- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Social Justice Warriors Are the Democrats’ Electoral Poison

A young woman, well known to the New York City-based chattering class, has finally let loose with what she really thinks. “The white race is the cancer of human history,” she says, “it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.”

Has this author discovered some new tweet from Sarah Jeong [1], the now-notorious new hire at the New York Times? Nope. The quote above [2] dates back to 1967. It’s from Susan Sontag, the chic literary critic. Her words were mostly in response to the Vietnam War, but as we can see, her critique extended far further. We might also add that Sontag later said she regretted her quote [3]—because it was insensitive to cancer victims.

In other words, we’ve been down this road before. White people are bad, Western culture is bad, America is bad, etc. Indeed, Sarah Jeong has plenty of coevals. The June 8 op-ed page of the Washington Post was graced with the headline, “Why can’t we hate men?” [4] And on June 19, The Rootfounded by the owner of the Washington Post, now owned by Univisionheadlined a piece, “White People Are Cowards.” [5] And on July 23, the New Yorker offered this one: “A Sociologist Examines the ‘White Fragility’ That Prevents White Americans from Confronting Racism.” [6]

As we can see, plenty of writers today are vying to be the new Susan Sontag.


Yet here’s the thing: success in the media is not the same as success in politics. That is, what’s beloved by the chatterers is often, shall we say, not loved by the voters.

To illustrate this point, we might return to Sontag’s time, the late 1960s. In 1968, the year after her “cancer” declaration, the Democrats, having held the White House for two terms, lost to Richard Nixon. Moreover, the end of the ’60s brought a distinct shift in the zeitgeist. Yes, the cultural revolution revolted on at some universities and other elite areas, yet for the most part, the country moved to the right.

For example, the most notable song of 1968 was the Beatles’ “Revolution,” the lyrics [7] of which were, in fact, distinctly counterrevolutionary. And the most pointed tune of 1969, Merle Haggard’s “Okie From Muskogee,” was downright reactionary [8].

To be sure, the left was still plenty strong. On November 15, 1969, an anti-Vietnam War protest in Washington, D.C., drew 500,000 people [9]. And speaking of protests, albeit of a particular kind, in 1969 and 1970, there were 370 bombings [10] in New York City alone. Over the next two years, at least 2,500 bombs [11] blew up across the country, including at the U.S. Capitol.


Meanwhile, Hollywood went into overdrive, pushing anti-Vietnam parables such as M*A*S*HCatch 22, and Little Big Man. Thrown on the defensive by the pop culture, Republicans pointed out that they had inherited the Vietnam War from the Democrats, yet by now, the leftist critique of America had grown to Sontag-ian dimensions. For instance, the 1970 film, Joe, about a bigoted blue-collar father—it starred a young Susan Sarandon—depicted its main character as hateful to the point of murder.

Yet as always, electoral politics, as opposed to cultural posturing, was about numbers—who had the majority? And this is where the leftists had a problem: they had the venom but not the voters.

Thus the 1970 midterm elections were substantially waged over cultural issues, specifically the New Left versus what Nixon had dubbed the “Silent Majority,” believers in “law and order.” In the meantime, the critics and crazies flailed, calling Nixon virtually every name in the book, including “fascist” and “Nazi.”

Yet even so, observers were startled when Nixon chose to hit back, at least partially. In May 1970, the 37th president derided campus radicals as “bums, you know, blowing up the campuses.” By the standards of today, such rhetoric might seem mild, but at the time, it caused a sensation.

Meanwhile, Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, went further, ripping into opponents, especially in the media, as “effete snobs” and “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

Perhaps as a result, the 1970 midterm election results [12] were a mild success for the Nixon-Agnew forces: the Republicans won a net of two Senate seats—or three, if you count James Buckley, brother of Bill, who was elected by the New York State Conservative Party. Yes, they also lost a dozen House seats and a number of governorships, but that bad news was somewhat mitigated by the comfortable re-election of a rising star in California, Ronald Reagan.

