Authority vs Competence
Force an Agenda vs Gives Time to Buy into an Agenda
Unearned Loyalty vs Earned Byproduct of Relationship
Thin-skinned vs Understanding Difference. Thick Skinned
Cult based on their Personal Preference vs Solid Ideas
Insistence vs Patient Planning & Process, dealing with problems that come up
Demand Obedience vs Creativity & Diversity
Desperate for Agreement vs Confident
Bullying, Threats, Name Calling, Derision vs Assertiveness with decency. Allows others Dignity
Has to be on top, Concerned with Rank vs Common Good
Self-impressed vs Humble
Exploitative vs Lifting Others Up
Appearance of Success vs Essence, Lets my Inner Being Speak
Angry Under Pressure vs Calm under Pressure
Short-term Brute Force
Life isn’t all about me. Life is about Us
DRC: dignity, respect, civility
Post-Jesus Christians are “Christians” who have decided to postpone following Jesus’s teaching until Jesus returns and ushers in 1000 years of peace.
Post-Jesus Christians hold that Jesus’s teachings do not need to be followed in our present era if they are a hindrance to obtaining the power they fear they need to help usher in the Kingdom of God.
Post-Jesus Christians (privately) hold that Jesus’s teachings are a nice thing to follow when dealing with the in-group of their fellow PJCs but may be disregarded when dealing with non-PJC neighbors.
Prophecy: What God Can Do For You
Post-Jesus Christians talk a lot about about prophecy, and unlike the Biblical Prophets, when they do, they punch down, rather than up:
You will know them by their fruit, because they only have one key message – God is going to “enlarge your tent” and “expand your influence“, he’s going to “give you great favor” and “bless you mightily”.
Later Craig Greenfield writes:
In Biblical times, there were two types of prophets.
- Firstly, there were those who feasted at the King’s table because they had been co-opted to speak well of evil leaders (1 Kings 18:19). They were always bringing these smarmy words of favor and influence and prosperity to the king. And the king lapped it up. Like a sucka.
- Secondly, there were those who were exiled to the caves, or beheaded (like John the Baptist) because they spoke out about the injustice or immorality of their leaders (1 Kings 18:4). The king didn’t like them very much. He tried to have them knee-capped.
An Inversion of Ben Franklin’s Morality
While many Post-Jesus Christians appeal to a historical “Christian Nation” , Post-Jesus Christians appear to be an inversion of founding father Ben Franklin, who in historian John Fea’s description, wanted to discard Jesus’s Divinity but retain and celebrate his ethical teachings.
So what does this look like in practice?
Below are public quotations from prominent Court Evangelicals. These quotations are less extreme that I would expect to hear in private. A friend of mine speaks to supporters in private. He reports that they would (privately) celebrate the stuffing of election ballots in favor of their preferred candidate as a righteous act.
1) Court Evangelical: Anti-Sermon on the Mount
John Fea wrote about a conversation he had with Rob Schenck for the “Schenck Talks Bonhoeffer” podcast @ 19:27. Here’s a quote from Schenck talking about a conversation he had with a prominent evangelical at the Trump Inaugural Prayer Service:I must tell you something of a confession here. I was present at the Trump Inaugural Prayer Service held at the National Cathedral — not the smaller one held at Saint John’s Episcopal church across from the white house, but the one following the inauguration at the National Cathedral and I saw one of the notable Evangelicals that you’ve named in in our conversation. One of them, I won’t say which and we had it short exchange and I, I suggested to him that we needed to recalibrate our moral compass and that one way to do that might be to return to The Sermon on the Mount as a reference point. And he very quickly barked back at me. “We don’t have time for that. We have serious work to do.”
2) Jerry Falwell Jr: Anti-Turn the other cheek
We have blogged about Liberty University’s Falkirk Center before. The more I learn about this center the more I am convinced that it does not represent the teachings of Christianity. Recently someone on Twitter pointed out this paragraph in the Falkirk Center mission statement:
Bemoaning the rise of leftism is no longer enough, and turning the other cheek in our personal relationships with our neighbors as Jesus taught while abdicating our responsibilities on the cultural battlefield is no longer sufficient. There is too much at stake in the battle for the soul of our nation. Bold, unapologetic action and initiative is needed, which is why we just launched the Falkirk Center, a think tank dedicated to restoring and defending American ideals and Judeo-Christian values in all aspects of life.
John Fea’s Update:
Several smart people have suggested that I may have misread Liberty University’s statement. They have said that the Falkirk Center was not denying that Jesus’s call to “turn the other cheek” is “insufficient” for individuals. Instead, the Falkirk Center is saying that we should not “abdicate” (the key word here) our responsibilities to engage on the “culture battlefield.”
I think this is a fair criticism, and I indeed may have misread the statement. For that I am sorry. But I don’t think I want to back away too strongly from what I wrote above. While several have correctly pointed out that Liberty University is not saying Jesus’s command to “turn the other cheek” is “insufficient” for individual Christians, the Falkirk Center does seem to be suggesting that it is “insufficient” for culture engagement.
people there’s only a small small group
of people who can travel every day for
weeks and weeks and weeks and months and
months on end so it’s only that specific
small subset of sort of corporate funded
media that’s on on the plane of those
people the schedule for reporters has
gotten drastically different in the last
twelve to sixteen years back in the 70s
and 80s newspaper reporters who traveled
on the plane the toughest schedule they
usually had was to file maybe at most
once a day you had to write one article
a day if you’re on the plane when the
internet came along that changed people
who work for the major dailies suddenly
had to not only write stories for the
print edition but they had to do two
three four five website updates a day
and the people who worked for the cable
news stations instead of doing one
report for the 6 o’clock news broadcast
or the 11 o’clock broadcast they were
doing 5 6 7 8 9 hits a day and they were
constantly constantly working and if
anybody’s ever read about cults like
ouch in Rico or anything like that one
of the things that they tell you is that
the working people constantly and
keeping them sleep-deprived is a way of
sapping their will and and reducing
their ability to think critically and
this is something that happens
absolutely on the campaign trail a
typical schedule for a reporter and also
for the politicians interestingly enough
especially when you get into the second
half of a presidential campaign is you
leave a hotel at 5:30 or 6:00 in the
morning you will follow the candidate
you’ll be writing constantly as soon as
as anything you start writing your story
at the end of every event they heard you
into a little room called the filing
room you do your work you go from you go
back to a bus you go onto a plane you
repeat the process three or four times
and you don’t get to your hotel until 11
or 12 o’clock that night and then you
repeat it all over again and for most
people their writing or reporting pretty
much constantly from the time they wake
up in the morning till the time they go
to sleep and then they’re waking up
again the next day at 6 o’clock and that
was pretty much everybody in the plane
who covers who covered presidential
elections except me because as a
magazine writer and there are very few
magazine writers who regularly cover
presidential campaigns my deadline was
once every six weeks every two months
and so they would heard all the
reporters into these filing rooms and
while everybody else sitting there
furiously clacking away I would be doing
nothing in fact the first time I went on
the on these trips I actually got in
trouble with some of the other reporters
because I was too loudly flipping the
pages of a Sports Illustrated at another
stop in Houston they busted me for using
or having a Rubik’s Cube which they
found annoying so for actually two or
three election cycles
26:32and years um I noticed that the campaign26:37marketing process is a very strange26:38thing it’s it’s extremely sophisticated26:42in some ways and extremely simple-minded26:45in other ways if you listen to the26:47speeches in the in the pre Trump era26:50they were basically just strings of26:53meaningless cliches piled on top of one26:55another and it didn’t almost didn’t26:58matter which candidate was speaking if27:01you took out certain words from each27:03speech you wouldn’t be able to tell27:05which party the person represented or27:07what of what policies he or she27:10supported they just they were just sort27:12of anodyne meaningless phrases strung27:15together one after the other and just to27:17give you a couple of examples of actual27:19campaign rhetoric that was very common27:22here’s one for millions and millions of27:24American the-dream millions and millions27:26of Americans the dream with which I grew27:28up has been shattered the choice is27:31between the right change in the wrong27:32change between going forward and going27:34backward this is totally meaningless of27:37course but within these meaningless27:41phrases there was actually you know as27:43we found as I found out an incredibly27:46sophisticated marketing phenomenon and27:48what we now know and in fact they27:51actually introduced this to to consumers27:55that they were they were using27:57incredibly sophisticated technology to27:59find out which words people liked more28:01than other words I’m sure everybody28:04who’s watched debates now and they28:05you’ll sometimes see there’s a crawl on28:07the bottom with a little graph and when28:10a candidate is talking you’ll see it go28:12up or down and this is what they call28:15dial survey technology and basically28:18what they’ll do is they’ll get a group a28:21control group into a room and they’ll28:23have a bunch of people sit there and28:25you’ll have a candidate read off a28:26speech and if the people like the word28:29they’re supposed to turn the dial28:30this way and if they don’t like the word28:31they turn they turn it that way and what28:34people the people who are running these28:36campaigns found out is that certain28:39kinds of voters just like it they like28:41hearing certain kinds of words and what28:43they would do is they would write these28:45speeches which were essentially28:46collections of words that had28:48meaningless sentences connecting them28:50together and so for progressive voters28:54if you listen to speeches that are28:57directed towards that kind of voter28:58you’ll find that they are very often29:00contain words like futuresmart and29:03compassion but for a right-wing voter29:07you’ll often see words like family tough29:10work obligation and so what these29:15candidates were doing they were using29:17this very very advanced technology to29:19basically lay this incredibly idiotic29:22kind of politics on millions and29:24millions of people and the way I like to29:26think of it is they were building like29:29the most advanced rocket in history to29:31deliver the world’s worst cheeseburger29:33to the moon basically it’s just it was29:36very very sophisticated marketing very29:38very dumb politics and so why is one29:41part of the process done in one part of29:43its smart well the politics part when29:45you think about it doesn’t need to be29:46smart really most people only have one29:51of three choices when it comes to29:53politics they can either vote Democratic29:56they can vote Republican or they can not29:58vote at all of course interestingly not30:01voting at all it continues to be the30:03overwhelmingly most popular choice among30:06the three but the level of marketing30:11sophistication that you need to get30:13people to make one of three choices is30:16relatively simpler than it is to get30:20people to watch a political show at all30:23compared to everything else that’s on30:25television right so in other words it’s30:27easier to get somebody to vote30:29Democratic or republican than it is to30:33get a person to watch a political speech30:35instead of Monday Night Football or30:36Keeping Up with the Kardashians or or30:39porn or whatever it is they’re you they30:41watch30:42so as time went on the sort of reality30:47show aspects of campaigning this all the30:51trappings of campaigns the the lighting30:55the the production values the the back31:00the backdrops the scenery all of that31:03became more and more sophisticated over31:04time while the actual politics became31:09more and more simplistic over time so31:11what you ended up getting was an31:14incredibly sophisticated television show31:17about very very unsophisticated politics31:20and Donald Trump’s insight and a lot of31:24this had to do with the fact that he was31:26a reality television star was that not31:30only had our politics devolved into a TV31:34show but it was basically a bad TV show31:38any TV show that planned to have its31:42leading characters be people like Jeb31:44Bush Scott Walker and Lindsey Graham you31:48know probably needed new producers and31:52Donald Trump turned he took what was you31:56know a television show that was constant31:59had drama every single day something32:02happens in the campaign every day so32:03it’s great for reality TV format from32:06that’s perspective there’s always some32:07kind of thing going on there was a32:09back-and-forth between the candidates32:11but the content tended to be relatively32:15a non sensational compared to Survivor32:21or you know Tila Tequila show or a you32:27know whatever flava flav Flavor of Love32:33Donald Trump wasn’t competing with other32:35Republican candidates he was repeating32:37competing with Flavor Flav and Tila32:40Tequila and he turned the32:43the presidential campaign add to this32:45this crazy can’t-miss wild reality32:51television show and for the news media32:55that makes its money by getting people32:57to watch their program this was like33:00manna and heaven for them um so so33:06that’s one thing that he understood that33:08other candidates didn’t he also33:11understood how to how to make the33:14process more intimate and how to bring33:15people into the process one of the33:18things that have happened over the years33:19is that people actual people became33:22irrelevant to this television show that33:23we were making the way the campaign is33:27structured as you fly around with with33:29the with the press corps you don’t have33:31enough time when you’re in each city to33:33actually talk to people and the33:35campaign’s increasingly didn’t talk to33:38them either they just needed people as33:39sort of stylized backdrops they were33:41there to be props basically in a33:44television show they were there to you33:46know if he needed somebody to to show33:49that he was sort of down with33:51construction workers or with the working33:53person they would have a bunch of people33:55in hard hats up on stage or the you know33:57they wanted to appeal the farmers they33:59would visit a farming town and you know34:01be photographed you know hugging a34:03farmer but they didn’t actually talk to34:04these people and the people in the press34:09started to fall into the trap also of34:12just using people for quotes we would34:14descend on mass into these towns we34:17would not