The hell with authenticity
What we need is more shouty honest tell it like it is guys, right?*
Bernie Sanders’s performance in the last debate before Super Tuesday was a bellowing, boorish mess. The Vermont senator’s signature response when challenged was to pump up the volume, as though persuasiveness were measured in decibels. It was particularly excruciating to watch Pete Buttigieg attempt to inject some facts and reason into the proceedings, only to be interrupted again and again by Sanders’s shouting.
When I expressed dismay to a Democratic friend, he assured me it was just “Bernie being Bernie.” At least Sanders, the argument goes, speaks his mind. He is not scripted. He is true to himself. He may not play by the normal political rules, but he is the kind of outsider who will shake up the establishment.
That Democratic friend needs to watch some videos of Trump being Trump, speaking his mind, not being scripted, being true to himself, not playing by the normal political rules, being an outsider, shaking up the establishment – so that he can remember what a disaster that crap is.
[B]oth men have benefited from a certain definition of political authenticity that allows them — no, encourages them — to be unpleasant, ill-mannered loudmouths. The identification of authenticity with incivility and spontaneity is one of my pet peeves. And now my pet peeve has blossomed into a crisis of democratic values.
It’s one of my pet peeves too (mind you, it’s one of approximately 50 thousand), and you know what else? It’s only men who can convince people this makes sense; women are not allowed to come across as blunt but honest, rude but spontaneous, loud but energetic.
It is worth noting, first, that speaking your mind without filters is not a sign of political authenticity; it usually indicates a basic lack of respect for others. In almost any human interaction other than politics, Sanders’s outbursts on the debate stage would be taken as a sign of general jerkness. For Trump, such gracelessness is a lifestyle. Filtering out the worst of ourselves — demeaning language, crude insults, pushy interruptions — does not hide who we really are. It shows the kind of human beings we want to be.
And more important than that, it avoids causing pain and shame to other people. Demeaning language and crude insults are bad because they wound their targets (and because they encourage other people to do the same thing). First do no harm kind of thing. The demeaning language and crude insults are bad because they wound their targets, and we should want to be the kind of human beings who recoil from doing that.
There is a type of communication that seeks to change minds or clarify important differences. And there is a type of communication intended to establish dominance. The former is essential to self-government. The latter is more appropriate to professional wrestling matches and Trump campaign rallies (but I repeat myself).
…
Second, being unscripted in politics is not a reliable sign of authenticity. It generally comes from the arrogant and lazy belief that anything that pops in your head is worthy of public utterance. Authentic beliefs in politics emerge from reflection and craft. Ideas and policies are refined through the careful choice of arguments and words.
That belief that anything that pops into your head is worthy of public utterance is way up on my list of pet peeves, and makes me allergic to people who babble incessantly the way Trump does.
In the upside-down world of American politics, Sanders and Trump are given credit by their followers for vices that corrupt democracy. Meanwhile, grace, careful rhetoric, learning and governing skill have few practitioners and few defenders.
Well…Obama did get elected, twice. But then so did Bush.
*Editing to add: I have no idea how shouty Sanders actually was and how he compared to anyone else, I was just interested in the point about authenticity and shoutyness.
That fits in with another pet peeve of mine – the assumption that if you eat hot dogs, go to Nascar, blurt about everything, carry guns, and fail at political correctness, you are authentic. If you speak with carefully thought out language, eat tofu, go to art films and theatre, carry books, and don’t fly Confederate flags, you are inauthentic. The assumption being, I suppose, is that no one can authentically enjoy art films, theatre, opera, reading, or any of the other things often associated with the “coastal elite” – they only do that because they think they have to in order to be seen doing the right thing. (I will admit, if I went to opera, I would actually have to fall in that category, because I rarely enjoy it.)
Authenticity, or being who you are, is assumed to be crude, vulgar, uneducated (at least not to the level of college), and “down home”. Some of us really aren’t that. We have other things we value, which shouldn’t be taken as saying that people who go see Waiting for Godot are superior to those who go to Nascar, only that they have different tastes (and I know some people who genuinely enjoy both – authentically).
Authenticity is overrated, especially given that we are a social species that relies on cooperation. But another problem is that it is misdefined.