Yet even if the left couldn’t thwart Nixon at the ballot box, it sought, in its fashion, to beat him on TV. In 1971, CBS premiered All in the Family, a sitcom featuring Archie Bunker, a bigoted man from Queens, New York. The program clearly owed a debt to the film Joe, even if the actor Carroll O’Connor played Archie with a whimsical twinkle. (And yes, in the years since, many observers—including Rob Reiner, a member of the show’s cast— have compared Archie Bunker to that other son of Queens, Donald Trump [13].)

Nonetheless, Archie became the hero of the show. Audiences across Middle America surely understood that he was supposed to be the heavy, and yet the folks in Muskogee and Peoria decided that they loved him anyway. To use some of today’s parlance, Middle Americans opted to “own” Archie, warts and all. The show was first [14] in the Nielsen ratings for five seasons at a time when, we might note, that meant a third of all the TVs in America were tuned in (by contrast, today a show can be first in the nation with just a fifth [15] of All in the Family’s ratings).

So as we can see, the left’s culture-war strategy against the right had its weaknesses, even boomerangs. In the meantime, of course, even in those pre-Rush Limbaugh, pre-Fox News days, there was at least some counter to the counterculture. Two notable works from the early ’70s were Arnold Beichman’s vigorous defense of this country, its institutions, and its people, Nine Lies About America, and Edith Efron’s scathing attack on the media, The News Twisters. In the meantime, ordinary people, not necessarily book readers, went with their gut: if the unpopular bicoastal elites hated Nixon so much, then he must be doing something right.

Thus we come to the 1972 presidential election. Nixon was not particularly popular, and yet it was his great good fortune that the Democrats, hopped up on their own culture—plus, perhaps, various substances—chose to shun their moderate candidates, instead choosing a lefty, George McGovern. And McGovern was further weighed down by the baggage of those even further to the left, including those who gloried in a Sontag Sensibility.

Not surprisingly, McGovern was disastrously defeated, losing 49 states.

We can stop this little historical tour here. Suffice it to say that never since have the Democrats run a candidate as far to the left as McGovern.

Well, actually, maybe we should say that they haven’t so far. As we have seen, the left’s cultural drift even further leftwards—to the point of outright antagonism towards America—is likely to put off many voters, even those who might not be fans of Trump. In other words, Social Justice Warriors might predominate in Berkeley and Burlington, but they play poorly in Pontiac and Provo.

So what will happen to the Democrats in 2020? Will they succumb, once again, to the siren song of McGovernism, with its notes of Sontagism, and, to apply today’s terminology, Jeong-ism?

No plausible Democratic presidential candidate is openly hostile to the majority of the people in this country. Yet it remains to be seen whether any of the hopefuls will actively denounce Jeong’s words, thereby inoculating themselves against PC poison.

We might recall that such denouncing was the effective strategy of Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992. In May of that year, Clinton responded to the incendiary comments of rapper Sister Souljah who said, “Why not have a week and kill white people?” by doing exactly what a normal American would want him to do and condemning her. Of course, Clinton was clever about it: he compared her to David Duke, the Klansman, thus triangulating himself in the sensible middle, equidistant from both noxious figures.

Yet his calculation notwithstanding, Clinton obviously did the right thing. In that moment—what’s remembered as his Sister Souljah moment—he established himself as a gutsy centrist, unafraid to take on extremism wherever he found it. He took heat from the left at the time, and yet, of course, in November the voters rewarded him and he won the White House in a landslide.

Can the Democrats repeat Clinton’s feat today? Can they free themselves from their coalition’s most politically toxic elements?

It’s entirely possible that the 2020 presidential election will hinge on the answer to those questions.

James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at TAC. He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

50 Comments (Open | Close)

50 Comments To "Social Justice Warriors Are the Democrats’ Electoral Poison"

#1 Comment By John On August 7, 2018 @ 10:15 pm

I am as liberal as they come, but that chick has “issues”. Funny that as a media type she thinks that words don’t matter. Funny that as tech type she does’t realize that the Twitter stays around forever.

#2 Comment By KS On August 7, 2018 @ 10:38 pm

Yup, just about spot on re 2020.