really spend a whole lot of34:18time with them and then we would just34:22hustle them for quotes do you like this34:24/ Canada do you like that candidate34:25oftentimes we were looking for the34:28people in the crowd to say a certain34:30thing and we would search people out and34:34until they actually said the quote that34:36they were looking for – another very bad34:38practice that journalists do and people34:40of course they resented it and what34:45ended up happening was is that both34:47politicians and the media started to34:50lose touch with actual people and they34:53increasingly relied upon each other34:56especially upon pollsters to sort of34:58take the temperature of the people out35:00there and if you’ve ever traveled in in35:03a campaign it’s actually like it’s35:05literally a prison once the Secret35:07Service gets involved you can’t leave35:10the group after the general election35:13campaign starts because security is so35:16tight I would bet back in my first35:18campaigns I was a pretty heavy smoker35:20back that I’m not anymore but you35:22actually had to get what they called35:24Sherpas to leave there were like people35:27who carried bags for the campaign’s they35:29would leave the group to go to stores35:31and get cigarettes and other supplies35:33for people because you’re so cut off35:35from the actual voters that you can’t35:39leave the group and so you lose touch35:42with what’s going on you and what35:43happened is over over in decades not35:47only do you do you lose touch with what35:50people are thinking but you lose touch35:51with the ability to talk to people and35:53to understand the cues that they’re35:55saying and to learn for instance people36:00would would start to rely on polls to36:02tell them whether or not36:04voters liked or disliked this or that36:06candidate what polls can’t tell you the36:08difference between say you know rage and36:10mere disapproval they’re they’re able to36:14tell you that people are drifting them36:16one way or the other but until you get36:17that qualitative experience of sitting36:19down with people and really36:20understanding what their frustrations36:22are you’re just going to miss what’s36:24actually going on um and so Trump he36:28took advantage of all this he took36:30advantage of the fact that we were out36:31of touch and he used that again to help36:36solve his own problems what he started36:38to do was he started to incorporate the36:40press into his act I remember being in36:44at Plymouth State University in New36:46Hampshire and Trump you as it usually36:49happens is there’s like a Arizer in the36:52middle of the hall and there’s a bunch36:54of reporters and camera people and we’re36:57stuck behind ropes like zoo animals in37:00the middle of the crowd and Trump he37:03started to experiment with mentioning us37:05in the middle of his speeches and he37:07would say things like look at these37:08people look at these37:09suckers they hate me they never thought37:13I would make it this far they’ve never37:15traveled so far for an event look at37:17them they hate you you know and what37:20would happen over time was his rhetoric37:22became more and more aggressive and37:25crowds would start to physically turn37:27towards the the media during his37:30presentations and it would hiss and Boo37:33and sometimes even throw stuff and you37:34know occasionally like you little37:36scuffles broke out and it got a little37:39bit dangerous in there and you know on37:42one level it was horrible and terrifying37:44because it evokes images of a lot of37:46sort of fascistic techniques from other37:51sort of strongman type politicians but37:54on the other hand he was also using a37:57sort of a WWE style method of turning38:03what had been a sort of supernaturally38:05boring phenomenon which is the38:08presidential stump speech to just you38:10know if anybody has ever been to one if38:12you can survive one that’s amazing but38:15you know for the press corps to be able38:16to listen to the same speech 50 or 6038:19times like we do I used to have a38:22numbered cliche system I heard one38:26candidate’s cliches so often that I knew38:28the top 20 by heart and instead of38:32writing down notes from his speeches I38:34would just have collections of numbers38:36it would be like 3 8 15 11 you know and38:42so Trump took this this terrible boring38:45format and he turned it into this38:47intimate menacing real physical38:53experience where the representative of38:57the hated establishment was literally in38:59the room and that was us and again a lot39:04of this this was this was years of the39:08press gradually losing its ability to39:10talk to ordinary people had turned39:12around and allowed this fatuous New York39:15billionaire to sell himself as closer to39:18the common man39:19and then reporters and and when I talked39:23to people who were at Trump crowds I39:25would ask them you know why do you what39:29do you feel this way or that way why do39:30you like this guy and they would say39:32well he’s real he’s not reading from a39:34script’ which was true you know unlike39:36the other you know the numbered cliches39:38Trump literally couldn’t keep it would39:41pass out his speeches but the text of39:45what was supposed to be his speech and39:47he would deviate from it in the second39:49word because he is the attention span39:51and so it’s so short that he couldn’t he39:54couldn’t read actual prepared remarks39:56people would say things to me like he’s39:59real and you people aren’t you know I40:02remember one guy in Washington Wisconsin40:03saying to me you know I’m going to clean40:07up his his speech here a little bit but40:09he says basically you jerks were always40:12trying to tell us how to live our lives40:14but you can’t change a goddamn oil40:15filter and you know he was right you’re40:19sort of right you know the the people40:21who represent the press corps tend to be40:24the suit of a feat again rich for the40:27most part because we’re you know the40:29people who are there they have to be in40:31order to in order to afford the trip40:32they have to come from a certain class40:34they’re almost all from New York40:37Washington and LA they went to the best40:40schools and they have a certain attitude40:42towards life and and Trump used that and40:47he used that to sort of bridge the gap40:48between himself and ordinary people and40:51so the last thing I want to talk about40:52is is sort of the appropriation of40:56bogeymen Trump did something that was40:58really strange but interesting the41:01traditional method of winning elections41:02in this country is you get up in front41:05of a group of people you say to them you41:07know I know you’ve had it hard in the41:09last four or five years and I’m going to41:11tell you who to blame and then X Y Z and41:15then a B and C they’re all there they’re41:17to blame for your troubles and you know41:19don’t don’t we hate them and that was41:22that’s sort of the traditional format of41:24a campaign speech the only difference is41:26that they’re a different bogeyman on the41:29Republican side and on the Democratic41:30side on the Republican side41:33the the villains tend to be immigrants41:36you know welfare moms liberal professors41:39terrorists they actually have a very41:41long list of villains on the other side41:43you know on the Democratic side it’s41:46it’s a little bit smarter and a little41:48bit more sophisticated it’s it’s41:50corporations it’s it’s health insurance41:52companies etc etc and what’s interesting41:56is that the traditional candidate never41:57crossed lines that you you know if you42:00were either used one group of villains42:01or another group of villains Trump just42:03gobbled up all of them he’s just he’s so42:07omnivorous in in his sort of the way he42:12approaches life in every way that he42:15used both lists you know he would go to42:17every crowd and he was all things to all42:19people at all times I’m against the42:21corporations I’m against Goldman Sachs42:23I’m against immigrants and against this42:24and that and the other and whatever you42:27hated Trump would eventually get around42:30to it in his speech and again the reason42:33that people didn’t do this in the past42:34traditionally is because the media would42:36say well look this is a contradiction42:38you can’t be this and that because those42:41two things don’t really go together but42:43Trump was tuned into the fact that the42:48people had tuned us out they had stopped42:50listening to us and that you know all of42:52us sort of News reporters who love to42:56correct people spelling on Twitter and42:58you know or just didn’t know how to fix43:00cars that what we thought about what we43:03know his his politics didn’t really43:04matter anymore43:05and his ability to sort of continue to43:09continually survive the negative43:14editorializing of the press and our43:16attempts to sort of bounce him out of43:17the race through this or seal of death43:19episodes which increased in frequency as43:22the campaign went along and as as43:25reporters became more and more aware of43:27their role their financial role in43:29helping Trump win but we we became more43:31cognizant of it you heard of things like43:33les Moonves with CBS everybody here this43:36you know these famously said Trump is43:38bad for America but good for business43:41you know as as that kind of spread in43:45press we became more and more aggressive43:49in our in our editorial stance towards43:51Trump and that just worked to his43:54advantage the the meaner we got Trump43:57has this uncanny ability to turn43:59everybody in his orbit into another44:01pro-wrestling character and when he gets44:05up there and he says that where we were44:06the opposition after a while it actually44:09turned out to be a little bit true we44:11you know he he cartoon eyes his own44:13opposition he eventually gets everybody44:16to sort of lower themselves you think44:19about you know Rubio making sort of dong44:24jokes during the middle of the debates44:27or you know people throwing water at44:29each other and Ted Ted Cruz started44:32acting like a ham during debate doing44:35impersonations from The Princess Bride44:37and and Ron Paul was chained selling44:40things in half and shooting the tax code44:42and everybody starts acting like a44:45reality star when they’re around Trump44:47long enough and and we were like that44:50too in the news media and what ends up44:53happening was that the symbiotic44:57relationship started occurring where we45:01paid more and more attention to them45:02even even though even though the things45:05we were saying about them were negative45:06we never took the cameras off of him45:07fret for a second and we still haven’t45:09and what is the end result of that45:12here’s some striking statistics sense45:15the since the election in November cable45:21news ratings are up 50% at CNN they’re45:27up 50% at Fox they’re up over 35% at45:30MSNBC and some programs are up higher45:32than that on that channel CNN expects to45:36make over a billion dollars this year in45:38profits and again what what starts to45:42happen after a while is that45:45unconsciously this the fact that he’s45:48making everybody so much money and make45:50no mistake about it it’s the fact that45:52that politics has begun to eat into the45:55entertainment world45:57and the the profitability of45:59entertainment and we’re taking some of46:01Hollywood’s market share by creating46:04politics as this giant reality show46:09unconsciously the people who are46:10covering Donald Trump whether they know46:12it or not they legitimize it the whole46:14thing and that’s why you’ll see periodic46:16episodes like you know he gives that46:18speech after the joint speech to46:20Congress and and there’s a you know CNN46:24will say you know he became president in46:26the United States tonight or that46:28happens after he lobs missiles you know46:30Tomahawk missiles that Syria you know46:33Fareed Zakaria will get up and say46:34exactly the same thing you know Donald46:36Trump became President of the United46:37States tonight and this is a company46:39that’s making a billion dollars this46:41year because of Donald Trump and so it’s46:43just a symbiotic relationship this had46:49been going on for a long time46:50it with this sort of synthesis of all46:53these different things the the the46:55collapse and Trust in news media the46:56declining profitability of news media46:58which was suddenly turned around by this47:01candidate who suddenly made money for47:03everybody nobody could make money for47:05for a longest time and then suddenly47:07everybody’s making money you have to47:09think about this when you think about47:11how politics is covered in this country47:12and it’s not just Trump that’s that’s47:17you know so my final word of caution47:20would be that the network’s have learned47:23and a lot of us in the business started47:26to talk about this last year that that47:29you know what Trump does his total47:32indifference to whether a thing is true47:34or not and the fact that he knows that47:37his his core supporters don’t really47:39care all that much the network’s have47:41also learned that lesson two in the last47:44year or so they knows we sort of by47:48custom and because of the libel laws47:50which don’t you know are incredibly weak47:52in this country and and really don’t47:54apply all that much the public figures47:57you know by custom we we we we try very48:01very hard to get things right and to not48:03be careless about citing sources that48:05aren’t reliable48:05that sort of thing but in the age of48:07Trump that’s really it’s starting to go48:09out the window everywhere and you know48:13it just as a sort of general warning I48:14would say again this whole phenomenon of48:19Trump and how he sort of unlocked he’s48:23converted politics into a show that has48:28implications that go beyond Donald Trump48:30as well I think everybody should just be48:31aware that this is a phenomenon that has48:34negatively impacted the entire business48:37and everything that was bad about48:40for-profit media in the past has gotten48:44exponentially worse in the last year and48:47you can expect you know going forward48:51that we’ll see we’ll see less and less48:52coverage of you know actual things that48:55matter you know environmental issues you48:58know if corruption and contracting in49:01the military disasters like flint you49:06know those things will get less and less49:07airtime and what will we get instead is49:09a very heavily polarized media landscape49:15where there’s one set of viewers that49:17hates this politician and one set of49:19viewers that hates another politician49:20and they’re all going to they’re all49:22going to tune in and watch and the49:24standards are going to go out the window49:26so it’s just in some I would just say49:28just be careful you know not without49:31commenting on any particular story that49:34the arc of the sort of failure of our49:37business has has really steepen in the49:40last year or so and I think as news49:42consumers people should pay more and49:44more attention to independent media and49:46alternative media and worry more and49:49more about the commercial media going49:50forward and thank you very much and I49:52would love to talk49:53[Music]49:59[Applause]49:59[Music]50:02[Applause]50:07so if you have questions please come50:11this way and we’ll do a line back that50:13way thank you I mean amazing talk I was50:16wondering if you could talk about some50:18of the unseen kind of new levels of50:22thought control such as Cambridge50:26analytical and how Trump used data50:29mining how that’s even a bigger climate50:33that were it right now and how that’s50:35affecting us jump using data might mean50:37all the candidates use data mining I50:38mean I I think that’s you