A Blog on Politics, Principles, and Uncovering the Narrative

Category: Principles

What Is Most Wrong with Tucker’s Text Message

Trump supporter
Trump supporter and white supremacist assaulting a liberal protester.

We all know it by now, and we have all been horrified by it. Horrified by his evident racism, and by the fact that Carlson, as a representative of modern conservatism, is as bloodthirsty as this. However, it is even more chilling if you think about a single word in his message that makes it even worse than you have likely imagined so far. Can you spot the word?

A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?

This things that disturbs me most is one word that I believe has been mostly overlooked:


That’s the key word, after all. That’s what made the kid in the video worthy of being beaten and even killed, as far as Carlson was concerned.

But what does it actually mean? In order to correctly judge what Carlson meant, it is necessary to step back and understand the term as Carlson himself defines it.

“Antifa” simply means “Anti-Fascist.” But Antifa is not an organization. There are no members’ lists, no meetings, no headquarters, no budget, no donors.

It can mean anyone who claims to be “Antifa,” anyone who makes flags or dresses in black and invokes the name. At the most concrete, it might refer to people who take typically non-violent action in protest of fascism. While there was a single homicide committed by a self-identified anti-fascist in 2020, that’s the only such case in 25 years (as opposed to a few dozen murders by right-wingers nearly every single year).

But that’s not what Tucker Carlson was referring to, because conservatives like Carlson reject that definition of “Antifa,” as it is too limited. That’s of no use when you are trying to instill fear in millions.

More generally, “Antifa,” as I noted earlier, simply means anyone who opposes fascism. However, that is also not what Carlson refers to, as this would include a large number of moderates and conservatives, not to mention pretty much every WWII veteran.

No, to Tucker Carlson, “Antifa” refers to nothing less than any particular liberal. Or, perhaps more accurately, any particular liberal who makes protest in public.

Remember, to conservatives, no such thing as a “peaceful liberal protester” exists. All liberal protesters, especially BLM, are terrorists thugs. Every single liberal protest is intended as an orgy of violence in which entire cities are burned to the ground.

It’s a handy way to vilify the opposition—if you’re a liberal and you protest, then you’re a terrorist.

Now, come back to Carlson’s writing:

A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him.

So, who were the “Trump guys” beating up?

Now that we have worked out what “Antifa” means to Carlson, the answer is a young liberal protester. That was his crime, that was his sin. He was a liberal, and he took to the streets in protest. That now warrants a beating, and possibly death.

Not that this is shocking. Right-wingers have been advocating violence against liberal protesters for some time. Remember when Trump told his angry crowd of supporters at a rally to “knock the crap out of” liberal protesters? He even promised to pay the legal fees of anyone who did his bidding.

After a liberal protester, Heather Heyer, was run over and killed by a white supremacist terrorist, republicans in Oklahoma and Iowa passed laws to legally protect people who run over protesters, with many other red states considering similar bills. This is unmistakably a direct threat to liberal protesters, an open encouragement to injure and kill liberals on the street. 

So to Tucker Carlson and like-minded republicans, the simple act of liberals protestering merits a death sentence.

Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it.

Why? Because the “kid” was a liberal and was exercising his freedom of speech. That was the totality of his crime. That drives conservatives to such heights of offense and outrage that they can literally taste their thirst for violence, to the extent of murder.

And that’s what really chills me about all of this. 

It is that Carlson and potentially tens of millions of others right-wingers are now at the point where they feel that liberals should be killed in the street for simply speaking their minds.

How to Make Numbers Lie: 14 Million Democrats Did Not “Leave the Party”

There is a meme going around discussions amongst liberals lately: 14 million people have left the Democratic Party since the nomination of Hillary Clinton. It is chiefly being used by those who want to split off and form a new party, feeling that the DNC is so corrupt as to be absolutely irredeemable.

Is the number real? And where did it come from?

The answers to those questions are, “No,” and, “From someone’s ass.”

Okay, contempt for those who don’t respect logic aside, the actual answers to those questions are, “The number is ‘real’ in the sense that it exists, but not in that it is accurate or meaningful,” and, “It came from a dishonest misreading of a Gallup poll.”

The poll is a Gallup tracking poll which measures party affiliation by asking respondents, “In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?”

The 14 million number comes from taking the poll results for those who responded “Democratic” from October 5-9 2016 (32%), and then from the same result for January 4-8, 2017 (25%). October was a temporary peak, January a low dip. The difference between the two is 7%.

A recent tally of registered voters came up with the number 200,000,000. 7% of 200 million is 14 million. Presto!

The conclusion: People are disgusted with the Democratic Party. Hillary was such a toxic candidate, party numbers are at an all-time low. We should form a new party!