Women on the other hand are never as, um, “authentic”.
Elizabeth Warren’s Gender Trap – by Caroline Fraser (NYRB)
The whole essay is worth reading, though it’s discouraging to say the least.
@ iknklast Indeed. It’s a weird definition of authenticity. Surely going to see Nascar when you hate motor racing is inauthentic?
I’m very frustrated with the Democratic primaries this year. Great candidates have been forced out of the race too early because of funding issues and we’re left with Tom “I only have one tie” Steyer and Mike “I could buy all of you” Bloomberg filling up the debate stage that really should have had Harris, Booker, and Castro. Authenticity be damned. I don’t find Sanders authentic, I find him full of shit. He’s either a liar or a fantasist, or both.
And the debates are a shitshow. Bring back the League of Women Voters.
I think Obama had no choice but to be calm and careful in his rhetoric. America’s first black president was not going to be a shouty, angry type. I’m not suggesting Obama was faking it, mind you, just that he wouldn’t have succeeded if he’d been a different type.
If we really want to talk about a crisis in democracy we would have to talk about big business buyining politicians and writing legislation and regulation. And if we were serious about it, we’d have to note Sanders is refusing to be bought.
Then we’d probably have to note Obama and the Clintons and Pelosi and Schumer had/have been bought. Thats why, for example, they bailed out the banks instead of homeowners during the financial crisis.
And we might consider why the DNC rules committee fell over itself to get Bloomberg onto the ballot. That would be Bloomberg who is demonstrably:
Republican,
Authoritarian,
Elitist,
Racist (check his policy record),
Sexist, and
Anti-worker.
Well he bought his way onto the rules committee and the DNC. He’s openly crowed about buying politicians in public speeches.
And establishment Democrats say Sanders is the crisis? Come on!
Anyone so (hip/woke) that they have gender pronouns in their twitter bio are displaying a profound level of superficiality. I’m not voting for those people either.
Elizabeth Warren has gender pronouns in her Twitter bio, and she’s definitely not superficial. Cory Booker has them on his Twitter bio too, Pete Buttigieg does, Tom Steyer does, Kamala Harris does, Julian Castro does also. I’m guessing it’s supposed to appeal to “woke” types, who typically are hyperactive online and opine politically themselves. A lot.
Yes, I was referring to Warren and Buttigieg in particular. Appealing to the woke types I guess, looks phony as a 3 dollar bill to me, YMMV.
I mean, sure, chalk it up as an annoying bit of political performance theater if you want. But it seems a little hypocritical to me to base your vote not on actual substantive policy or characteristics but an unimportant piece of a Twitter bio, and then call other people “superficial.”
As far as gender pronouns go – I don’t see that anyone in race has much choice. They can’t waste valuable time arguing with the woke crowd.
@Sea Monster I have 2 problems with Sanders.
1. He shouts a lot but too much of it is either superficial or fantastical.
2. He’s too ideologically rigid.
The American people are not going to rise up to support his M4A plan. They couldn’t rise up when a bunch of elementary school kids were killed by a mad gunman. They have not risen up to oppose a dictator-in-progress systematically dismantling the entire Constitution. Some people will march, sure. We got decent turnout at things like the women’s march. But it won’t change anything.
And ideological rigidity dies in Congress. And I’m not talking about Republicans. The Democratic Party is a big tent and as President, you have to deal with a lot of differing opinions. Insisting on my way or the highway gives us the highway. The crappy, potholed highway that has plagued the country for decades.
Screechy #10, I’m not basing my vote on twitter bio’s. I think that having that little amount of space for a bio, and using it to show solidarity with the biological sex deniers shows a lot. I think it’s superficial and loaded, and if I didn’t, it would be inauthentic of me to say so. ;)
Claire #11, No choice? I think leaving the pronouns out would make very little difference. I agree about Sanders.
Screechy, I heard David Feldman make a joke on policy substance that I found amusing.
Elizabeth Warren said Sanders told her a woman can’t beat Trump. Feldman thought about it and decided he no longer supports Medicare for all.
Getting back to the original subject: I think it’s ironic that voters in a democracy have become so obsessed with “authenticity.” The whole point of democracy is that leaders have to face re-election, so you can judge them based on their actual results.