know without50:43knowing exactly that exact thing but I50:48know that that was a phenomenon that50:50dated back to the Kerry the first Kerry50:54Bush campaign that was when that first50:55really started and I think it’s51:00worrisome I think the whole idea of51:04targeting shaping a candidate’s policies51:09based on the on your on the research51:12that you do into people searching habits51:14I think that’s going to be something51:14that’s more and more true going forward51:16they’re going to be able to target51:17political advertising the people based51:19on what they search for and on the web51:22and all that’s incredibly disturbing I51:25you know in the same way that they’re51:27they’re selling that data to to51:30prospective employers so they get51:31they’re going to be able to tell what51:32you what websites you look at the idea51:36of politicians being able to look at is51:37just horrifying51:39and I think yeah that’s definitely51:41something to worry about51:46so I was just going to see if you agree51:48at this opinion and I think it presents51:50a problem and I’m wondering if you know51:52of a possible solution to it51:55but I like that you compared it to him51:58not competing with the other politicians51:59but the reality stars because when he52:02got primary to actually said that the52:03only way that Clinton could win is if52:05she changed her name to Hillary booboo52:06right and but the problem is I feel like52:11because it is so entertainment52:13centric that’s almost kind of like a lot52:16people like to compare like the Empire52:18of America52:19Rome but then it’s kind of glad it’s52:20gladiator kind of asked where I feel52:23like it’s it’s good that you we do have52:26these critiques and that you are52:27addressing this and I love it is52:29actually directed at the press even52:30though it says president on your book52:32but I think a lot people hook get on52:34Trump and try to analyze him as a person52:36instead of looking at the system that52:38created them because I feel like for him52:39it’s self-fulfilling he doesn’t have a52:41clue like he’s not right and essentially52:43doing this but as long as we’re giving52:45attention to it it’s like a growing52:47beast and and where’s where’s it going52:49to end like how do you stop that how do52:51you it’s a great question there’s a52:52couple things that are really52:53interesting you know that I’d love to52:55talk about here first though is that one52:58of the things that one of the huge52:59weaknesses of the political press in53:01this country is that we we always think53:04when we see a political phenomenon we53:06always imagine that it originates with53:10the politician right like just to give53:12you a classic example the Bernie Sanders53:15phenomenon wasn’t was all about Bernie53:18Sanders to Washington reporters right it53:20wasn’t it wasn’t 13 million people53:22expressing themselves and being upset53:24about you know the their feelings about53:27the Democratic Party it wasn’t this53:29organic thing that rose up from the53:31population it was because some you know53:34independent socialist backbencher jumped53:38the line and got you know and so they53:40that’s the way they like they always53:41look at the Washington character first53:42and they don’t look outward at the at53:46the actual people and then the larger53:48thing that’s going on53:50Trump is is horrible for for that53:54instinct because he he concentrates so53:57much attention on him and his person and54:02he deflects so much attention not only54:04from the system but from the larger54:06forces that are going on in the54:08population that everybody imagines that54:10Donald Trump is the only problem and not54:12that there have been you know growing54:15trend towards nativism and racism in54:18this in the population cetera et cetera54:20et cetera so the what the solution is I54:24think we just have to focus out more as54:27in the media we got to focus on systemic54:29problems more we got to talk to people54:32more and and make it less about the the54:35fairy tale soap opera which is the easy54:39way to do the story you know that and54:41that’s that’s why we do it because54:42that’s easy you know and so yeah I think54:46the what the solution is we just got to54:48do our jobs better and I don’t know how54:50that’s going to happen so if we assume54:56that the Trump’s the nominee in 202054:58which he most likely will be barring55:00something serious like impeachment or55:04something like that if he is the nominee55:05and based on your experience what you’ve55:08seen55:09if this dynamic is still present where55:11he’s he’s he he is who he is he’s55:14gladiatorial what will be the formula55:16for the Democrats the counter that55:17should they have someone who’s also like55:19him or should they have someone who’s55:22who’s somehow a foil to him I mean based55:25on what you’ve seen what’s the answer55:26for the left in 202055:32it’s a great question um see how what I55:38worry about is that is the I already55:41hear people in Washington talking about55:43this and saying that we have to get our55:45own version of Trump all right and we55:48have to get a media figure we got to get55:51you know whether it’s Dwayne the rock55:54Johnson or Mark Zuckerberg or whoever it55:57is right like we we need to go that55:59route and what’s interesting to me is56:01that they’ve already forgotten the56:03lessons I think of Barack Obama Barack56:05Obama is a diametrically opposite56:07character to Donald Trump he is someone56:10who prefers you know he’s reserved56:13polite he doesn’t act like a real56:15reality star he comports him even though56:18you know for me personally politically I56:20don’t agree with Obama life he’s been a56:22disappointment to me a lot of ways56:23style-wise he won by appealing I think56:29to people’s better imagination right and56:33what I see in Washington is a lot of56:36pessimism they don’t believe that that56:39you know finding a better way to56:42communicate with people that get it you56:44know telling people that they understand56:47what their problems are making a sincere56:48effort to find out why people are56:50disaffected I think that’s the easiest56:52route to winning you know is going out56:54and actually finding out what’s wrong56:58and coming up with solutions that people56:59can connect with you know and but you57:03won’t they won’t do that you know I57:05think they what they’re going to do is57:07they’re going to look at a lot of polls57:08and they’re going to they’re going to57:09look at the media media centric version57:13of how to win elections and they’re57:15going to try to do their own version I57:16think57:22hi so I started thinking about this a57:25couple days ago in terms of you know the57:29backlash if Trump continues to try and57:32dig his own grave and put his foot in57:36his mouth and all that other stuff57:37eventually things will start to roll57:40against him but there’s going to be a57:43backlash from that in terms of all the57:45people who support him and it’ll be like57:46you know why are you taking away my toy57:48and you know the that could be the media57:52that could be the Democratic Party that57:53could be the Republican Party and so you57:55might have a phenomenon where57:56everybody’s trying to be like no you and57:59Peacham I don’t want to impeach um you58:00impeach him you know so that they don’t58:02deal with that backlash and I’m58:03wondering if you see any signs of that58:05and how that would play out yeah I think58:11actually I would say that there’s not a58:14lot of hesitation about taking on Donald58:17Trump in Washington now anything I would58:20say that there’s sort of an opposite58:21problem which is that being against58:24Trump has become whatever the only thing58:27that a lot of politicians are about now58:29and I I think that the key to succeeding58:34going forward is they have to have some58:35other kind of messages in addition to58:37that politically going after Donald58:39Trump doesn’t seem to be anybody’s58:40problem and they’re the the knives are58:42out in full force right now for for58:44Trump and they’re gunning for58:47impeachment there’s no question about58:48that except for people like Mitch58:49McConnell well he’s a Republican first58:51well he is but but but in terms of like58:54I was kind of surprised about uh not58:56completely but you know cuz he’s trying58:58to control this thing58:59you know whoa look impeachment is a it’s59:06a very extreme step and and think think59:11about approving it for a member of your59:13own party and think about think about59:16doing it in this situation you know um59:20there’s a lot of political will to try59:23to end Donald Trump’s presidency right59:24now and it’s far harder than it’s been59:26for anybody since since Bill Clinton so59:29I wouldn’t say that that’s a problem I59:31think there going to be plenty of59:32candidates we’re going to want to play59:33that role of the person who took on59:35Donald Trump I mean they’re practically59:37stepping over each other to do it Warner59:40Schiff all these people that these59:42committee chairs are anxious to be that59:45person in front of the cameras oh59:46there’s political opportunity there the59:49the problem the problem that I see you59:54know I just I just worry that the palace59:57intrigue aspect of it is has occupied so60:00much of the Democrats time that they’re60:02they’re not paying attention to other60:03things Thanks hi thanks for great talk60:11the thing that I noticed about the two60:15sides of the bus the politicians in the60:18front and the reporters in back is that60:21there is a kind of underlying logic60:23which is a profit incentive in both60:25cases and to me that bespeaks the fact60:30that capitalism is something that feeds60:32off the systemic pathologies of60:34societies and right now it seems like60:37it’s gotten the point where it’s just60:39reached a level of death Drive and like60:41there something about the Trump60:43phenomenon that feels like it could60:45really just unleash some really60:47pathological forces in our society to60:50the point where the situation you’re60:52describing with the media is just one60:53component of a kind of embrace of sheer60:55irrationality and I feel or my question60:59for you is that whether you think some61:01kind of like deep and systemic61:04paradigmatic changes is called for as61:07part of what were yeah no I totally61:10agree I I I think one of the things that61:15I believe that one of the reasons that61:18Trump happened is because people are on61:22some level they’re screaming out for61:24something drastically different you know61:26and it’s it’s for a lot of people it’s61:29an inarticulate longing you know for a61:32new way to experience life and and I61:34think the sort of this is relentless61:37heartlessness of modern American you61:40know industrial capitalism and it’s it’s61:43a sort of really casual immorality and61:47and I think it’s tough for people you61:49know even if they don’t understand it61:50you know it and we need I think we need61:54something we need to at least have61:55somebody who’s capable of opening a61:58discussion of can we live another way in62:01this country you know and that question62:04has been suppressed at the at the62:06presidential level you know it’s not62:08really it hasn’t really been possible to62:10have that dialogue because words like62:13you know socialism is of course a taboo62:15bernie has made it less so but even you62:17know other ideas you know like you know62:20there’s a European you know guaranteed62:22income movement you know like these62:24really interesting thoughts they’re not62:26did we can entertain them because our62:29politics are so narrow and yeah I agree62:32with you and and and just to talk about62:35one thing about the media in terms of62:37capitalism for ages we insulated62:41ourselves from the profit motive problem62:44in media by having this sort of unspoken62:48understanding you know the FCC they62:50licensed out the airwaves to the PUC to62:51these private companies and there was a62:54there was an understanding that that62:56they would get to make all this money by62:59having these TV stations and radio63:01stations but in return they would have63:03to do something in the public interest63:04in terms of news so traditionally news63:08was a lost leader for four television63:11stations radio stations and they made63:13their money covering sports and63:14entertainment other stuff and they63:16didn’t worry about making money off the63:17news well that changed started changing63:19in the 80s and now you know this is what63:23you get when one news is all about63:25profits it just becomes insane you know63:28unfactual unobjective and you know it’s63:31I think it’s really disturbing Thanks63:35[Applause]63:39hi Matt I’m today on Netflix the63:43Rogerses movie debuted and up until63:47Trump who are justö was more or less a63:50husband how influential was he in the63:542016 election sorry who the one63:58Rajasthan Rajasthan how influential is64:01he um my understanding of Roger stone is64:07that he’s a big talker who uh who has64:13less access to powerful people than he64:16has always claimed so I don’t know you64:19know Roger stone he was an advisor to64:22the Trump campaign he’s um64:26really not in position to really answer64:29that question very well you know64:30obviously he figures a lot in this this64:32Russia drama depending on who you talk64:35to but that’s just you know I I couldn’t64:39speak to it because I never haven’t64:41uncovered that story okay I have a part64:43to it this question if the media did not64:48cover Trump like they did because they64:52would concern with the ratings do you64:55think he would have gotten as far as you64:57did so that’s a great question but I65:01think it goes hand in hand with a couple65:03of things so if if we as had as a habit65:07did not have a for-profit media we would65:11have a different kind of audience65:13leading into 2016 we would have a more65:15thinking audience we would have a more65:17discerning audience you know Trump isn’t65:20something that happens overnight it65:21happens after decades of watching the65:24dumbest possible television and lowering65:28your attention span to half a second65:34and I think you know the fact that65:37nobody reads anymore and I mean the65:41ability to think critically about what65:43people are looking at is a phenomenon65:45that’s been that’s been degraded for65:47decades and if we if we had a different65:50kind of media dating back decades65:52there’s no way Donald Trump would win65:54because he was so plainly unsuited for65:57the job but he was perfectly suited for66:00what this actually was which is a66:03television show I mean and and and so if66:06we didn’t have that format he would66:08never have been successful thank you hi66:16hi so um what the person said earlier66:20about uh the Democrats opening their own66:22Trump I was thinking that too like he66:25maybe he’s gonna open his own franchises66:26like his University or something so66:29we’ll teach you66:29political hacking but um you were saying66:34stuff about being in the bullpen and66:36that he got the crowd to turn on you and66:39like all this up for the press in66:40general but despite all that I’ve66:43noticed you’re really objective about66:46this guy still like you’re able to look66:48at it from many sites like you don’t I66:49get the sense you don’t like Trump but66:51you know you can you can like kinda you66:55can kind of see through like his tactics66:57and like oh he’s like he’s like flipped66:59it around he’s like he figured out a67:00deal for these politics so if Paul if67:04politicians are actors is a Donald Trump67:07the greatest actor and can you respect67:08his hustle as an actor well that’s a67:13tough question I mean I find Trump67:15fascinating on a lot of levels and um67:17and and there’s a huge question67:22philosophical question with Trump which67:24is is it did you do this on purpose did67:27he did he intend to have all these67:29tactics work this way67:31or was it just a total accident of his67:33insane narcissistic personality that67:35just happened to fit like a glove into67:38the equally insane format of our67:40presidential system when and that’s the67:43form that’s the thing I leaned toward67:44but67:46you know I remember another New67:48Hampshire incident you probably all67:51remember it in Manchester when Trump67:55said there was a woman who stood up in67:58the crowd and said can I swear here she68:02sees he says Ted Cruz is a right68:05and and Trump looked at the woman and he68:09said oh that’s terrible what she said68:10that’s terrible and you shouldn’t you68:12shouldn’t have said that say it again68:13all right so so she says it again and68:17you know all of us in the media we’re68:20watching him and you could see him68:21thinking he’s he’s thinking if she says68:25it’s a six-hour story if I say it it’s a68:27four days story you know what I mean and68:29he he paused and he thought and then he68:33goes she just said Ted Cruz ooh68:35right and now there’s video right and it68:39Rockets around the internet and68:40obliterates everything else you know the68:42involved with the New Hampshire election68:44so Trump I think on some level he just68:47he can’t help himself like you know he68:49watches his tweeting habits and68:50everything there’s no way that this guy68:52is sitting there and calculating it’s a68:54good idea to tweet about Meryl Streep68:56and stuff like you know like no way but68:58he part of it you know he does have some69:02instincts that some of it is conscious69:03so I think it’s a mix of things like you69:06know you know as a reporter you have to69:08resist the easy interpretation that X Y69:11or Z I think it can be all things you69:13know I think he’s crazy and an actor and69:15you know and a manipulator and all that69:17stuff so the bypassing disgusts you69:19or as fascinates you well it’s69:23disgusting clearly I mean no the the69:25it’s everything you wouldn’t want in a69:28politician but the you know on some69:30level if you read the book clearly early69:34in the campaign when I I thought I saw69:36Trump I thought his historical role was69:40going to be that he was going to destroy69:41the Republican Party because it seemed69:44pretty clear early and early on that he69:47was he was sort of steam rolling through69:49the whole process almost like a like a69:52classic farcical parody of everything69:55right and he made everybody who was on69:56stage with him69:58look more ridiculous than he was and on70:01some of them on a literary level it was70:03kind of perfect right it was a perfect70:06story and the fact that it was people70:07like Rubio and Jeb Bush and all those70:11people who were the victims of it kind70:13of didn’t make you feel so bad about it70:14I mean to me it made it a much funnier70:17story and then and then after the70:19nomination it took this incredibly dark70:22turn where it’s like this is actually70:24going to happen and he’s going to get70:26elected and when that started to happen70:30you know that it stopped being funny and70:32then it started to be like insane and70:34crazy and terrifying and and you know I70:37think that’s where we are right now so I70:40had I had different feelings about it70:43the whole way through I thought I would70:45imagine everybody did great did you uh70:48I thought the longer he was in the race70:50more likely he was going to win and that70:53was even when he was with Hillary right70:56so it’s like okay it’s like one week so70:59he’s probably gonna win right at this71:00point right right excellent71:02excellent well you it was a good good71:04job thanks Matt I really thought I was71:10excellent I might take a different kind71:12of direction on this uh when I hear you71:14discussing this issue first of all the71:17idea of focusing not on the incident but71:18the context but I guess the context of71:21your profession in particular like the71:22fact that you’re a magazine writer and71:24at a news writer enables you to engage71:28more of your critical thinking71:29facilities than other people might be71:31able to I think we all have recognized71:33that we make poor decisions when we’re71:34rushed but given that like I mean like71:37right now I’m a professor and I have71:38many students who want their papers71:41immediately more they’d rather their71:44papers be done quickly than accurately71:46right given that we’re all rushed for71:48time what is the hope for your71:50profession is there hope because it71:52seemed like there’s a positive feedback71:53loop that you point to being a problem71:55is there a point where that just the71:57human body cannot take any longer or do72:00we you know stand in the ruins of72:01democracy before then72:03Wow that’s a great question and a scary72:07one no I I’m really worried about it72:10because um you know it’s this is this72:13has been a problem going back in our72:15business for decades and it started off72:18really I would say in the mid 80s and72:21early 90s and what started off with72:24seemingly small problems like the72:26appearance of free alternative72:29newspapers right and we started to give72:32give gift papers away then the internet72:35came along and people got their ads from72:38you know they didn’t have to go to buy72:40the Village Voice anymore to find to get72:43an apartment or put up a want ad they72:45could just go on the internet so that72:46depleted massively depleted the income72:50streams of alternative media and what72:53was the first thing that newspapers cut72:55when they stopped making a lot of money72:57they stopped they cut the people who72:59only spent who worked five or six weeks73:03on one story right the first thing they73:05cut was investigative reporting the73:07second thing they cut was fact-checking73:09right and so you know in the old days73:13you would have things like the73:14Cincinnati Enquirer doing a ten-part73:16series on the Chiquita banana company73:18right and they would send these two73:19reporters down to South America and they73:22would they would you know they would be73:24very well funded to do these long73:26investigations and and people were were73:30psyched for that kind of stuff they had73:31an app but the public had an appetite73:32for that kind of reporting well now you73:35two things would happen number one the73:37audience’s don’t have the attention span73:38to devour four and five thousand more73:41piece articles about things they’re73:44consuming tweets right and the other73:47thing is that the companies have found73:49out that they don’t need to do that to73:50make money you know so they they’re73:52they’ve invested all their money in73:54graphics and presentation and and the73:58content gets smaller and smaller and and74:01less weighty all the time and so there’s74:04no investigations there’s no critical74:06thinking there’s no reflection74:08it’s just reactive and it’s become like74:10this animalistic thing almost right and74:13I really worry about that because not74:15not only are you not getting good74:16reporting but you’re also training your74:18audience right to be rushed like that74:22right and and and you sure you see it74:25kids come up now they just they just74:28don’t have the the stomach to read74:31through long things anymore and I think74:34it’s a serious problem and I don’t know74:36how to fix it do you have an idea I mean74:38I you know I I mean I guess in general74:40it just seems like like speed is kind of74:42the enemy of democracy although we seem74:44to love speed so much I don’t know74:46myself except I just refuse to acquiesce74:48sometimes and right right throw sand in74:51the gears I think is a common popular74:53way to scribe it yeah no I mean I I wish74:56there was some way to do it but yeah I74:59think it’s you’re absolutely right speed75:00is a huge problem with us in Trump with75:02Trump again Trump was perfect for this75:04because you had to check Twitter every75:06ten seconds to see what he was up to he75:09was that he’s the perfect futuristic75:11speed candidate right like you know you75:13could be high on something at 4:00 in75:14the morning and he’d be changing doing75:16something you know he’s yeah it’s it’s75:20it’s very bad thank you good evening75:26Matt thanks for the talk tonight a75:29couple of observations maybe from you75:32can we agree that probably we don’t this75:36des gentleman before me the only one who75:38use the word all night but a democracy75:42and can we agree that we it’s a myth75:45probably in the United States it75:47probably more closer we live in a75:48corporate fascist state the way you win75:52elections also it seems to me is whether75:54it’s Republican or Democrat you want the75:56fewest people to turn out right and in75:59the end result was that maybe there was76:0052 or 54 percent of people that voted76:03for president which means that the man76:05at one got probably 25% of the total76:08vote yeah no it’s it’s ridiculous76:12yeah I know I agree with the quite76:14otally agree the wait the way we elect76:17presidents in this country has nothing76:18to do with democracy it has nothing to76:20do with it’s you know it’s a very76:23strange process then and76:28in the degree to which people are not76:31concerned with the lack of turnout you76:34know and and aren’t horrified that that76:38that neither you know beats both of the76:41candidates you know by factor of two to76:43one other than Russia for a long time76:46and they used to use to be able to vote76:47for none of the above in elections and76:50in a couple of races that it actually76:52won and and you know that it’s this is76:58really the crazy thing is the Trump what77:02what Trump did last year was almost more77:05democratic than the other system which77:06is just we’re going to give two sort of77:08preordained sort of corporate-funded77:10parties the ability to choose between77:14you know to spend a billion dollars77:16apiece on on a couple of marketing77:19campaigns and people will get to choose77:20between one of those two things you know77:22that’s not terribly democratic either77:24and and yeah I worry about it sure hi my77:30question is that you said that Trump77:32brought out the polarization that’s been77:35happening do we have time to unify or is77:40it too far for that and Trump being77:44someone that I don’t I didn’t vote for77:46but if he were baby impeached behind him77:49is pence and then behind him is Ryan so77:52and I’m hard pressed to find a77:54politician that I can really believe in77:56regardless right right I mean it’s a77:59great question the one thing I would78:03worry about with the whole idea of78:05unifying is that these the campaigns in78:07general have just become so become so78:10aggressive that the idea of you know78:15Democrats and Republicans ever coming78:18together again on any you know or people78:20or the whole country feeling good about78:22anyone who could be President I just78:24don’t I don’t see that happening going78:26forward I think you’re going to have one78:27half of the country that’s just furious78:28and you know that the template of you78:32know started with Obama you know the78:34people were hysterical on the other side78:36and now and now we have this with Trump78:38and um you know78:40both both sides are in this militaristic78:43mode and hate each other hating each78:45other mode and I don’t know I don’t78:46think that’s good either78:47first I’ve just been asked to announce78:49that there’s there’s a couple people in78:50line but that’s the last couple78:51questions and then my question is that78:53as a big believer that government and78:57policy should be deeply engaging to the78:58broader public is there any opportunity79:00to pivot here when we have sort of what79:02seems like unprecedented public79:04attention to is there a way to keep that79:06without continuing to appeal to the79:08basest interest it’s a great question um79:11I79:14I thought the Sanders movement was79:16really amazing in a lot of ways because79:19Sanders also you know he was again kind79:23of opposite to all the things I was79:24talking about he he’s exactly what79:28reporters mean when they talk about79:29someone being unelectable right79:31he doesn’t look good on TV he’s got a79:35funny speaking style he’s a socialist79:38right and yet there was an outpouring of79:43support for him and when you when he79:45gave speeches he what did he talk about79:47he talked about inequality and you know79:50all these actual problems it was a you79:52know it was amazing to see America79:55actually tuned into this for a while um79:58and I thought that that was proof that80:02you know there there is the ability of80:04politicians to engage people on80:05something other than stupidity in this80:08country but you know you right now you80:13know it’s it’s hard to say I hope people80:16get the lessons from the Sanders thing80:19and say that you know being just sort of80:23an honest politician who makes an effort80:26to try to reach out to people that that80:28can be successful to you know is there80:30an opportunity for the media in80:31particular there to entertain more of80:36those discussions well if you look at80:37what happened with Bernie Sanders you’ll80:38see that even though you he and Trump80:41were very equivalent stories actually in80:44a lot of ways they were they were both80:46rebels within their own party who were80:48taking on the80:49or at their own party structure but80:51Trump got 23 times the amount of80:53television coverage of Bernie Sanders80:55you had phenomena like you know an empty80:58mic stand whoop you know cable even81:01MSNBC publishing you know showing people81:06waiting for Trump to speak whereas when81:08Sanders spoke he would they wouldn’t81:10keep the cameras on it for very long and81:12I think you know he was still considered81:18taboo in a lot of ways and I don’t think81:20they’re really past that yet so you know81:23I mm-hmm yeah yeah yeah exactly yeah81:28Trump’s I met you had some negative any81:34deservedly negative comments about the81:37mainstream media I’m most concerned81:38about the control of information what81:41people can get now I’m retired I’m kind81:44of in the position that you were in when81:45you were writing and you had weeks and81:46weeks and weeks to do I’m I can spend81:48hours right looking for things and I81:51know how to sift through things I’m a81:53scientist to begin with but I’m most81:55concerned huh what kind of science81:57environmental science excellent82:05so I’ve come across things on the82:08internet that like for instance not not82:11that I agree with everything he says82:12Lord Monckton82:13is a tremendous speaker it’s got82:16completely contrary information to what82:19everybody gets on the mainstream media82:21about climate change hmm and you don’t82:24get any debate about that you don’t see82:26any of that how do you what’s your82:27advice on the people on how to sift82:30through what’s on the Internet and to82:33find the good stuff so it’s really82:35really hard these days because because82:39the standards really aren’t good82:41anywhere anymore again as the business82:45because because we’ve had this huge82:48decline in profitability and then in the82:49news media for years fact-checking you82:53know have82:54it used to be in order to get anything82:56into print you had to go through this82:58whole very long process now that’s83:00completely gone for daily Daily News83:03writing for magazine writing it’s mostly83:06all gone you know it still exists in a83:08few places our magazine still has a83:10little bit of it