#3 Comment By Sophistry On August 7, 2018 @ 11:33 pm


How do I know? Because hardly anyone in my circles has said anything about it.

The only people who care are the people who keep up closely with politics and elite institutions.

Do you know what people really get mad about? The NFL kneeling for the flag.

No one cares here.

#4 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On August 7, 2018 @ 11:46 pm

I stopped readfing when you compared McGovern to “fill in the blank” – and compared 1969 to 2018. And when you suggested Catch 22 was “anti-Vietnam” (IT WAS ANTI-WAR). state your case in English, as opposed to False Equivalencies. you’ll do better.

#5 Comment By Fayez Abedaziz On August 8, 2018 @ 12:58 am

What the hell!
Hating and constantly spewing garbage against white people?
Why is that?
Are these people insane?
Allow me to posit a line that I think I made up: the functioning insane.
How ’bout that?
This is me talking and I’m gonna tell you what I think.
Submitted for your approval: (thanks to Rod Serling for that) I was there in 1968 and I saw and read and said…why, yes, equal jobs, work, housing for all in America. Nice and simple ‘y’all.
So,now what seems to be accepted?
Numbers of people in all matters of media, movies, articles, some ‘music’ are saying and even being encouraged to denigrate and say obscene things about white people.
That is not what we had in mind or foresaw as we, others and yours truly, considering ourselves as liberals, happening in the future.
So, why is this person, Jeong working for and with white people? For good money, too.
I walk around and people assume that I am white. Which is true.
If there are white people…well, there are…
that accept anti-white remarks, well…if they wanna hate themselves, okay, just let them keep that to themselves.
I don’t encourage hate talk against any religion or nationality, (I am of Palestinian, Moslem heritage) and I don’t wanna hear any put downs of whites. Okay? Okay
this is dear Fayez by the way
can you dig what I say
Thanks and have a good day

#6 Comment By dragnet On August 8, 2018 @ 4:12 am

This article pretends as if massive demographic changes has not taken place since Clinton felt the need to burnish his centrist credentials.

#7 Comment By S On August 8, 2018 @ 4:20 am

In the US the facade of culture wars is used to divert people’s attention from the fact that there is very little difference in terms of policy. Vote Democrat or Republican, you get neocon.

#8 Comment By JeffK On August 8, 2018 @ 6:32 am

Each party has it’s extremists. I propose that Trump is the progressive’s antidote to Sarah Jeong. As evidenced by The Republicans doing horribly Nov 7.

Regarding name recognition, who is better known by the general voting population, Trump or Jeong?

That being said, I think everybody understands that extremely progressive candidates don’t do well in red states. Surprise surprise.

#9 Comment By blase_faire On August 8, 2018 @ 6:48 am

1) The equivalency between Susan Sontag and Sarah Jeong, not only in their actual words but in the times they live in, is tenuous at best.

2) You’re making an argument by anecdote and not a very good one at that. George McGovern was a disastrous candidate, not one intentionally chosen by the left because they wanted a radical, but as a replacement for actual establishment favorite Ed Muskie. You’ll recall that Muskie was taken down by a forged letter that Nixon leaked to the press. Nixon’s famous ‘dirty tricks’ got him the candidate he actually wanted to run against, George McGovern, not a foolishly radical democratic party.

If you really want to make an argument about the limits of left extremism, you should stop stacking the deck with a few sympathetic data points and instead get a larger scope. Yes, the late 60’s early 70’s were a time of radicalism on the left. But the story of the US political system is largely one of swinging from one side to the other, a feature not insignificant in considering the predictive power of our history.

3) ‘No plausible Democratic presidential candidate is openly hostile to the majority of the people in this country. Yet it remains to be seen whether any of the hopefuls will actively denounce Jeong’s words, thereby inoculating themselves against PC poison.’

The current president refused to directly disassociate himself from white supremacists after the murder of a counter-protester a rally featuring neo nazis. That seems worse than not distancing yourself from people make off-hand statements satirical statements about white men, even though they are offensive to some.

