He was introduced as a Trump supporter
I thought perhaps it was a joke. I was reading Paul Fidalgo’s Morning Heresy from yesterday, and the surprise module in my brain was activated. The surprise-activator is at the end of a slew of Trump-reporting:
The Christian Post (which I should say has been pretty good and fair to us) pulls a Romney and makes an un-endorsement of Donald Trump (an “undorsement”?):
This is a critical time in American history and we call on all Christians to pray for personal repentance, divine forgiveness and spiritual awakening for our nation. It is not the time for Donald Trump.
Oh! Oh! Guess who is supporting Donald Trump! Like, publicly! Michael Shermer. Ron Lindsay said on Twitter, “So The Moral Arc apparently leads us to Trump. Who knew?” (And to which I responded: “Everyone, STEP AWAY FROM THE ARC.”)
Seriously? Not that I think Shermer isn’t conservative enough, but is he really anti-intellectual enough? It’s probably a joke, which I won’t get until I follow the link?
So I followed the link, and it’s not a joke. Hemant writes:
Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, was recently interviewed by KCRW, an NPR affiliate in California. To my surprise, he was introduced as a Trump supporter (around the 17:17 mark).
I couldn’t believe it. I thought skeptics were supposed to be able to see through bullshit.
Shermer’s reasoning boiled down to the idea that Trump was a good dealmaker:
… Things I like about Donald Trump? First of all, this idea of deal-making. And not providing, say, a 14-point plan on every single thing he’s gonna do. Well, as he points out, and this is true, like the boxer who has a plan for every round of the 12-round match, and then gets punched in the nose in the first ten seconds and that’s the end of his strategy…
… When you go in to make a deal, you don’t start where you want to end up, in the middle there. You start with the most extreme position you can ask for, without getting laughed out of the room, and then negotiate!…
No one should make a deal, though, with someone who changes his mind every few days, who throws entire groups of people under the bus to make himself look better, and who is happy to get the support of people with abhorrent values. Even if that person is the President.
Also, as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, the guy incites violence at his rallies, and the violence is happening.
Oh well, maybe it’s more of a guy thing.
Editing to add: Ariel commented:
I think you should read this. It is also from Herman Mehta, but one day later. Shermer claims that he is “not publicly endorsing anyone”, he gives also some explanations about the situation with KCRW.
I think you should read this. It is also from Herman Mehta, but one day later. Shermer claims that he is “not publicly endorsing anyone”, he gives also some explanations about the situation with KCRW.
Read the denial, though. It seems to boil down to, “Yes, I said I like him, and that he’s better than the other candidates, but I never said ‘I endorse Donald Trump’.”
That’s very Shermer though isn’t it. Say something that any plain reading by a reasonable person says a thing, then when he gets shit for it weasels by claiming a less probable thing was actually meant. It’s such a spirit ions pattern you can only conclude that he is actually a shit communicator, or that he is in fact a dishonest reactionary shitbag.
I prefer “he is actually a shit communicator” (Rob #3), but I’m a Pollyanna – as always.
I think Mehta is quite accurate in his commentary:
Indeed, interpreting this as a support for Trump is very natural. For me, the introductory words combined with the lack of reaction on Shermer’s part are the key elements. Otherwise, it would boil down to making a few positive comments (AMA, I can’t see any statement to the effect that all things considered, Trump is better than other candidates) – and I sort of understand why someone would be ready to do it even without endorsing a given candidate.
In view of the above, I’m really not sure whether I should view Mehta’s final remarks (see my link) as too apologetic, or perhaps I should instead admire his high standards. At the moment I do both.
There’s some joke to be made here about a guy who boasts about his penis, and Shermer.
I’ll get back to you.
So, in the disclaimer, Shermer says:
That was their mistake, then. Surely if they want “someone” to say a few positive things about Trump, the Trump campaign machine would be only too willing to provide someone.
There’s some unstated modifier there: they want someone respected by their audience to say nice things about Trump.