If candidate Authentic Alice will try really hard as president to enact the policies that she’s promising me, but will fail, and candidate Cynical Cy will pass those policies even though he doesn’t really care about them, because he’s desperate to win re-election…. well, give me Cy any day.
Did Abe Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation out of the purity of his heart, or to help win the Civil War? I suppose it’s an interesting question if you’re writing his biography. But not if you were a slave at the time.
I mean, I get why voters think it matters. They believe that Alice will “fight hard” for them, and Cy won’t. But (1) cynical motives are still motives; and (2) most political fights aren’t won through willpower anyway.
Claire, I’m addressing the idea about threats to democracy and I’m suggesting the major threat is legal corruption (donations and consulting/motivational speech gigs) and illegal corruption (bribes)
Sander’s alleged rigidity (alleged because it’s uncontroversial policy in, say, the Nordic countries) is not really relevant to that. You seem to be suggesting some level of corruption and subversion of democracy is tolerable.
Addressing your point on rigidity, I’m not convinced idealogical fllexibilty is a viable political strategy. Democrats have been trying it for decades and failing.
Warren has dropped her “Medicare for all” policy and signalled her willingness to negotiate with Republicans and vested interests. Republicans and vested interests will be heartened to hear that. To them she’s signalling her position of weakness.
Back in the summer of 2018 I did this one about the democrats trying to find a candidate who could emulate Trump:
https://farcornercafe.blogspot.com/2018/07/and-he-has-much-better-record-on.html
Who knew it would be prophetic. Are we truly limited to watching two angry old white guys yelling at the top of their lungs with a limited grasp of reality? Volume and spittle? the road to Washington…
Claire
Thinking about whether Bernie Sanders will achieve his goals, I remember in 2016, Sanders giving a speech about loaves of bread, in which he more or less laid out his view on how to negotiate.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1762211453999061
So, what you’ve got to consider with Sanders is that his view of negotiating is that you start off with a position that is more extreme than the one you hope to achieve. You go into a negotiation with the intent to reach a compromise, you don’t compromise up front because then you’re just going to have to cede even more ground.
So Sanders’ healthcare plan probably would be defeated in Congress and the Senate, but he might achieve a public option where a less extreme politician wouldn’t achieve anything. His position on university debt probably won’t go through, but he might get a bill reversing the act that made it impossible for students to discharge their debt via bankruptcy.
I don’t think most of his supporters think he will deliver on his promises, but I do think that they believe he’ll at least try, and in trying he might deliver at least some measure of progress that a more moderate politician wouldn’t.
Sea Monster @15,
I assume, then, that Bernie will be chastising his supporter AOC any day now for her recent admission that Bernie may not be able to pass Medicare for All, and might have to “compromise deeply” for just a public option on the Affordable Care Act.
After all, that is a signal of weakness that Republicans and vested interests will be heartened to hear, according to you.
Screechy, I find it odd that people keep asking Sanders to account for the behaviour of other political actors and everyone who has endorsed him.
@Sea Monster
That is a disgusting thing to say and I have no idea how you got that from what I said.
I was all set to flame you like crazy for claiming people can authentically enjoy tofu, but then I saw you cleverly swapped it out for opera. And then you even added a note saying you don’t authentically enjoy opera, so you couldn’t even honestly claim to like the tofu substitute.
So I’ll just say I appreciate your honesty on the tofu matter.
Skeletor – I do use tofu as a thickener of sauces.
It begins to look that way. Old white guys – the future of America. Just like the past.
Claire, my point was that every other candidate is corrupt. They’re all in receipt of corporate donations.
I will concede my reading of your comment was uncharitable, Claire, and apologise.
My concern is that the people running the Demoratic Party are incompetent and corrupted (even if they haven’t broken the law). Everyone gets a cut.
Everyone is scared Sanders will clean house. We should bear this in mind when they criticise him.
Shall we consider the Iowa Caucus fiasco.
There hasn’t been a problem manually canvassing for decades. A not for profit company interested in the political process decides there is a problem and invents an app to “solve” it. The Iowa party is forced to buy the app by the DNC for millions of dollars.
The app stuffs up and causes a political scandal. It is, apparently, very hard to get a computer to count something. Trump weaponises the scandal and will go on using it up until Barr tries to steal the election in the courts.
Then it turns out the not for profit is owned by a for profit. The directors of both are Clinton associates. The Buttegieg campaign helped pay for the app.
This is, unfortunately, is routine. This is how things are done.
US politics and funding thereof is very different from NZ, so I may be missing some subtleties. I also personally believe that donations from any source should be declared and donations from both individuals, and organisations should be capped (and structured so that an individual cannot contribute above the cap by donating themselves and then through an organisation).
That said, donations from a corporate or PAC does not in any way automatically equate to corruption. It may often be that way or be perceived that way in the US, but individual donations and deals can be equally corrupt.
Looking at the publicly available information on this election cycle, Sanders gets about the same proportion of his funding as Warren (to pick an example) through large donors (companies and PACs). It’s around 35% and may not be money from the company itself, but instead aggregated funds sourced from owners, staff and families routed through the company or PAC. This is true for both of them. Interestingly, Trump gets around 30% of his funding from large organisations. Does that make him less corrupt than either Sanders or Warren? I doubt that. Seriously.
As far as the App goes. Never ascribe to conspiracy what can easily be explained by greed and incompetence.
Sanders has in the past taken money from corporates, individuals and PACS associated with interests he now disavows. Maybe that reflects changed or evolved values. Maybe that reflects shifting to position himself for a rising tide of opinion against such interests for purely political reasons.
Rob, I think you’re a little idealistic. As soon as a donation is taken an obligation arises. Even it’s just access.
Why did the Clinton’s wind back bank regulation?
Why did all the Democrats under Obama/Pelosi/Schumer opt to bail out banks and not homeowners? Why did they write incentives to sell-up home owners into the package?
Why did the Democrats rule committee let Bloomberg join the race?
Why did Cops Against Brutality omit the New York chapter of their publication after Mayor Bloomberg flung a million bucks at them?
Why did Buttigieg fire the black police and fire chiefs in South Bend and replace one of them with his first donor’s son-in-law?
Why is Medicare for all so popular amongst voters but not amongst politicians?
Why is gun control so popular amongst voters but not amongst politicians?
Why did Sanders take money from the NRA (and others) until it didn’t suit him to?
I have to say, as a foreigner, the thing that amazes me about US politicians is just how cheaply they can be bought.
#26 Sea Monster
I’m pro Sanders, at least as my second choice (First was Warren.)
But I feel I have to tackle one your questions:
Okay what would have happened if the banks didn’t get bailed out? They would have collapsed, right?
The net result of that would have been wiping out a large sector of America’s savings accounts. Worse, you would have had the collapse of America’s payments system.
Salaries and suppliers would have gone unpaid, which would have meant further ruination for large sectors of the economy.
The impact on homeowners while tragic, wasn’t quite as epic in scale as a banking collapse would have been.
The problem with the bank bailout wasn’t bailing the banks, it was what came after, a singular lack of effort in breaking up the banks so that they wouldn’t still be too big to fail right now.
So long as there isn’t sufficient effort to break the banks up into smaller entities you’re still in a position where they have migrated their risk to the public purse, because if they look like collapsing tomorrow, even if you have Sanders in charge he’ll bail them out because there isn’t really much choice but to bail them out.
Why did all the Democrats under Obama/Pelosi/Schumer opt to bail out banks and not homeowners?
Because it was the banks that held the mortgage notes that were defaulted on.
In the early 2000s as housing prices outpaced incomes (the post-2000 dot-com recovery wasn’t that robust) mortgage lenders got creative with packaging loans that allowed home buyers to buy more with less. By 2005 it was clear that incomes weren’t keeping up with home prices, and that not only were buyers not putting down 20% on their homes (how quaint!), they were taking out adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) with teaser interest rates that later reset, and even mortgages that were only paying the interest on the loan. The attitude was “what, me worry?” because as everyone knew, housing prices could only keep going up, up, up. Right? Right. So by 2007 as the rise in housing prices faltered, there was a reckoning as buyers started to default on those loans, and in 2008 the housing bubble finally popped, leading to the great recession.
