DEPARTMENT OF BAD TIMING: Jonathan Chait’s Post-Election Obama Book Do-Over


David Harsanyi: The Left’s Ugly Israel Freakout


You know who else came to power by winning an election?

 writes: After years of ginned-up conflict, Barack Obama has finally found a pretext to change the contours of the United States-Israel alliance. Israel’s policies might not be changing, but the administration will “reevaluate” the relationship, anyway.

POLITICO reports that Obama may, among other things, stop shielding Israel from international pressure at the United Nations. So Americans can look forward to joining Sudan or Yemen—feel free to pick any autocratic dump, really—in condemning Jews for living in their historic homeland and relying on democratic institutions rather than a consensus at the United Nation to decide their fate.

“Obama, with no more elections to run, will now use these threats to pressure Israel into compliance on an Iran deal that looks more dangerous every day. That’s not surprising.”

So our morally chaotic foreign policy is coming to a predictable climax. At least on this issue. Obama, with no more elections to run, will now use these threats to pressure Israel into compliance on an Iran deal that looks more dangerous every day. That’s not surprising. What is, though, is how self-proclaimed Zionists have co-opted some of the most absurd justifications for throwing Israel to the wolves.

“What is, though, is how self-proclaimed Zionists have co-opted some of the most absurd justifications for throwing Israel to the wolves.”

These rationalizations come in familiar flavors. There’s the tough-love crowd. The notion here is that Democrats are the ones who truly have Israel’s “long-term” interests at heart. And because of a deep and abiding love for the Jewish State, Democrats are obliged to support policies that will set Israel straight. Without the stern guidance of lefty columnists, how can we expect one of the most technologically advanced market economies in the world to remain a vibrant democracy?

Others argue, and have been arguing for a long time, that the United States has a moral responsibility to distance itself from Israel right now, because the two nations no longer share ideals about freedom and liberalism.

Read the rest of this entry »

‘Caesarism Justified by Consequentialism’

Caesar Obama

Ross Douthat writes…


 [Read the full text here, at]

Sean Davis: Language Policing Doesn’t Pervert Liberalism, It Is Liberalism


Modern liberalism depends on the language police, and Jonathan Chait himself is Exhibit A.

 writes: In a widely praised piece for New York Magazine, liberal writer Jonathan Chait says the leftist language police are perverting liberalism. Chait is wrong. The politically correct language police don’t pervert modern liberalism; they embody it. And amateur leftist thought cop Jonathan Chait himself is proof.

“Speech codes are a widely used tool taken right out of the fascist toolbox. If they can’t control how you act, then they’ll control how you speak. If they can’t control how you speak, then they’ll control how you think.”

In his piece, Chait catalogued numerous discussions within a large Facebook group called “Binders Full of Women Writers” to show the toxic effect that language and thought crime policing can have on basic political discourse.


“Jonathan Chait’s recent critique of political correctness insists that the phenomenon has undergone a resurgence. It hasn’t; contrary to Chait’s characterization, it never went away. The difference is that it is now being used as a cudgel against white liberals such as Jonathan Chait, who had previously enjoyed a measure of immunity.”

[More – Kevin D. Williamson’s Liberals Seek PC Exemption at NRO]

“Chait is hardly in a position to complain about that, given his own heavy reliance on that mode of discourse. Chait isn’t arguing for taking an argument on its own merits; he’s arguing for a liberals’ exemption to the Left’s general hostility toward any unwelcome idea that comes from a speaker who checks any unapproved demographic boxes…”

— Kevin D. Williamson

At times, members of the overwhelmingly liberal group would demand that certain sentiments not be shared. Sometimes, members declared that certain people weren’t even allowed to have opinions on a subject on account of their color, gender, or sexual orientation. Here’s a small selection from Chait’s piece:


On July 10, for instance, one member in Los Angeles started a conversation urging all participants to practice higher levels of racial awareness. “Without calling anyone out specifically, I’m going to note that if you’re discussing a contentious thread, and shooting the breeze … take a look at the faces in the user icons in that discussion,” she wrote. “Binders is pretty diverse, but if you’re not seeing many WOC/non-binary POC in your discussion, it’s quite possible that there are problematic assumptions being stated without being challenged.” (“POC” stands for “people of color.” “WOC” means “women of color.” “Non-binary” describes people who are either transgender or identify as a gender other than traditionally male or female.)

Two members responded lightly, one suggesting that such “call-outs” be addressed in private conversation and another joking that she was a “gluten free Jewish WWC” — or Woman Without Color. Read the rest of this entry »

The New Republic Suicide Note

Charles C. W. Cooke reports:

This morning, pretty much the entire editorial staff of the New Republic resigned, in protest at the direction in which the magazine was being taken. Courtesy of Ryan Lizza, here the list of those who have left:

It would have been easier to say who is still there.