Also, you didn’t bother to quote anything she has actually said and instead gathered a bunch of random inflammatory stuff about white people/men in order to straw man her.

#10 Comment By William Burns On August 8, 2018 @ 9:24 am

Who could forget Hubert Humphrey’s failure to denounce Susan Sontag?

#11 Comment By MikeS On August 8, 2018 @ 9:27 am

This article is not convincing. You cannot compare today to two generations ago. As Dragnet says, enormous cultural and demographic shifts have occurred since then. We live in a day where the website of every Fortune 500 company and major university has a ‘diversity and inclusion’ tab which explains how woke they are. Anti-white antipathy and bias are baked into today’s cultural cake. Jeong is actually closer to the mainstream than people think (at least, the mainstream of the cultural Left which is a substantial percentage of the population).

#12 Comment By Phillip On August 8, 2018 @ 9:30 am

If white man is a cancer, how would you describe the black man in Africa who has been committing tribal genocide for as long as the white man wasn’t there to prevent it?

How about the Islamic or Arab man who bombs his own people with chemical weapons as a convenience when no white man steps in to stop it?

I mean, should I go on?

#13 Comment By kgasmart On August 8, 2018 @ 9:41 am

blase_faire – give us a break.

Jeong’s anti-white tweets weren’t “anything she has actually said?” She “actually said” quite a few inflammatory things, and if Trump is crafty – which, whatever we may say of him, he is – we will see those tweets again, perhaps as the autumn election approaches.

Indeed, a commercial ought to run in every tossup district featuring those tweets, and demanding the Democratic candidate either defend them or repudiate them.

“This is what Sarah Jeong thinks. This is what the New York Times thinks. Is this what (insert candidate’s name here) thinks?”

#14 Comment By Fred Hastings On August 8, 2018 @ 9:44 am

“In other words, we’ve been down this road before. White people are bad, Western culture is bad, America is bad, etc. Indeed, Sarah Jeong has plenty of coevals.”

Indeed. Robert Frost saw all this coming in 1947:

A Case for Jefferson

Harrison loves my country too,
But wants it made all over new.
He’s Freudian Viennese by night.
By day he’s Marxian Muscovite.
It isn’t because he’s Russian Jew.
He’s Puritan Yankee through and through.
He dotes on Saturday pork and beans.
But his mind is hardly out of his teens:
With him the love of country means
Blowing it all to smithereens
And having it all made over new.

#15 Comment By TG On August 8, 2018 @ 10:23 am

Well, OK then. My question is: so what?

What do ‘liberal’ Democrats believe in?
– Spending trillions of dollars on pointless overseas wars and starving our own country of investment (anyone who says different is “literally Hitler”)
– Spending trillions of dollars subsidizing Wall Street and starving Main Street of capital (and anyone criticizing Obama is a racist. And “literally Hitler”)
– Crushing a generation under odious unplayable student debt, making it impossible for people to get out from under this via bankruptcy, and heavily subsidizing the bank profits.
– Defending a grossly inefficient health care system that costs twice what other industrial countries spend, even as we drive more and more people into medical bankruptcy and our life expectancy is starting to decline (notice how the Democrats prattle about single payer, but when in power, hey, all hands on deck defending the status quo).
– Using an excessively high rate of immigration to crush wages down and boost profits up (Bernie Sanders started to object to this, but hey that made him literally Hitler, and he quickly recanted).
– The most important thing in the entire world is letting transgender whatever use the women’s room.

So my question is: who really cares what sort of propaganda the Democrats do or do not use? And with most Republicans really standing for the same thing, who cares if they win or lose?

#16 Comment By grin without a cat On August 8, 2018 @ 11:12 am

Suffice it to say that never since have the Democrats run a candidate as far to the left as McGovern.

On economic issues, maybe. McGovern was perhaps the most pro-labor candidate ever nominated by either party, but he didn’t receive the customary endorsement of the AFL-CIO.