Well, isn’t that accurate? It’s a Gallup poll—they’re respectable. The 200 million figure is reliable. Why shouldn’t the conclusion be accurate?

This is an excellent example of the old saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Let me explain.

Here’s a graphic representation of the numbers that were used:

Looks pretty clear-cut, right? However, let’s also look at the numbers from the same poll, this time between December 2012, after Obama won re-election, and November of 2013, almost a year later:

Wow! Obama was toxic, too! After he was re-elected, party affiliation dropped from 38% down to 28%! That’s an even bigger drop than now! A whole 20 million people fled the party in a massive exodus, disgusted by Obama and the Democrats!

You remember that, right? The mass exodus of 20 million Democrats in 2012? It was like Moses and the Hebrews leaving Egypt! Huge masses bringing all that they could carry or put onto the backs of camels, and all that. Let our people go!

No, of course you don’t remember that, because it didn’t happen.

Nor did 12 million Democrats flee the party after Obama was elected in 2008. Nor did 14 million flee after Democrats retook Congress in the 2006 midterms. Nor did 18 million flee after Kerry lost in 2004. And yet, I could show similar charts taken from that same poll which show exactly that happening.

So, if I can show charts which have a grand total of 78 million people leaving the party, how is it that the Democratic Party has anyone left in it at all?

The answer: the same way climate change deniers claimed that there was a “pause” in global temperature increases. That is to say, by reading the numbers dishonestly.

Here’s the whole chart, from 2004 to 2017. Note that time each tick is a new poll, but not an equal measure of time, to the time axis is a little distorted:

As you can see, the chart is packed with peaks and valleys. The red line at the end is the data from which the 14 million number comes from. There is a trendline in green, but the ends are distorted by the data being cut off; the actual trend leading to the present is truthfully unknown, as we don’t know where the next number is, and the final low result prejudices the trend.

If I take a 2-, 4-, or 6-month excerpt from anywhere the chart, moving from a peak to a valley, or a valley to a peak, I could make any claim I damn wanted. Obama brings tens of millions to the party! Tens of millions depart the Democrats in disgust at Obama! Hillary is a party hero! She’s a monster! People love the DNC! People hate the DNC!

This is what the climate change deniers did: they selectively cherry-picked a high peak, and then a low that cam years later, and—voila!—no climate change! Same thing. Liars figure.

Hell, the margin of error on polls like the one Gallup takes is usually about +/-3%—meaning that the margin of error is potentially 12 million people!

So, if the Draft Bernie/Splinter Party crowd were to state the facts honestly, this would be their claim:

If we ignore the larger trend and selectively pick our data, we can claim that 14 million people left the party, with a margin of error of 12 million people. Except that most of those people will likely “return” in the next issue of the poll numbers.

See, that doesn’t have the right zing to it. Better to just lie:

14 million people left the Democratic Party! The Democratic Party is dead!

So, what’s the real takeaway from the poll? Well, first of all, people tend to get excited about the party before elections, and less so afterwards, so a dip is expected. The most recent number is a bigger drop than normal—though not unprecedented—but the real story will be told over the next few years, as enough data comes in to make a reliable assessment over time.

Hell, considering that the latest data point came before Trump’s inauguration, considering that since Trump took office there has been massive protests by liberals, and that Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have been putting up a very public fight… it is not inconceivable that the next poll could show an unusually high surge.

But we can’t say yet. The data is not in. Until it is, the short-term numbers are simply meaningless.

As is the claim that 14 million people “left” the party.

Slamming Shut the Golden Door

It has long been the policy of this nation to open its doors to those in the world who have needed it most. This has been one of our highest principles, one of our greatest strengths, one of our noblest qualities.

I exist because of this policy. When fascists took over Spain in the 1930’s, and my grandfather was jailed and to be killed for having a voice of opposition, he escaped and made his way to the United States, where he was welcomed. My father, a baby at the time, followed soon after in his mother’s arms.

It has not been our pride or strength or security to deny entry; it has only been our shame. Many Jews who came to America fleeing the Nazi Holocaust were turned away, and many died later because of it.

Now Trump and his Republican allies, in the name of fear and hate, turn away Syrians whose only crime was to be Muslim in a country where other Muslims tried to kill them. They turn away Muslims from all over in the name of security, when every fact screams that what they are doing will do no good. Far from making us secure, this will only embolden our enemies, weaken our principles, and anger many who will later be turned against us. Like the Iraq War started by Republicans, this ban will stop no terrorists, but it will create a great many.

So now we are shamed. Shamed even by Canada, not by their condemnation, but by their compassion, when their leader says that they will take all of those that we turn away.

And for what? So we can pretend to be safe? So we can cower in fear behind closed doors?

We’re supposed to believe that this is going to make America “great” again?

We were great.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén