids would perform better if their parents had more money. That is what we learn from SAT and IQ tests.

    Sure. And once people spot a correlation, they make incorrect assumptions about what causes the difference in test scores: “Children who come from rich families have higher test scores? That means rich people must have superior genes, which must be genetically inheritable in their offspring. Now shut up and stop talking about social equality, after all, it’s not like we can do anything about inborn genetic differences in human population.”

  4. consciousness razor says

    The sad thing is that there are democrats who want Biden to run because they feel that he’ll be able to go toe-to-toe with Trump.

    I figured they want him mainly because he is all-too-familiar and seems “safe” (i.e., won’t rock the boat).
    Ask people: Coke or Pepsi? You’ll get a mix of predictable answers.
    Ask them: Coke or “The Mystery Drink Behind Door #2”? They don’t know what #2 may be, and they are risk-averse. On Monty Hall’s show, they get the goat.

    To get a sense of the generational difference, when Joe Biden was first elected to the Senate, Buttigieg, Gabbard, and Castro had not been born yet and O’Rourke was two months old.

    I have no clue why Delaware has kept him as a Senator … or any clue about Delaware for that matter.

  5. says

    consciousness razor @#4

    Ask people: Coke or Pepsi? You’ll get a mix of predictable answers.

    A very common one of those predictable answers being: “Both Coke and Pepsi suck, so I’ll pick neither, I’ll just stay at home and not vote at all.”

  6. consciousness razor says

    A very common one of those predictable answers being: “Both Coke and Pepsi suck, so I’ll pick neither, I’ll just stay at home and not vote at all.”

    Yeah, that is a way you can respond. But you are making a substantive evaluation of those choices, based on some real-world empirical evidence (i.e., you’ve tasted them). You possess actual, genuine information about all of your options, and you use it however you want to use it.
    The reason some conservative Democrats prefer Biden is a bit different. They are very low-information, so they more or less go with whatever is in their memory. He’s that one guy I’ve seen on the TV for decades. He’s got a “D” next to his name. He’s a known quantity.
    They don’t try to get new information about the other candidates and weigh their options carefully. That takes work. They won’t do that, because not knowing shit is easier. And his “familiarity” or “establishment” credentials get conflated with electability, so they even believe they have an argument that he’s best suited to defeat Swamp and his swampocracy (as Marcus was saying). But their argument is basically just that they don’t have a clue and that’s why they do have a clue, which is absurd.

  7. voyager says

    I am the poopy drawers of GOD come to rule over you. Drape me over your face and breathe deep of me, for this is what your eternity will smell like

    A fine turn of phrase that sums up modern American politics.

  8. brucegee1962 says

    He’s that one guy I’ve seen on the TV for decades. He’s got a “D” next to his name. He’s a known quantity.

    Also, “He’s Obama’s buddy. He was right behind Obama for all those years. I miss Obama, so maybe he’ll bring back some of that magic.”

  9. brucegee1962 says

    I seriously wonder whether we’ll actually see anybody debate Trump this go-around.

    Seriously, what’s he got to gain from agreeing to a debate? He won’t have the exclusively adoring crowds he loves. Sure, every other candidate has a agreed to a debate throughout history, but if he’s learned one thing so far, it’s that he can break all the expectations and demands and traditions of the office, and he’ll never have to bear any consequences. So why not break this tradition too?

  10. johnson catman says

    Biden should have just ridden off into the sunset. He probably could have won in 2016 if he had been the nominee because 1) he wasn’t Clinton, and 2) he was riding Obama’s coattails. BUT, we would have just had more of the same politics, an increasingly weak democratic party, and the opposition republicans getting stronger. The only good thing I can think of would be that we would have a better looking SCOTUS. The present corrupt administration has at least energized younger candidates like AOC and her cohort. We need more of that, and the more pissed-off young people get with the Orange Idiot, the better off we (as a country) will be (as long as they VOTE).