But on social issues, the Democratic party — and the country, by the way — has moved far to the left of where Mr. McGovern was in 1972. McGovern thought the abortion law of NY State, allowing abortion up to 24 weeks, was too lenient. Today’s pro-choice activists, and Dem pols such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, think it should be permitted during the whole pregnancy. McGovern caught heat for proposing that the Federal law for simple marijuana possession should be reduced to a misdemeanor, which it now is with very little call for it to be increased. President Trump has said the Feds should not prosecute where marijuana is legal under state law, and I expect the 2020 Dem nominee will support federal legalization. In 1972, the idea of gay marriage was restricted to the loony left. A group of activists were pushing a gay rights plank, but McGovern rejected it.

#17 Comment By JonF On August 8, 2018 @ 11:49 am

Sarah Jeong is not exactly a household name (unlike, say, Jane Fonda back in Nixon’s heyday– she was quite well known). It’s a pretty good bet that the only people who know anything about her are political junkies like many of us here, people whose mind is already made up on these matters.

#18 Comment By b. On August 8, 2018 @ 11:50 am

Pinkerton is grievance peddling and scalp-hunting again?

Larison has his priorities straight. That cannot be said for quite a few of the TAC regulars, unfortunately.

At least have the stones to agitate against a tool like Friedman, or an elitist like Brooks, or if that’s still a courage too far, a hypocrit like Krugman.

#19 Comment By Willmot Decker On August 8, 2018 @ 12:02 pm

blase_faire – typical progressive misrepresentation. Trump didn’t directly dissociate himself from the alt-right. In your mind only. The BLM/Antifa behavior was equally reprehensible and finally we had a politician who wasn’t afraid to say it.

#20 Comment By EarlyBird On August 8, 2018 @ 12:18 pm

This is exactly the historic analysis the Democrats need at this moment.

In terms of economic policy, however, the Dems should be going left. Not full Ocasio-Cortez left, but talking about Medicare for all, higher taxes on the super-rich, even demanding that $1 trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill Trump promised (where’d that go?). Simply put: they need to be talking about economic fairness. And campaign finance reform.

The secret of the 2016 election is that the spell of Reaganomics has been broken. Trump ran against this GOP orthodoxy, and rank and file Republicans ate it up. The other umpteen candidates were droning on, as always, like automatons, about how reducing taxes on the wealthy and ending regulations “lifts all boats,” but Republican voters weren’t buying it.

That is huge. Republicans are ready for some government help to not go bankrupt in old age due to medical bills, and so on.

It’s likely, however, that the gutless, stupid, Clintonized DNC will offer either another tepid Hillary-style One Percenter whose economic policy consists of tiny tweaks to the status quo, who tries to energize the base by mimicking the most toxic parts of the social justice rhetoric and telling us how dreadful Trump is.

One thing we can be sure: the hard left Jeong social justice hate is the Achilles’ heel of the Democrats.

#21 Comment By AB From Long Island On August 8, 2018 @ 12:23 pm

Yes, “dragnet” is correct. There’s no comparison between the early 1970s and today. Forty-odd years ago, America was still white. Anti-white demogogery had severe limits. This is not the case today. Lefties see white America going down for the count and they are moving in for the kill.

#22 Comment By EarlyBird On August 8, 2018 @ 12:24 pm

But here’s the thing MikeS: yes, Americans are far, far more interested in inclusion and diversity. We’ve come so very far on issues of race, sex and gender since 50 years ago. That’s really good news.

But you’ll never hear that good news celebrated by the left. It’s always Jim Crow on race, the ’50s on gays and women. The thoughts underlying Jeong’s Tweets and the rest of the social justice warriors are utterly toxic. They demand that we see nothing but groups and power differentials.

THAT is what is being rejected by most Americans (including most left-of-center people), not diversity and inclusion.

#23 Comment By John On August 8, 2018 @ 12:33 pm

I know who Sarah Jeong is because of this website. I would not otherwise.

I know who Donald Trump is because of literally every other article I read, online or offline. I would imagine most other people are where I am.

I would think the latter will have more of an impact on the outcome in 2020 (or this fall) than the former.