but nowadays when83:13you’re trying to decide whether83:15somebody’s reputable news source or not83:16you’re mostly relying on whether or not83:19that person has a track record of caring83:23about whether or not they’re factual you83:26know the institutions themselves don’t83:27really have time anymore to try to catch83:31everything and they don’t they don’t83:32worry about it anymore as much as they83:34used to so um you know I I don’t I don’t83:37know what to advise you except to say83:39that academic journals are tend to be83:42more respectable people who will link to83:46a primary source you know that that’s83:49always a good sign but even things like83:52can be you know it’s I was talking about83:54this with the reporter the other day in83:55the old days when when a member of83:59Congress would cite something a fact in84:01a prepared remark we always felt good84:03about using that as a fact in a story84:06nowadays even even members of Congress84:09have no problem using unsourced material84:11when they when they give speeches and84:13and so there’s this epidemic of kind of84:16unverified stuff flying around and it’s84:19just become really really hard so that I84:22think the main piece of advice is just84:23to read a lot on every subject and just84:26try to see what the most common story is84:28you know just one more thing on on the84:31published books are the publishers still84:34doing the fact-checking publishers do do84:37fact-checking but um it’s not it’s not84:42it depends on the project let’s put it84:44that way there’s there’s a legal vet for84:48pretty much every book but the kind of84:51line by line thing that used to be84:53standard in this business and it like84:58you know I used to write these six and84:59seven thousand word features for Rolling85:00Stone and literally every line you know85:03the sky was blue this day they would85:05check you know was it blue that day85:07that doesn’t happen anymore in books85:09they’re mostly concerned about what can85:10we be sued for and you know what are the85:15major factual issues in this book and85:17let’s just check those out but they85:18don’t you know the little things you85:20know really depends on the publisher and85:23you know you can’t you can’t depend on85:25somebody being everything being vetted85:28anymore I really appreciate your85:37analysis of the corporate media and also85:40how it’s not actually just about Trump85:43about their these systemic problems of85:45anti-immigration85:46anti-immigrant and nationalism and so85:50I’m wondering is there a practical way85:52to look at is our profitability to85:58talking about immigrants and say Middle86:00Easterners who have had traditionally in86:03the media kind of like a one-dimensional86:05perspective is there a way to reap or86:08tray them in part because it can help86:10maybe go against that tie that has been86:13actually set by the media historically86:15that and is there a way to do that in a86:19profitable way to entice the corporate86:22corporate entities to be interested in86:24that um it’s a great question86:27unfortunately I would say that you know86:30clearly the model is hate sells and you86:35know discernment doesn’t and if you look86:38back at our recent history advertisers86:42are terrified of being seen as for86:46instance you know back in 2003 200486:50the cable networks made enormous86:51enormous sums of money promoting the86:54Iraq war and there was literally zero86:58incentive for those companies to put a87:01halt to the you know Islamophobia to any87:04any of that that’s that’s never going to87:07be a moneymaker for the network’s you87:09know being being discerning you know I87:12would even say right now there’s a thing87:15about being anti Russian that that87:18you know you’re not going to find87:20anybody who is going to be willing to87:24kind of stand up and say hey you know87:25I’m pro-russian like that that’s that87:27there’s not going to be an incentive for87:28that I think some of the networks have87:31tried to do a better job of that in87:34their news coverage but that you know in87:36terms of a financial incentive you just87:37won’t find it unfortunately so a few87:43final words please support us this is87:46this place is dedicated independent87:48media and it is really fulfilling to us87:51to see all of you in this room and we87:53have sanctuary resist t-shirts everyone87:56needs one and we just really want to87:58thank Matt because you’re really a hero88:00in the movement right now and it’s so88:02important that you’re here88:12thank you soon
If I am so smart, why am I know winning.
You should build relationships with people you don’t like for the good of the mission.
If you don’t like someone, most of the time that is your ego.
do you talk about building or you talk about building relationships a lot at
work even when people whom you might not like even with people who mean you don’t
like have you always been this way or did you also feel difficult also
difficulty in wanting to build relationships with those people if the
latter what are the things that help you to actually want to build relationships
with him things so when I was a young seal
I was pretty typical young seal pretty typical young man meaning I thought I
was invincible I thought I could beat everyone in a fight cuz I didn’t know
jiu-jitsu so you just think you’re just gonna win but that you’re wrong I
thought I knew everything of course and I thought I was smarter than everyone
else kind of typical sometimes I would rub people the wrong way and the people
that I would rub the wrong way were especially people that I third thought
were not squared away in the chain of command so if you weren’t square if you
if you were my boss and I didn’t think you were squared away I was gonna rub
you the wrong way no cuz I was gonna be slightly offensive yeah as a matter of
fact I got an evaluation it’s one of the first evaluations that I got when I got
to a SEAL team and back in the day yeah you’d get you were rated 4.0 was the
highest you could get and it would go all the way down to whatever like one
but at this time basically everyone got four oh and everything right you
basically got four oh and everything and like you’d have to mess up you have to
mess to get deviate from the four so I got all four O’s and I got a 3.8 which
was like a major dig and the dig was in I think it was like in relation like I
don’t know what the word was but when I got debriefed on it what the
guy that gave me the 3/8 what he what he told me
which I actually was proud of because that’s how stupid I was
he’s like you you you’re too hostile with people that aren’t squared away
that’s literally and I was all like whatever you’re damn
right I am hostile towards people that aren’t square to go to war right just an
idiot that’s what that’s what the situation
was and you know it made me mad if a leader was weak and I would form these
antagonistic relationships with leaders if I thought that they were weak and one
of these bosses eventually that I fought I was better than right I thought I was
smarter I thought I was smarter than him right I thought that he was an idiot
sure I should have his job right how often do you think that right I should
have that guy’s job I’m smart and the more I showed this attitude the worse
our relationship got in the world and the less he listened to me and the less
influence I had over how we did things and therefore the the worse we did and
the and the the worse our ability to perform God because he was just doing
things the way he thought without any good input from anyone below him in the
chain of command mm-hmm all because I had formed this antagonistic
relationship with him which was bad because then he’s not listening to me
and then one day one day I said to myself if I’m so smart if I’m such a
smart guy why am I losing why am I losing if I’m so smart if I am so smart
why can’t I get this guy to do what I want him to do even though he’s my boss
doesn’t matter if I’m so smart yes they were smarter than him why can’t I get
him to do what I wanted me to do hmm why if I’m so smart how come I can’t
have more influence over the way we operate if I’m so smart and he’s so dumb
mm-hmm and that’s that’s when I realized that’s when I had an away
an awakening that instead of blaming him for being stupid I was the one who was
being stupid I had lost the ability to influence my boss because I was being
stupid and because of my ego I literally thought I deserved his job okay I
thought pretty much anyone could anyone in the platoon should have his job and
therefore since I thought that I I understand of supporting him they said a
building a relationship with him i undermined him now once I got humble and
I started to build a positive relationship with him instead of an
antagonistic one that started to change and because because then he started
listening to me he started to change some things and my influence over the
whole situation became better because I now had a relationship despite the fact
I liked the guy despite that fact I built the
relationship and the situation got better I had more influence and that
became kind of my standard operating procedure was to build relationships
with people even if I didn’t like them to build relationships with people so
that I could have more influence now does what does that sound like right
that sounds like I’m kind of this manipulative two-faced superficial
disingenuous guy yeah that’s that’s being devious and conniving not keeping
it real not keeping it real right but the fact is that is not true that’s not
that’s not that’s not who I am you don’t know who I am I’m a guy that’s trying to
accomplish the mission that’s what I am I’m a guy that is trying to accomplish
the mission who is putting my own ego in check to build a relationship with
someone that I don’t like that I don’t respect but what I’m trying to do is
improve our operational capability what’s more important to me trying to
arrange the situation build the relationship so that we do better not so
that I get promoted not so that I’m getting some accolades but so that we as
a team do a better job I put the little feelings aside because I want the team
to win so if you’re having having some trouble getting over your feelings and
getting over your ego to build relationships for the good of the team
ask yourself the same question I asked myself a long time ago
which is this if I am so smart why am I not winning and if you answer that
question honestly then you’ll put your ego in check
you’ll go build the relationships that will make you and your team accomplish
the mission and win hmm there you go
can’t help but agree with that one you know what’s funny is if you think
about like why you wouldn’t like someone mm-hmm what what causes you and not like
someone most of the time that’s your ego anyways most of the time that’s your ego
anyways yeah and so you know you had that story of the you know you were
consulting somebody it was like a big CEO of yeah like a lacrosse guy that
story is probably the most common story I mean the way you handle it different
yeah but that scenario that you started with with us are so common man
where ya they rub you the wrong way because right off the bat you see him as
some kind of competitive figure to you like they’re you know some you know
compare you know you’re competing with them in your own mind in whatever and
the feelings probably meet you a lot of the time you know see kids don’t like
each other you know one anything he says you’re you know you’re already defensive
but it’s weird man how you can how that happened like that’s happened to me
before not is it wasn’t as overt but just like yeah I don’t really feel that
guy you know I don’t like I would because I not only is he like when you
look at them whatever they’re kind of competitive with you but maybe they do
something just this much different than you you know like it’s just different in
philosophy or something like that I was like oh let me again second and then
they open their mouth and say one word to you and it’s real nice you’re like oh
I love that guy you know just one little thing just one little like hey I’m cool
you know I like you kind of thing and it’s like oh man yeah when they say
something humble to you yeah it disarms your ego and you’re all of a sudden
you’re bros yeah it’s so weird but if they don’t if they escalate the ego
situation which then it’s very problematic happens all the time I mean
really that’s the natural course of things because you do have to put on the
brakes on your feelings and be like okay let’s make a different kind of decision
than the automatic one I got to switch to manual real quick and then bling but
the bottom line is you’re gonna interact with all kinds of different people if
you’re in any kind of team want so ever which is most most human beings interact
with other human beings through their job through their life through I mean
you could apply this to your family too right
there’s someone in your family that you don’t get along with well what good does
it do does it make your family unit better when you let those emotions play
out and let your ego play out no it doesn’t you’re better off you’ll get
further and you’ll have a better you’ll have a better life in your family if you
put your ego in check and then say you know what I’m just gonna build a
relationship with this person it’s gonna make everything better and smoother but
it’s like man if you it I feel like you can take the place of any marriage
counselor by just saying that for real like all you have to do is in and they
got to do it but all you got to do is ask like is this gonna help the
relationship with my wife or my family whoever it is in your is this gonna help
the relationship if I do this or don’t do this or is it gonna hurt it and
that’s it that’s it that’s super general question or whatever but it’s it’s so
cut and dry most of the time yeah of course it’s exceptions but generally
speaking it’s pretty cut and dry okay and a lot of time just like I said it
has to do with like your ego or your you know this this sense of vengeance little
micro sense of vengeance because I can’t believe she doesn’t respect the fact
that I took out the trash you know she asked me to take the trash all the time
finally when I do it nothing you know like chilli its I was talking to a
friend of mine and we were talking about you know I’ve talked about the mutiny
that I had yeah yeah Co platoon but we had a mutiny we fight
we had a mutiny against uh our platoon commander we fired he got fired and then
the other guy that came in to take his place was like the best guy mm-hmm and I
was talking to a guy that worked with him much later when he was a senior
senior guy and I was telling him I was like oh when I talk on the podcast about
the platoon commander that was like the best that’s who I’m talking he’s like no
way and and this guy working with he’s a senior guy and he says you know when he
when I worked with him he would take out that he would take out the trash from
the office every day and he and I started laughing said that’s right and
I’d be look and he was saying like oh I look at him and be like sir you know you
don’t need to do that it’s like no no it’s not good you know someone’s got to
take out the trash I got it mm-hmm this is a seat a guy that shouldn’t have
been taking out trash for 25 years taking out the trash
well is he picking up breath picking up brass taking out trash you know that’s
that’s being humble yeah being humble goes a long way
The Dire Dangers of Narcissism
Though I’m professionally distant from today’s media luminaries, I have a particular personal interest in the current narcissistic spectacle du jour: I went to college and was friends with Harvey Weinstein nearly a half a century ago.