There’s also a huge difference between looking for the truth, versus looking for someone to say some nice things.
If – as you later claim – you don’t actually endorse Trump, then agreeing to come onto a radio show specifically for the overt purpose of saying nice things about Trump, is a dumb thing to do. Are you lying now or were you lying then? Or are you just making dumb mistakes?
Shermer agreed:
To be “fair and balanced” in this manner seems exactly in line with what the Fox network uses that phrase to mean. It has nothing to do with fairness nor balance. Bring on someone who is willing to shill, so the completely loony bullshit artist can get even more airtime, and we show our allegiance now because the arsehole might actually win.
Ariel, note his paragraph starting, “that said, all the candidates are flawed.” He identifies [what he considers] serious flaws in the other candidates, but fails to identify any specific flaws in Trump. For Trump he gives a list of [to him] positives. The negatives? “Some things” that he only recently heard about for some reason.
Ariel @4,
You have far more faith in the Bootlicking Atheist than I do. The only thing that surprises me is that he was actually willing to criticize a big-name establishment skeptic in the first place.
“Spirit ions”. I have no idea what that was meant to be, but I blame spell check obviously. Nothing to do with being a shit communicator. Nothing!
Ben @6, my thoughts exactly.
Shermer’s a bicyclist who is an expert at backpedaling.
I assume everyone here read Mark Oppenheimer’s Will Misogyny Bring Down the Atheist Movement? when it was published on Buzzfeed in 2014, but in case you missed it–or would care to refresh your memory–here it is again:
Shermer features prominently. It’s particulary fascinating, to me, to read Mr. Moral Arc’s two utterly contradictory descriptions of what happened between him and Alison Smith. The first is a detailed account emailed to “a fellow skeptic” in which he denies they had sex; the second, in which he admits they had sex but claims it was consensual, he posted to his website after he was publicly accused of rape.
I recently heard Shermer interviewed on an atheist podcast I recently started listening to–the first couple of episodes were somewhat interesting and insightful, so I thought this podcast might be worth following. But when I heard the name I was all, ‘wait, isn’t that the rape guy?’
http://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement#.mcNA05eXX
Now I have to wonder about the credibility/gullibility of everyone on the podcast. Is it worth it to listen to it now? I haven’t decided.
It makes perfect sense for a wealthy, irreligious, right-leaning Californian like Shermer to be a Trump fan. The thing is that Shermer lacks the courage of his convictions, which is an even bigger character flaw than liking Trump.
Maybe OT, but I just had to share the quote from James Randi in the article I linked to above:
‘If [Shermer] had gotten violent, I’d have him out of there immediately. I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk.’
Thanks for having my back, James Randi!
Oh and what an idiot I am! I apologise, Lady Mondegreen–you posted the same thing I did.
Or rather ‘I posted the same thing you did.’ OK, done for today.
I dunno. If Trump wins the nomination and becomes president, the will of the people will have to be respected.
During the 1980 elections my oh-so liberals friends were wringing their hands with angst about the possibility of a Reagan win. It would be the end of the world.
He won…and it wasn’t
Reagan had many faults….his inability or unwillingness to address the AIDS crisis was perhaps one of the biggest, but still those years were years of relative prosperity.
What troubles me about Trump is not so much the guy, but rather the way in which America’s entire political class has ganged up on him. Everyone is piling on this guy. The networks, the major papers, the Republican establishment and even traditional conservative outfits like the National Review are lining up to pound on him.
Even entrenched Republican interests, it sometimes seems, would rather see Clinton win than Trump.
Just how subversive does someone have to be to find themselves battling the entire media and political establishment?
It just seems, from up here in Canada, that if Trump wins, it will no longer be business as usual for the *Repblocrat* plutocrats.