#24 Comment By M. Orban On August 8, 2018 @ 12:42 pm

But isn’t it true that the only people who know who Sarah Jeong is are right wing activists and they are going to vote Republican and for Trump?
Isn’t the very purpose of this article (and that of Dreher’s) simply distraction?

#25 Comment By polistra On August 8, 2018 @ 1:11 pm

Don’t count on it. In 1972 there were still one or two actual humans working in TV and newspapers. Now everyone who is paid to write or talk serves the Clinton Mob 100% of the time. Zero exceptions.

#26 Comment By LM On August 8, 2018 @ 2:06 pm

Democrats and leftists are hypocrites. They speak of hate, intolerance, injustice, racism, prejudice, bigotry, etc. They should look in the mirror. The whole leftist ideology is appallingly anti-American and filled with the animus they say that they oppose.

#27 Comment By mogden On August 8, 2018 @ 2:10 pm

I’d like to believe this is true, but I’m not optimistic.

#28 Comment By Tono Bungary On August 8, 2018 @ 3:00 pm

I’m a white man who is continually appalled by the manner in which the N.Y. Times (like many other prominent publications) targets white people with blame and insult. I am delighted by the Jeong affair because it shows just how far gone this otherwise exceptional paper is. BUT without recalling the context of Sontag’s remarks, there is a way in which I think her use of “cancer” could be appropriate. The dynamism of European man has spread to all corners of the globe, and today we face problems of overpopulation and climate change that could prove catastrophic for the human species. If we manage to avoid the worst, everyone can go on crediting Europeans for their inventions, etc., which almost no one on Earth today is willing to live without. But if we don’t avoid the worst, then perhaps “cancer” will be as good a metaphor as any.

#29 Comment By TheScientist889 On August 8, 2018 @ 3:18 pm

So Democrats should be have to repudiate some person who has been elected to no office, yet republicans are totally fine with a PRESIDENT who claims there are good white supremacists? Do they really think people are buying this stuff? This isn’t 1960 anymore, or even 1970. The vast majority of the population wasn’t even alive in 1972 at this point. Speaking about the politics of those days as if they hold some kind of predictive power today is laughable. The Republicans have only won the popular vote 1 time since HW in 1988 so it isn’t like they speak for the majority of people in America.

#30 Comment By Ken On August 8, 2018 @ 3:55 pm

Neoliberalism at home has been a disaster for most people. Neoconservativism as a foreign policy has been a disaster for the world. This article entirely ignores the crisis facing this country in order to make some strained point about cultural issues.

#31 Comment By Rictus On August 8, 2018 @ 4:35 pm

Jeong, a privileged graduate of Harvard Law School and in no way an oppressed minority, in her stream of verbal diarrhea, shows why she should not land an NYT job. What editor in their right mind could accept any objectivity from someone so incapable of rising above juvenalia?

#32 Comment By EarlyBird On August 8, 2018 @ 5:17 pm

By the way, while it may be that few people knew about the wretched Sarah Jeong before she was hired by the New York Times, I predict she is going to be seen as the point Social Justice Warriors jumped the shark.

Perhaps even worse than her hate-filled, racist Tweets is the excuse-making the NYT and others have made for her.

You see, those white people who are offended by her not only illustrate that they really are the very root of all bigoted evil in the world (because they are white – duh), but are too unsophisticated to understand the “context” in which that foul little cretin expressed herself.

#33 Comment By Danvetc On August 8, 2018 @ 6:44 pm

George McGovern was a war hero and an honest man. He should be remembered for who he was and what he stood for more honestly. It is profoundly unfair to a man of his integrity.

#34 Comment By Tom On August 8, 2018 @ 7:10 pm

As several commentators have noted above, it’s tenuous at best to compare the politics and issues of 46 years ago to today.

I also confess to a pet peeve whenever someone holds up George McGovern for seeming ridicule, if even indirectly.
George McGovern was a decent honorable man who volunteered for duty in WWII. He was a B-24 pilot who flew 35 missions and was awarded a DFC.

Compare him and those of his time (of both parties) to many of today’s politicians who’ve never felt the heat, but are content to send others into conflict.