With an admixture of feelings, I watch the scandal unfold. I’m horrified and angry at what Weinstein is charged with perpetrating. I’m confused and saddened by my former friend’s behavior. Yet, I’m not surprised, given what I remember about Harvey when we were students. That’s not to say I could have predicted this. I don’t identify with interviewees solicited by journalists to tell what they knew of ignominious scoundrels before they committed their heinous acts. Harvey Weinstein—from first impression of him being grandiose, sycophantic, and magnanimously generous to the progression of his unstable and rampant ambition—was intense, needy, insecure, ingratiating, and over-the-top in his endeavors.
I’m not invested in justifying or scourging Harvey. He’ll get whatever the consequences of his actions bring—spiritually and legally. I feel sorry for him, but ever more sorry for, and indignant about, the victims he is accused of abusing, exploiting, bullying, and oppressing. Such injustice must be vindicated—but that is not up to me. As a psychologist, my goal is to unravel and shed light upon the inner forces that develop into disastrous behavior. Since I consorted with Harvey and knew him well decades ago, I want to lay bare the seminal roots of an accused tyrant before he became one.
As a psychologist, I have something to contribute by explaining the wily dangers of narcissism, thus allowing potential victims to be informed and better protected. As an American citizen, I am alarmed and wary about the course and future of our country, our people and our principles. As a father, husband, and person with strengths and weaknesses who is desirous of healthy relationships, I, too, am vulnerable. Narcissism is an insidious monster, born of a needy and unstable ego that lurks for years, nursing its perceived wounds, until it explodes in aggressive and blind perpetrations. A healthy self-image must be nurtured. It can be achieved by hard work that includes the basis for self-respect and the practice of respect for others. Though the development of narcissism is neither predictable nor clearly delineated, certain factors may contribute to a self-aggrandizing ego and overbearing sense of entitlement:
- a “silver-spoon” upbringing, where material things and excessively indulgent opportunities became integral elements in the family culture;
- exposure to a series of traumas and humiliations;
- use of embarrassment to modify childhood misbehavior;
- employing self-flagellation to cope with insecurity; or simply
- relying on an escapist fantasy and the transformative illusion of becoming a legend and hero in one’s mirror.
Though we may recoil from the exaggerated hubris of the narcissist, we should also be respectful and thankful for not traveling along such an isolating and destructive path. As my mother often said: “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” To live a life of worthiness and honor, one must embrace gratitude and humility.
What Happened to You, Harvey Weinstein?
Do you remember me, Harvey? I know you’ve got a lot on your mind these days; but I’ll bet that if you heard my name, you’d say, “Mark… how the hell are you doing?” We go back a long way, Harvey, to some wild days at the University of Buffalo.
Remember the crowd? Janis Siegel (affectionately called Pumpkin), who went on to acclaim as a singer with Manhattan Transfer. And the creative and iconic Jay Beckenstein, jazz saxophonist with Spyrogyra.
Remember those all-nighters, the 4:00 AM greasy burgers at Your Host Restaurant? The anguished, drugged-out rants and discussions about the universe, who we were, and where we were going?
We grew up and went out in the world to different places. You were amazing, Harvey: intense, sycophantic, driven, disturbed, and needy. I identified with you—Jewish kids from New York, arrived in a blue collar city, ready to take over and show how much we knew and how things should be done.
You floundered, and then soared. It wasn’t long before you traded academics for an entrepreneurial path, on your way to becoming a juggernaut. You founded Harvey & Corky Productions, bringing big-name musical talent to downtown Buffalo. You soon rubbed shoulders with the top names and icons of our generation. It must have been intoxicating, far beyond the drugs that most used to reach for peace and imagined self-importance.
Throughout the years, I watched your movies and cheered you on. There goes Harvey Weinstein—I knew him in college; we were friends. I envied your success. From my intimate knowledge of your personality, I suspected that you were not happy or fulfilled. How could you be, never filling the immense void within you with something other than riches and accolades? Not to diminish your sweeping achievements. But you were so needy and insecure. How could anything the world had to offer be enough?
I wrote to you fifteen years ago, hoping to reconnect. But I never got a response.
Apparently, you tried to fill your deep inner void with surreptitious trysts, using your money and influence to sway and dominate young women—impressionable and aspiring beauties you used for your lustful and egotistical purposes. You used your money, power, and influence to lord it over people, to take advantage of them, and to coerce their silence. The chickens have come home to roost; the truth will not be hidden; you are exposed and in trouble.
It’s not for me to judge you Harvey. I just want to tell you something about women and men and power and accountability.
Females are not immune from deceit, hypocrisy, and the fleshly litany of sins. But females are to be protected and respected. They are “weaker” in some sense, but immensely more powerful than men in many respects. Our society inherently imposes on women mixed messages, psychological traumas, economic discrimination, and often the raw end of many deals. Our culture exalts and worships physical appeal, but quickly disregards and discards worthwhile human beings when their outward beauty fades. Ironically, we exalt and worship physical beauty, and yet we exploit it. The fleeting blooms of pulchritude and stardom leave women vulnerable and with undeserved dismissal or ostracism. Too many men strut their machismo, stricken with envy (and with the fantasy) that a woman can have sex any time she wants (whereas many men have to feel they must lure or seduce). Unfortunately, some men act out of this context to take advantage and force or exploit women. When the playing field becomes overly imbalanced, many women either withdraw into resentful passive aggressiveness—avoiding or manipulating intimacy—or act out with hostile projection—rejecting men or typecasting them as insensitive and only interested in exploitative sex. Though there’s plenty of blame to spread around, men bear the burden—historically, we have been at fault by dominating women and isolating them from full and equal participation in society.
With your overarching success, Harvey, you now have trouble (tsouris, in Yiddish) on a grand scale. My heart aches for you, and I pray for you.
I have some advice for you, Harvey, my dear old friend: it’s time for you to make amends, to acknowledge your wrongdoing, to seek forgiveness, and to make restitution—no holds barred. I know you must now resort to posturing for strategic legal reasons, but you are going to sacrifice a lot of money to pay for your mistakes. You can no longer “buy” people (and certainly not their silence). You will feel alone, and will be alone. You will have to give up the pretenses you have long abused to fill the abyss and mollify the gargantuan ego that hides the empty Harvey Weinstein.
Yet, there is someone valuable, tender, sensitive, worthwhile inside the blustering and offensive Harvey. This is an opportunity to find out who you really are, to change the offensiveness, and to develop into an honorable person.
God has used you, Harvey, and he is not done yet. Through these scandals, he is using you writ large to teach others; and he is bringing you to your knees in the hope that you will stay there and begin to acknowledge and worship him.
Truer riches await you, my friend, if you will only repent and ask for divine forgiveness and guidance. You must also seek forgiveness from the people you hurt, so many of them. It’s time to be open, sincere, and humble. You must unequivocally repent.
Years ago, you founded a big company—Miramax—named after your parents, Max and Miriam Weinstein. What would they think of their son now? I never knew Max or Miriam, but I am sure they always loved you. Why, Harvey, has it been so difficult for you to feel love?
The Harvey Weinstein I knew nearly half a century ago could never relax. He always had to prove something, to get more and show more. You were an intense and difficult person. But you were likable, Harvey, and you didn’t have to try so hard.
The term narcissism is taken from Greek mythology. Narcissus was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope. He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. He was drawn to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it (himself), not realizing it was merely an image.
Today, narcissism is a psychiatric diagnosis and considered a mental disorder. It is also often used disparagingly in common parlance and description. Narcissism involves extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration, and has come to characterize a personality type. Narcissists think extremely highly of themselves and are often driven to seek validation of their worthiness and inflated self-opinion by soliciting and even demanding the approval of others. They delude themselves that their boorish machinations and manipulations of others testify to their own self-worth. Though they may be capable of compassion and empathy, narcissists are so preoccupied with their own selfish interests and with validating themselves that they typically ignore or do not consider or recognize others’ needs, even the people closest to them.
Narcissists’ classic “me-first” posture often leads them to resort to aggressive acts that allow them to dominate or “win,” regardless of the costs. They love and need to be the center of attention, often usurping the limelight, dominating conversations, and controlling situations and people to serve their own ends.
It is when they are challenged or confronted with reality that the true pathological character of narcissists flagrantly emerges. Narcissists’ fragile self-image and ego structure do not allow them to acknowledge the egregious nature of their self-importance. Thus, is it is rare for them to apologize or admit wrongdoing. Remorse and repentance for their offensive actions almost never occurs (think Trump).