In the immediate term, the exodus was sparked by the firing of editor, Franklin Foer, which, per the Daily Beast, was not done kindly:

According to informed sources, Hughes and Vidra didn’t bother to inform Foer that he was out of a job. Instead, the editor was placed in the humiliating position of having to phone Hughes to get confirmation after posted an item at 2:35 p.m. reporting the rumor that Bloomberg Media editor Gabriel Snyder, himself a onetime Gawker editor, had been hired as Foer’s replacement. Yes, it’s true, Hughes sheepishly admitted, notwithstanding that he and Vidra had given Foer repeated assurances that his job was safe.  (Hughes and Vidra didn’t respond to voicemail messages seeking comment.)

Still, as has been made clear by a number of media-watchers, the rot is much, much deeper than that. Contrary the reports of some outlets, this does not seem to have been a battle between modernizers and traditionalists, but rather a fight to the death between those who wished to work for a storied magazine and those who wished to be led by a myopic bunch of clowns who are incapable of speaking in anything other than moronic platitudes….(read more)

The Corner

National Review Online


Liberal Mansplaining and Double Standards: The Reckless Misandry of Jonathan Chait


“Fashion tends to attract girls suffering from estrogen poisoning.”

Imagine a magazine article about soccer, golf, cosmetics, art, literature, tennis, finance, or…well, let’s say fashion, that included a phrase suggesting women’s interest in it was related to “estrogen poisoning”.


Unthinkable. Ghastly. Unforgivable. There would be an immediate call for its author to be fired. An immediate, prolonged Twitter riot, a festival of shaming. The author’s name and home address would be leaked, the author would get death threats. Demonstrations in front of the magazine’s offices would begin. Calls by celebrities, business leaders, fashion editors, newsmakers, politicians, and perhaps even the president of the united states, for the publisher of the magazine to step down, publicly apologize, or both. Advertisers would flee. It would be the hot topic on news programs and talk shows for days, and days.

But write an article that includes a phrase like that in a New York magazine, in reference to boys, about sports? No problem. Here’s the actual quote:

@Glowimages 42-16987678.

“Football tends to attract boys suffering from testosterone poisoning.”

I kid you not. I looked for evidence he was being ironic, self-aware, or humorous. Not there. Dude is serious. As most of us have heard it, when said by women, it’s tongue-in-cheek, a shot at male obsessions, like cars, or cigars, or boats, not exclusively about sports. Or, in an unguarded situation, when no men are in the room, I imagine, more at liberty to be frank, hostile and demeaning. Free to refer to the normal condition of being male as “poisoned”.

Since when do men say this? About boys?

Perhaps after years of exposure to it, Chait internalized the phrase, detached from any resemblance to humor or playful overstatement. Is this how liberals talk to other liberals? With a straight face?

Courtesy of Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine readers can endure a lecture by an insulting, sanctimonious, sexist, long-winded liberal, aimed at other misguided liberals, about sports. He thinks you don’t understand football. And he’s here to mansplain’ things.


Wait, there’s more. Imagine, if you will, a sentence like this in a respected New York magazine:

“Interior design channels girls’ misandristic hysteria into supervised forms, shapes them within boundaries, and gives them positive meaning. These virtues, like those often attributed to the fashion industry, can feel like clichés imported from an earlier era.”

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s Chait’s actual sentence:


“Football channels boys’ chauvinistic belligerence into supervised forms, shapes them within boundaries, and gives them positive meaning. These virtues, like those often attributed to the military, can feel like clichés imported from an earlier era.”

There are other choice quotes, but you can read the whole spectacle here. But readers should know, the author a male. He is uneasy. And he wants you to know it.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Glimpse into the Political Future: Jonathan Chait’s Advance Apologia for the Democrats’ Defeat in November

obama-kids-schoolFred Siegel writes:  Jonathan Chait has written a thoughtful, if debatable, 6,000-word article on race in the Obama years that has stirred a good deal of discussion. It can be read as an advance apologia for the Democrats’ defeat in the 2014 elections. Chait’s thesis, as he sums it up in an online surrebuttal, is that “American politics in the age of Obama has become balkanized not along racial lines, but by how people think about race.” In other words, Chait argues, “the Obama era has produced a cleavage along ideological rather than racial lines,” so that neither black conservatives who support the Tea Party nor the far more numerous white liberals who nod in agreement with Al Sharpton’s preachings on MSNBC are as anomalous as partisans assert. “Liberals,” Chait writes, “dwell in a world of paranoia of a white racism that has seeped out of American history in the Obama years and lurks everywhere, mostly undetectable.” Similarly, he goes on, “Conservatives dwell in a paranoia of their own, in which racism is used as a cudgel to delegitimize their core beliefs. And the horrible thing is that both of these forms of paranoia are right.”

“Parts of the public, not necessarily on the right, have caught on to Obama’s double game, in which his administration has been rhetorically egalitarian and operationally elitist.”

One can commend Chait for his evenhandedness—which has stirred a hornet’s nest of opposition from liberals—without accepting the equivalence he draws between these two views. But the real problem with his essay comes when he steps out of the realm of ideology and into the world of practical outcomes. Six years into the Obama presidency, Americans have ample grounds, independent of race, to dislike him.

[Check out Fred Siegel‘s book: The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class at Amazon]

Read the rest of this entry »

Break: New York Magazine Floats Individual Mandate Delay

When the GOP suggested President Obama delay the individual mandate for a year, the media brought out the pitch forks and torches while screaming, “Freak! Racist! Extremist! Arsonist! Anarchist!” But now that a reality is fast-approaching that could see people fined/taxed for not buying ObamaCare through websites that don’t work,  Jonathan Chait’s New York Magazineis joining the FreakyRacistExtremist brigade by suggesting a delay of the individual mandate:

Read the rest of this entry »

Republicans and Democrats are treating the 2012 election like a mandate. Are they both wrong?

A scene from the 1995 government shutdown. (Charles Tasnadi, File/Associated Press)

A scene from the 1995 government shutdown. (Charles Tasnadi, File/Associated Press)

Political scientist Gabriel Lenz‘s theory — or findings — make me wary. At first glance, I absolutely don’t agree. According to Lenz, it’s not the policy agenda, or ideology, or even political identity of the candidate that voters rally around. It’s the candidate and brand that motivates the voting choice, and loyalty. The voters accommodate the rest, after that, even if they don’t agree with the politics, or policy, they stick to first. True? I doubt it. (disclaimer, my oversimplification or even mischaracterization of Lenz’s work isn’t meant to mislead, my too-brief exposure to his idea leaves me under-qualified to really explain it)

Do voters switch party affiliation–switch brands–so casually? Not identifying with any set of values or approach to governing, simply following the brand and ‘leadership’ style they like better? Regardless of whether the candidate is Republican, Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative, really? Name one person–one voter–you know that fits this rudderless description. I can’t think of one.

Based on observation, the exact opposite appears to be true the overwhelming majority of the time. Excluding voters who identify as Independents (swing voters, of which there’s only a relatively narrow band) most voters will try to elect candidates they don’t even like that much, or identify with, in order to push back against the political party they hate–the opposing party. Or to rally behind the party they most identify with. Voters stubbornly identify with an ideology, a “policy position”, even when it’s irrational, contradictory, or self-defeating, and often vote the policy party line, out of sheer bull-headed habit. Voters don’t freely slide back and forth between being Conservative, or Liberal, depending on the candidates’ personal leadership style, temperament, character, or media image.

Or do they?

Amazon description of Lenz’s book:

In a democracy, we generally assume that voters know the policies they prefer and elect like-minded officials who are responsible for carrying them out. We also assume that voters consider candidates’ competence, honesty, and other performance-related traits. But does this actually happen? Do voters consider candidates’ policy positions when deciding for whom to vote? And how do politicians’ performances in office factor into the voting decision?

And goes on to suggest, policy doesn’t matter to voters. Not as much as we’ve been led to believe. Again, I’m not convinced. I’ll have to explore more of Lenz‘s argument, to see if it holds up. But if it does hold up, it could mean most of us are drastically misreading how voters think and respond. And most of the elected officials in Washington are reading them wrong, too. When Republican leaders, or Democrat leaders, claim to have a mandate, based on the outcome of a recent election, and use this perceived mandate like a weapon, believing it gives them added authority or legitimacy, they could be completely, utterly, suicidally, spectacularly wrong.

What do you think?

The Washington Post‘s John Sides posted an article exploring this, I’ll let him explain it better:

John Sides reports: The seemingly imminent government shutdown has brought out a familiar argument from both Democrats and Republicans: “The last election proves we’re right.” Democrats think Obama’s victory in 2012 settled issues like health-care reform.  Jonathan Chait sums up this view when describing congressional Republicans’ proposed conditions for raising the debt ceiling:

The fact that a major party could even propose anything like this is a display of astonishing contempt for democratic norms. Republicans ran on this plan and lost by 5 million votes.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans see the election differently.  Only a week after the election, Paul Ryan dismissed the idea of that Obama got any mandate, noting that Republicans were returned to the House as well.  More recently, former Sen. Jim DeMint took an even stronger view.  As Joshua Green describes it:

DeMint, Cruz, and all those trying to defund Obamacare drew precisely the opposite lesson from the last election than just about everyone else did. “Republicans were told, ‘Don’t do anything. Don’t be the issue. Don’t stand for anything. Make it about Obama,’ ” DeMint says. “What happened in 2012 was that there was a void of any inspiration, any attempt to lead. It certainly wasn’t because the party was too conservative—it was because there was no conservative leadership at all!”

Both sides are wrong.  Elections don’t convey policy mandates because most voters don’t vote on policy.  Instead, they vote based on longstanding loyalties to one party or the other.  As political scientist Gabriel Lenz shows, rather than using policy to choose a candidate, voters more often choose the candidate first, and then mold their policy views to fit those of the candidate they support.  Party comes before policy. Read the rest of this entry »