What the hell is “subversive” about being a misogynist, racist mulit-millionaire (on inherited wealth, substantial chunks of which he managed to lose)? You can’t get more quo than a status like that. The fact that he’s a loose cannon doesn’t make him “subversive”,
It shouldn’t be a surprise. Shermer is a full-tilt libertarian with deep rooted Randroid-ism. Which might even go a ways to explain his rationalized violence toward women. After all, St. Ayn was writing gruesome rape fantasies 70 years before ‘Fifty Shades…’
John @16, that paints Reagan’s presidency with a coat of whitewash. He represents the rise of the neocons, which reached supremacy under the reign of Bush2, and the ramping up of hostility with Americas enemies, leading to a more polarised world. Perhaps most importantly he was the one who steered the Republicans toward the evangelical right as a source of cheap easy votes. That’s come back to bite all of us in the butt ever since. He also succeeded in driving the political conversation rightward. This rippled through the entire western world.
John @16,
I’ll grant you that a certain amount of the Republican hostility to Trump is because he’s upsetting the status quo of that party and ruining their scam: promising to give Republican voters the goodies that most of them care about (tax cuts, anti-immigrant policies, anti-choice judges, killing Muslims) without the policies that only the doctrinaire or wealthy ones care about (cuts to entitlement programs). He’s laid bare the lie that Republican electoral support was based on principled adherence to a coherent conservative ideology, though it’s questionable how many people ever really believed that lie.
But there are plenty of reasons for the rest of us to be very troubled by Trump’s candidacy and regard it as something more sinister than just an “outsider breaking up the Washington duopoly.” It’s disturbing when a candidate can make promises that even the most ignorant and innumerate have to recognize as ridiculous lies (“I will build a big wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it,” “I will deport millions of people”). It’s disturbing when a candidate doesn’t even feel the need to pay lip service to the notion that not all Muslims are evil terrorists. It’s disturbing when a candidate can declare that he will MAKE the military torture people, to hell with what the law is. It’s disturbing when a candidate declares that he will make it easier to punish the media for writing stories about him he doesn’t like.
Trump is “subversive” all right. He’s subverting the ideas of freedom of religion, of freedom of the press, of treating even enemies with a bare degree of human decency. He’s subverting the idea that a candidate for high office should have to offer specifics, not just “it’ll be great, trust me.”
I keep seeing this. I wish people would go back and review the Reagan years a bit more closely. There were some years of prosperity, but overall…
There was a recession. There were a lot of layoffs. Unemployment was high. Many of us who were relatively new to our jobs went to work every day in terror that this was going to be the day we were RIF’d (reduction in force for anyone who is unfamiliar with that acronym). My mother-in-law and sister-in-law both lost their jobs.
Bank failures were frequent. Many small banks failed, and were bought up by bigger banks, which led to the phenomenon of “too big to fail” banks, thus necessitating a bail out by the taxpayers when their excesses came back and bit them in the ass. Much of this was also due to the rampant deregulation begun by Carter, but continued with zeal by Reagan.
The farm failures were a meme during that time, also. Farm auctions became a regular part of the landscape, and what little was left of family farming mostly disappeared, family farms being swallowed up by corporate ag.
The gap between rich and poor grew during the Reagan years, and has continued to grow. The hard line policies of the Reagan presidency added to the misery, and his rhetoric toward the poor was best termed nasty. Union busting was a priority of the administration, which helped to lead to the current situation of increasing stagnation at the bottom.
In short, much of the misery of today traces back to the Reagan administration, which for some stupid reason is remembered with a rosy glow by many on both sides of the aisle, though hardly correctly.
Oh, and because I sort of forgot to mention it:
The robbing of Social Security to pay for other projects. Money that was paid by employers and their employees, set aside in a separate fund, diverted into the general fund.
Trillions of dollars of debt accumulated, and illegal trading of arms with our enemies (which doesn’t necessarily relate to prosperity, except for the weapons manufacturers).
The ubiquitous furlough days, where already strapped employees were required to take an unpaid day off to balance budgets.
And after the initial tax cut, which proved disastrous, tax increases every year, predominantly on middle class and working class, leaving the wealthy to play happily in their growing pile of money.