Thus, narcissists often have a problem with reality-testing; that is, they can only perceive events and circumstances from the same perspective as others when such “reality” supports and buttresses themselves in a positive and flattering light. Unfortunately, this infrequently happens. Instead narcissists twist and distort reality to suit their own views, inevitably causing confusion, alienation, and damage to relationships and the integrity and well-being of others. They constantly use people in devious ways, and invariably deny their motives and the unpleasant effects upon others. Narcissists have confounding and appalling obsession to blame others for what they themselves have done. A psychological term for this is projection. This is denial at its craftiest, and it is infuriating (again, think Trump).
When dealing with and referring to people who thought too highly of themselves, a dear friend of mine use to quip. “I’d like to buy you for what you’re really worth, and sell you for what you think you’re worth.”
We can shake our heads in disbelief or disgust at narcissism, and we can mock this condition with humor. However, don’t underestimate the dire danger of narcissism as the disorder affects all those who come into contact with the narcissist. Narcissists cannot have good relationships because they view others as opportunities to validate and gratify themselves. In psychoanalytic terms, they have poorly developed object relations. In plain language, this means that they cannot separate and distinguish between themselves and the legitimate perceptions, opinions, values, desires, and needs of others. What others experience (including hurt or neglect perpetrated by the narcissist) is blocked by the arrogant, center-stage prominence of the narcissist’s own needs.
Dealing With Narcissists
Because narcissists live in a bubble of self-absorption and denial, it’s very hard to break through their manipulations and defenses. Normal people (allowing for differences among individuals) have varying abilities to admit mistakes, acknowledge wrongdoing, apologize with sincerity, recognize their flaws and trespasses along with the negative impact upon others, and modify their behaviors to minimize the negative effects of selfishness. Not so with narcissists, as this is the core of their personality disorder.
It may be helpful to review the following guidelines in dealing with people you suspect of narcissism:
Expect self-centeredness and reality distortion
Because narcissists’ self-absorbed attitudes and responses are often provocative, it’s tempting to react with consternation, indignation, umbrage, and the like. However, if you keep your dismay and outrage to yourself, you’ll be in a better position to question the behaviors with a strategy of setting limits. Instead of expressing your emotional reactions to narcissistic self-centeredness, practice the strategies listed below.
Refrain from demonstrative emotional reactions
Tie responses to facts, evidence, and questions
When faced with narcissists’ bold claims, quietly question the bases for such statements. Or, just ignore them. For example, someone may proudly announce, “These people don’t know how to drive. I happen to be one of the best drivers on the road.” You could say, “ I guess so. But there is the issue of your three moving violations and numerous parking tickets.” Or, you could just let it go, and smirk to yourself.
Sometimes, simply questioning the basis for outrageous statements is enough to slow down the narcissist’s bluster. Remember Trump’s tirades about how he “knows more about Isis than any general in the military,” and his defiant complaint that he is “the victim of the greatest witch hunt in history”? There is no shutting down such an ego. However, one might ask, “Where did you acquire your military knowledge, and why were you not consulted and solicited before you became president?”
“Please give us some details about the other witch hunts against which you compare your own alleged persecution.”
And don’t expect an intelligent and coherent response to your questions!
Preface accountability and confrontations with acknowledgment and legitimate praise
Narcissists perceive questions, challenges, and alternate opinions—even facts—as threats to and defamation of their integrity. Therefore, it’s helpful to preface and intersperse your messages of accountability with reasonable and relevant praise toward the person whom you’re trying to get to really listen to you. Even appealing to their putative sense of discernment and justice may get you farther along on your attempts to bring reality into the conversation.
When I deal with pie-in-the sky people who live inside dreams inflated by their own sense of self-worth and entitlement, I find it prudent to ask, “I understand that, given your abilities and track record (?!), you expect this to work out as you’ve favorably planned…, but because you are smart, have you formulated an alternative scenario and plan?”
Set boundaries and repeat if-then consequences as they pertain to the narcissist’s behaviors
Inevitably, narcissists repeatedly step on the toes of others. Their transgressions may be verbal and/or they may take vindictive actions (hello again, Mr. Trump). Their self-aggrandizement can make it hard to keep a straight face; or, their attitude of entitlement may carry implicit threats for noncompliance or resistance. (Harvey Weinstein got away with his egregious behavior in large part due to his political and economic influence, much of which he wielded against much less powerful women. When he ultimately confronted a woman who was formidable and courageous, she pulled the plug, and the dirty slimy water that had accumulated in the bathtub over the decades slurped down the drain. Harvey was left sitting naked and shivering in his own filth.)
Granted, it’s not for individuals to take on the President of the United States. But the collective violations and outrage are propelling Trump to his comeuppance. Kudos to the brave people who have spoken the truth and challenged Trump, even at risk to their own reputations and careers! That takes integrity, confidence, and courage!
And Harvey? My old friend, your bullying and predation have ironically transformed the zeitgeist. Your secret life of lust, aggression, and intimidation now exposed has caused trauma and harm—shame on you! However, the notoriety has caused a groundswell of indignation, objection, and cries for justice. You have become the agent of change, long overdue.
The message is clear: If you abuse or intimidate women, it will come to light and you will pay.
Solicit commitments, promises, and contracts in writing
Remember that, as part of their sense of entitlement, narcissists do not hesitate to change the rules—including their agreements, commitments, promises, and respect for others’ needs—when it suits their purposes. Therefore, it’s wise to make a habit of solidifying commitments and promises in writing, with dates and signatures if possible. Though the self-entitled may scoff and sneer at such requests, pretend you are prone to mistaking the details, since your memory might not be as good as theirs (!) and remind them of the pithy saying, Black and white on paper is a lot clearer than the gray matter of the brain.
In other words, play dumb, like a fox. The narcissist may pity you and indulge you.
At the very least, keep your own meticulous records with details of words, actions, and dates. E-mails and texts establish a continual, accessible, and practical audit trail, useful for holding the narcissist accountable, especially when deception and conflict arise.
Be prepared for breaches of trust, intimacy, and fidelity
Precautions and attentiveness notwithstanding, you cannot change the basic flawed character of the narcissist. That’s not to say that people don’t change. Life experience, traumas, pain, and consequences are all great teachers. They even teach to the seemingly robust and impregnable bravado of narcissists (and, at best, it takes awhile). In his own way and with his own timing, God chips away at the lives and consciences of the foolish and hurtful. At his own discretion, he causes miracles to happen.
But the very nature of narcissism attacks trust, empathy, and consideration. Don’t be surprised when the narcissist (repeatedly) violates boundaries, flaunts rules, and sabotages trust, intimacy, and even your own faith. Remain loving, but be cautious and be prepared. Your sensitivity and good intentions are no match for the power of narcissism. Engaging in an argument or a major adversarial battle with a narcissist can be akin to stepping into the ring with a mixed martial arts fighter. No holds are bared. Be prepared for the unexpected. Be on guard. Protect yourself at all times. Expect hyperbole, manipulated facts, concocted falsehoods, inconsistencies, and outrageous lies. It’s all part of the package.
Narcissism’s Dire Consequences
Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein are but two notorious narcissistic icons—caricatures writ large in a field of opportunism. Their transgressions leave us aghast, wondering how such egregious behavior could have escalated and continued.
Surely, someone like Weinstein, if indicted and convicted of a crime or crimes in a court of law, must be thwarted and punished. Trump is a much more complex matter involving political and constitutional issues that are still in the process of unfolding. However, the important take-home message is that there are many like them—young, old, male, female, prominent, less significant—who foist their attitudes and perpetrations upon the unsuspecting and vulnerable, the psychologically and experientially less sophisticated, and those with fewer defenses and resources.
Narcissists may be overtly offensive, or they may be furtive and wily—sheep in wolves’ clothing. In a culture that has inveterately promoted self-centeredness and a “me-first” value system, narcissists may seem to embody the cultural virtues, to blend in and prevail over the competition. But you will recognize them by their intransigence and lack of compassion for the basic welfare and psychological well-being of others. As legends in their own mirrors (or pools, as with the Greek Narcissus), they deem themselves the only ones who matter.
As a society, we should focus attention on identifying, dissuading, and modifying the development of narcissistic character. Respect for women—pervasive societal, legal, accommodating respect—is surely a good place to start. We are beginning to painfully learn those lessons.
But the battle against misogyny is not enough. Parents must teach their children that the world does not “owe” them. The government should provide more than minimal education and health care—service, schooling, and training that focuses on character development and resources for the ravages of character failure, including disorders of emotional bonding, anxiety, depression, trauma, and the depredations of addiction.
We need to return to God, individually and collectively. Each of us determines our own personal relationship with or abandonment of our Creator. Religion should not be forced. But spiritual living should be foundational and institutionally encouraged. The development of the soul and its conscience and compassion is incompatible with the “me-first” ethos that culturally reinforces narcissism.
When tragedy strikes, we become voracious Monday morning quarterbacks. We scrutinize the history of assassins and predators, looking for clues that should have exposed them earlier. However, social autopsies on misfits will not relieve us of the larger problem, nor will those efforts alone avert the perverse development of unhealthy, megalomaniac egos.
We must become a society, through and through, that values humility and teaches people, rank and file, to put others first. Against such a social norm, the Trumps and Weinsteins will identify themselves early as faulty people who need discipline, correction, and guidance to develop true and healthy self-love.
Narcissism may never be eliminated, for we are a prideful and sinful species. With regard to selfish insensitivity, some are given to robust excess, even to the point of outright cruelty. Recoil as we might from Trump and Weinstein, we should learn that we need to expose them earlier in order to prevent the devastating potential of narcissism from exerting its will.
Farewell to the Harvey I Knew
We can’t live in the past. The Harvey Weinstein I knew nearly a half century ago has gone his own way, as have I.
In college, you looked up to me, Harvey. In your desperate neediness, you couldn’t see through my pretense, my needing to appear hip and avant-garde. If I’d had your talents, Harvey, perhaps I would have gone much farther astray than I did. Money and fame eluded me, but I guess I was luckier than you. And life did not let me get away with what, in my insouciant arrogance and ambition, I secretly wanted to.
If we could have coffee, I’d share with you some of the ordeals that happened in my life, what I’ve learned and about the people who taught me. Despite many setbacks and traumas, I’ve been fortunate. I have loved and been loved. Women have been great teachers to me, some intimate, some maternal, and many have been platonic, wonderful influences. I have learned to respect women and to not take advantage of them. Except for my wife, I regard them as sisters, mothers, and daughters. I treat them with biblically directed protection, respect, and deference. I joke (respectfully) about the differences between men and women. I note with professional acumen the stereotypes that frequently characterize the brains and demeanors of the two sexes. I’ve written a book about this, too, aimed at improving harmony and satisfaction in marriage relationships.
With maturity, I have more confidence and less need to prove myself or be the center of attention. I’m more able to appreciate the difficulties women have in a male-dominated world. I’m grounded enough to speak up and to model for males how to respect, value, protect, and share equally with females.
With God’s help and the stringent sanctions of many people who knocked me off my self-constructed pedestal and put me in a proper place, I’ve tamed most of my narcissistic tendencies.
The Harvey Weinstein I knew has grown and devolved. Farewell naïve and callow college buddy. I still recognize you, Harvey; beneath the atrocities, there is a boy, now a man, desperate for satisfying love. I hope this is God’s way of teaching you how to find it.
— Mark Steinberg, Ph.D.
How not to repeat the mistakes of 2011.
In a couple of days I’m going to be participating in an Economic Policy Institute conference on “excessive wealth disorder” — the problems and dangers created by extreme concentration of income and wealth at the top. I’ve been asked to give a short talk at the beginning of the conference, focusing on the political and policy distortions high inequality creates, and I’ve been trying to put my thoughts in order. So I thought I might as well write up those thoughts for broader dissemination.
While popular discourse has concentrated on the “1 percent,” what’s really at issue here is the role of the 0.1 percent, or maybe the 0.01 percent — the truly wealthy, not the “$400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff” memorably ridiculed in the movie Wall Street. This is a really tiny group of people, but one that exerts huge influence over policy.
Where does this influence come from? People often talk about campaign contributions, but those are only one channel. In fact, I’d identify at least four ways in which the financial resources of the 0.1 percent distort policy priorities:
1. Raw corruption. We like to imagine that simple bribery of politicians isn’t an important factor in America, but it’s almost surely a much bigger deal than we like to think.