It wasn’t the home buyers who really lost out here, because they hadn’t put any skin in to the game to being with by putting any money down on the houses they borrowed the money for. It was the lenders who took it in the shorts and that’s why the banks were bailed out.
I know Sanders likes to spin the issue by blaming the banks, and they certainly do have responsibilty for letting it all get out of hand by blithely going along with such shoddy loan practices. But letting the banks go bust would have deepened the recession into a depression and it was necessary to keep them solvent, just like FDR kept the banks solvent back in the 1930s.
I could add – why is working to defeat global warming so popular among voters but not politicians?
The voters don’t vote on these issues. They vote for politicians they like, or politicians that say what they want to hear, and tend to vote on other issues that they consider more important. And a lot of voters do not know which politicians stand for what, so they vote for candidates based on something they think they know. As long as the bulk of the voters remain uninformed, the policies will be determined by those who do inform themselves, and vote based on that information.
Right now, enough voters just want to break things to elect Trump. That appears to be the goal of Bernie voters, too. And while I like many of his ideas, I remain unconvinced that he is the person who can actually achieve them. I just don’t think he’s a good candidate. And yes, I am an informed voter, so I’m not going strictly on likeability (which Bernie does not have if I was).
You know what that article reminds me of? How TRAs constantly talk about feminists’ being mean, or violent, or in cahoots with the extreme right, and shouting in trans people’s faces that they’re stupid and insane and freaks and shouldn’t exist. The writers of such tripe probably even believe their own skewed interpretations of reality, because they exist in social circles where their attitudes are reinforced.
That otherwise rational and well intentioned people could have their perceptions shaped by pervasive media narrative isn’t surprising, but it is frustrating and temporarily drops me into bouts of depression. (Don’t worry, my prescription just got refilled after a month of insurance BS.) If, following the Super Bowl, all the news talked about was the mistakes and bad decisions the Chiefs made, while praising the 49ers, anyone would be justified in thinking that the ‘9ers won. But they didn’t. Yes, the Chiefs made mistakes, but the ‘9ers made more.
Yes, Bernie was often loud on that debate stage, but everyone was loud and shouty and unruly that night. The author writes, “It was particularly excruciating to watch Pete Buttigieg attempt to inject some facts and reason into the proceedings, only to be interrupted again and again by Sanders’s shouting.” That is some painfully twisted shit, because Mayor Pete was one of the prime interrupters the entire night. If facts and reason mattered, Pete would stop repeating the mantra of “more choice is always better”. It’s called Braess’s Paradox, and it’s well documented and understood. Someone has surely explained it to him, and he’s surely smart enough to understand it, so the only conclusion I can draw is that Pete’s rhetoric here is pure mendacity.
So I think back to when Krystal Ball went armed with actual facts onto CNN after Hillary’s Howard Stern appearance. Just as with the TRAs, Krystal points out that if you spend all your time in Washington or watching CNN and MSNBC, you’ll think nobody likes Bernie. Or of this rather poignant juxtapositional treatment of the dominant media narrative. We see the constant framing of Bernie as a copy of Trump, as loud and disliked and unlikable, as someone who never smiles and is always shouting and angry.
It’s as frustrating with the presidential race as it is with the gender battle, where the media coverage of TRAs is overwhelmingly positive, while that of women fighting to retain what they’ve already fought and suffered for is overwhelmingly negative. The fact that it works makes me feel helpless and angry and despondent and …
Sorry for unloading, but as I said, I just got my script refilled, and it takes time for things to right themselves.
iknklast:
No Bernie voter I’ve ever talked to has ever expressed such a sentiment to me. Effecting radical changes? Sure, but that’s not the same thing. I’m not saying there aren’t such people, only that I doubt they are as numerous as people like the author of this hogswallop would have everyone believe. It seems as incredible (in the pejorative sense) to me as the Bernie Bro narrative. Like how last cycle’s Bernie supporters were painted as tacit Trump supporters for not voting for Hillary, when more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama in 2008.
Fair points. I have to admit – and probably should have said in the post, up front – I have no idea if Sanders really was shouty or not. I zeroed in on the point about authenticity and manly shouting, without due regard for the current politics of painting him that way.
I just watched it myself, and I must say Nullius is right. Sanders is being very unfairly characterised here.