2. Soft corruption. What I mean by this are the various ways short of direct bribery politicians, government officials, and people with policy influence of any kind stand to gain financially by promoting policies that serve the interests or prejudices of the wealthy. This includes the revolving door between public service and private-sector employment, think-tank fellowships, fees on the lecture circuit, and so on.
3. Campaign contributions. Yes, these matter.
4. Defining the agenda: Through a variety of channels — media ownership, think tanks, and the simple tendency to assume that being rich also means being wise — the 0.1 percent has an extraordinary ability to set the agenda for policy discussion, in ways that can be sharply at odds with both a reasonable assessment of priorities and public opinion more generally.
Of these, I want to focus on item (4), not because it’s necessarily the most important — as I said, I suspect that raw corruption is a bigger deal than most of us can imagine — but because it’s something I think I know about. In particular, I want to focus on a particular example that for me and others was a kind of radicalizing moment, a demonstration that extreme wealth really has degraded the ability of our political system to deal with real problems.
The example I have in mind was the extraordinary shift in conventional wisdom and policy priorities that took place in 2010-2011, away from placing priority on reducing the huge suffering still taking place in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and toward action to avert the supposed risk of a debt crisis. This episode is receding into the past, but it was extraordinary and shocking at the time, and could all too easily be a precursor to politics in the near future.
Let’s talk first about the underlying economic circumstances. At the beginning of 2011, the U.S. unemployment rate was still 9 percent, and long-term unemployment in particular was at extraordinary levels, with more than 6 million Americans having been out of work for 6 months or more. It was an ugly economic situation, but its causes were no mystery. The bursting of the housing bubble, and the subsequent attempts of households to reduce their debt, had let to a severe shortfall of aggregate demand. Despite very low interest rates by historical standards, businesses weren’t willing to invest enough to take up the slack created by this household pullback.
Textbook economics offered very clear advice about what to do under these circumstances. This was exactly the kind of situation in which deficit spending helps the economy, by supplying the demand the private sector wasn’t. Unfortunately, the support provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — the Obama stimulus, which was inadequate but had at least cushioned the effects of the slump — peaked in mid-2010 and was in the process of falling off sharply. So the obvious, Economics 101 move would have been to implement another significant round of stimulus. After all, the federal government was still able to borrow long-term at near-zero real interest rates.
Somehow, however, over the course of 2010 a consensus emerged in the political and media worlds that in the face of 9 percent unemployment the two most important issues were … deficit reduction and “entitlement reform,” i.e. cuts in Social Security and Medicare. And I do mean consensus. As Ezra Klein noted, “the rules of reportorial neutrality don’t apply when it comes to the deficit.” He cited, for example, Mike Allen asking Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles “whether they believed Obama would do ‘the right thing’ on entitlements — with ‘the right thing’ clearly meaning ‘cut entitlements.’”
So where did this consensus come from? To be fair, the general public has never bought into Keynesian economics; as far as I know, most voters, if asked, will always say that the budget deficit should be reduced. In November 1936, just after FDR’s reelection, Gallup asked voters whether the new administration should balance the budget; 65 percent said yes, only 28 percent no.
But voters tend to place a relatively low priority on deficits as compared with jobs and the economy. And they overwhelmingly favor spending more on health care and Social Security.
The rich, however, are different from you and me. In 2011 the political scientists Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright managed to survey a group of wealthy individuals in the Chicago area. They found striking differences between this group’s policy priorities and those of the public at large. Budget deficits topped the list of problems they considered “very important,” with a third considering them the “most important” problem. While the respondents also expressed concern about unemployment and education, “they ranked a distant second and third among the concerns of wealthy Americans.”
And when it came to entitlements, the policy preferences of the wealthy were clearly at odds with those of the general public. By large margins, voters at large wanted to expand spending on health care and Social Security. By almost equally large margins, the wealthy wanted to reduce spending on those same programs.
So what was the origin of the conventional-wisdom consensus that emerged in 2010-2011 — a consensus so overwhelming that leading journalists abandoned the conventions of reportorial neutrality, and described austerity policies as the self-evident “right thing” for politicians to be doing? What happened, essentially, was that the political and media establishment internalized the preferences of the extremely wealthy.
Now, 2011 was an especially dramatic example of how this happens, but it wasn’t unique. In their recent book “Billionaires and Stealth Politics,” Page, Seawright, and Matthew Lacombe point out the enduring effects of plutocratic political influence on the Social Security debate: “Despite the strong support among most Americans for protecting and expanding Social Security benefits, for example, the intense, decades-long campaign to cut or privatize Social Security that was led by billionaire Pete Peterson and his wealthy allies appears to have played a part in thwarting any possibility of expanding Social Security benefits. Instead, the United States has repeatedly come close (even under Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama) to actually cutting benefits as part of a bipartisan ‘grand bargain’ concerning the federal budget.”
And here’s the thing: While we don’t want to romanticize the wisdom of the common man, there’s absolutely no reason to believe that the policy preferences of the wealthy are based on any superior understanding of how the world works. On the contrary, the wealthy were obsessed with debt and uninterested in mass unemployment at a time when deficits weren’t a problem — were, indeed, part of the solution — while unemployment was.
And the widespread belief among the wealthy that we should raise the retirement age is based, literally, on failure to understand how the other half lives (or, actually, doesn’t). Yes, life expectancy at age 65 has gone up, but overwhelmingly for the upper part of the income distribution. Less affluent Americans, who are precisely the people who depend most on Social Security, have seen little rise in life expectancy, so there is no justification for forcing them to work longer.
Where do the preferences of the wealthy come from? You don’t have to be a vulgar Marxist to recognize a strong element of class interest. The push for austerity was clearly linked to a desire to shrink the tax-and-transfer state, which in all advanced countries, even America, is a significant force for redistribution away from the wealthy toward citizens with lower incomes.
You can see the true goals of austerity a couple of ways. First, by comparison with other advanced countries the U.S. has low taxes and low social spending, yet almost all the energy of self-proclaimed deficit hawks was expended on demands for reduced spending rather than increased taxes. Second, it’s striking how much less deficit hysteria we’re hearing now than we did seven years ago. The full-employment budget deficit now is about as large, as a share of GDP, as it was in early 2012, when unemployment was still above 8 percent. But this deficit, although far less justified by macroeconomic considerations, was created by tax cuts — and somehow the deficit hawks are fairly quiet.
No doubt many wealthy backers of tax cuts for themselves and benefit cuts for others manage to convince themselves that this is in everyone’s interest. People are in general good at that sort of self-delusion. The fact remains that the wealthy, on average, push for policies that benefit themselves even when they often hurt the economy as a whole. And the sheer wealth of the wealthy is what empowers them to get a lot of what they want.
So what does this imply going forward? First, in the near term, both during the 2020 election and after, it’s going to be really important to ride herd on both centrist politicians and the media, and not let them pull another 2011, treating the policy preferences of the 0.1 percent as the Right Thing as opposed to, well, what a certain small class of people want. There’s a fairly long list of things progressives have recently advocated that the usual suspects will try to convince everyone are crazy ideas nobody serious would support, e.g.
A 70 percent top tax rate
A wealth tax on very large fortunes
Universal child care
Deficit-financed spending on infrastructure
You don’t have to support any or all of these policy ideas to recognize that they are anything but crazy. They are, in fact, backed by research from some of the world’s leading economic experts. Any journalist or centrist politician who treats them as self-evidently irresponsible is doing a 2011, internalizing the prejudices of the wealthy and treating them as if they were facts.
But while vigilance can mitigate the extent to which the wealthy get to define the policy agenda, in the end big money will find a way — unless there’s less big money to begin with. So reducing the extreme concentration of income and wealth isn’t just a desirable thing on social and economic grounds. It’s also a necessary step toward a healthier political system.
Martin Gilens, professor of politics at Princeton University and a member of the executive committee of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, discussed his new book as part of the Wilson School’s “Talk of 2012: The Upcoming Presidential Election” thematic lecture series. The discussion was co-sponsored by the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics and the Department of Politics.
so in the mid-1960s in myquantitative analysiswas a period of very low associationbetween public preferences and policyoutcomes the opposite set of politicalconditions and the strongest period ofassociation between public preferencesand policy outcomes was much to my greatsurprise during the early years of thegeorge w bush first term and when i didthat analysis and saw that not onlywhere the policy is adopted in 2001 and2002 consistent with what affluentAmericans wanted but we’re also the mostconsistent with what the middle classand the poor wanted from any period ofin my data set it was fairly certainthere must be some sort of error therein coding or something must have gonewrong so like you know a good socialscientist that Ike scoured the data tosee like where this error had emergedbut the fact of the matter is that therewas no error there and the policies thatwere adopted during those early Bushyears were in fact quite popular acrossthe income spectrum so so let me remindyou that you know Bush ran in 2000 as acompassionate conservative right hetalked about his bipartisan work withTexas Legislature and and so on and youknow I think a lot of people on the Leftkind of dismissed that as kind of acynical posturing but the truth is thatwhen Bush came into office you knowafter a very close election and afterhaving lost the popular vote the themost prominent policies that wereadopted were broadly supported centristpolicies in some cases bipartisanpolicies adopted that he worked withDemocratic legislators so I’m thinkingof things like the Medicare drug benefita long-standing Democratic Partypriority No Child Left Behind educationreforms which whatever you may think ofthem now was a bipartisanpolicy that you know senator Kennedyworked with the administration on Bush’sfaith-based initiative very popularacross income levels his compromise onstem-cell funding which contrary towidespread views actually increased thelike the range of stem cells that wereeligible for federal funding and evenhis tax cuts which clearly provided mostof the benefits in terms of dollars tothe most well-off Americans werestrongly supported across the incomespectrum so so a lot of what happenedthen was very consistent with what thepublic wanted including what the middleclass and the poor wanted but it’s notbecause of any sort of particularcommitment on the part of Bush or hisadministration to you know serving asadvocates for the poor but it waspolitical circumstances so Congress in2001 was more closely divided than ithad been at any time in half a centuryright you may remember when Bush cameinto office the Senate was split 50-50with the vice president serving as adeciding vote the Republicans had a veryslim majority in the house they losteven that sort of you know deciding votemajority in the Senate after JimJeffords abandoned at the RepublicanParty a couple months into the Bush’sfirst term so it was a very closelydivided Congress with control being upfor grabs at the next election right andthis is the opposite of what we saw inthe mid-1960s and this these two periodsrepresent a consistent pattern within mydata that when control of government isdivided and uncertain you get policyoutcomes that more strongly reflect thePreferences of the public and moreequally reflect the Preferences of lowand high-income Americans and when oneparty has dominant control then you seeresponsiveness to any groupthe public decline and in fact that’sexactly what happened when theRepublicans increased their control ofCongress so if you compare thepreference policy Association in thefirst two years of Bush’s first termwith the first two years of Bush’ssecond term right when Republicans forthe first time in half a century hadunified control of the nationalgovernment and strong majorities fairlystrong majorities in Congress not likethe 1960s but but relative to recentyears then what you saw is that theresponsiveness to the public plummetednow I should mention if you areconcerned that 9/11 and the war onterror and the wars in Afghanistan andIraq are responsible for theserelationships I was concerned about thattoo I redid these analyses afterexcluding all the policy questionshaving to do with defense and terrorismand in the wars and so on and when yousee the same pattern so that is some ofwhat was popular about the early yearsof Bush’s first term was things like thewar on terror and some of what was lesspopular in Bush’s later years but thepatterns remain the same even if we’reonly looking at domestic policy andexcluding things like on terror okay soso the point here is that politicalconditions right make a difference andthat’s one of the perhaps few sort ofhopeful findings from what for peopleconcerned about sort of normativedemocratic concerns is in general andnot particularly hopeful or optimistic aresearch project but but control ofgovernment does matter and that meansparties can be constrained to pursuepolicies that are more consistent withwhat the public wants under the rightcircumstances so there’s there’s a rayof hope there you might expect if thereif that political circumstances to saythe tenuous nature of government controlmakes a difference well so might someother ..