#35 Comment By Mark Krvavica On August 8, 2018 @ 7:56 pm

This Independent has only contempt for the Social Justice Warriors of the U.S. Left, but the enemy of my enemy will not be my friend in 2020. The only credible alternative left is a Independent candidate for U.S. President in ’20 and I hope he or she (not McMullin) will be on that year’s California ballot.

#36 Comment By MM On August 8, 2018 @ 10:16 pm

Sci-889: “Yet republicans are totally fine with a PRESIDENT who claims there are good white supremacists?”

I won’t defend Trump, but…

U.S. Senator Obama, just a couple of years before being elected President, seemed fine with black supremacists, so much so that he smiled for a picture with a very prominent one from Chicago:


So tell me, do you believe there are good black supremacists, sir?

I’ll take any equivocation, or no response at all, as a “yes” in your opinion.

#37 Comment By A DC Wonk On August 8, 2018 @ 10:53 pm

We’ve come so very far on issues of race, sex and gender since 50 years ago. That’s really good news.

But you’ll never hear that good news celebrated by the left. It’s always Jim Crow on race, the ’50s on gays and women.

Because every time we think about the former, something happens to burst the bubble.

I live in a DC suburb, the affluent Fairfax County. Just this morning I read a story in WaPo: the county hired a new black fire-chief (with an incredible resume, and some experience). He doesn’t start until next month — no matter, he’s getting hammered by racist comments on the Web. ( [17])

So, yeah, we’ve made great progress since the 50’s. But that doesn’t mean we still don’t have significant problems in race relations.

BTW, google “emmett till memorial” and read the gazillion stories about a memorial sign getting continually vandalized and shot at.

#38 Comment By jasmin On August 9, 2018 @ 5:29 am

It drives me mad when people talk about the anti-war movement of the sixties. It was not an anti-war movement at all; it was an anti-draft movement. After the draft was stopped these cowards took a haircut, took a shave, and even a bath and migrated to Wall Street, to daddy’s business, and into the neoconservative movement. All the current chicken hawks like Bolton and the like ran for the high grass when their time to serve came. The sixties saw the most selfish generation. They were the ones who wanted to dress like poor people which just drove up the prices in the Army surplus stores where the poor would shop. So the cost of clothing for the poor went up in order to satisfy the rich brats that wanted to dress up like poor people.

#39 Comment By Chris Ray On August 9, 2018 @ 11:36 am

In the meantime, “ordinary people, not necessarily book readers, went with their gut: if the unpopular bicoastal elites hated Nixon so much, then he must be doing something right.”


#40 Comment By Allen On August 9, 2018 @ 12:32 pm

In November, not only will there be no blue wave, the Republicans will gain 9 Senate seats and hold the House. Trump will appoint not one, not two, but three Supreme Court justices before 2020. And Trump will be reelected.

prediction from Charles Shamp, the Elijah List, June 7 2018

Be interesting to watch.

#41 Comment By JeffK On August 9, 2018 @ 3:48 pm

@TG says:
August 8, 2018 at 10:23 am

Project much? What you claim to be Democratic policies and points of view are clearly Republican policies and points of view.

Democrats have positions to address all of the points you mentioned.

Or am I missing something?

#42 Comment By Mr. Morningstar On August 9, 2018 @ 6:17 pm

Sarah Jeong is a reporter most people have never heard of. She is neither the official nor de facto head of the Democratic party. Donald Trump is President of the United States of America. He is the de facto leader of the Republican party. The idea Democrats must publicly repudiate her opinions to maintain the moral high ground while Republicans need not address the ravings of the man they selected to represent themselves is risible.

#43 Comment By VikingLS On August 9, 2018 @ 7:21 pm

I wonder if some of the “nobody knows who Jeong is” comments are coming from people who either aren’t on social media, or have carefully weeded out anyone left of center from their feeds.

#44 Comment By Robert Koelle On August 9, 2018 @ 7:45 pm

Never heard of Sarah Jeong until this article, knew next to nothing about Susan Sontag, and now I suspect that this article was just your opportunity to vent about obscure outrages that were brought to your attention by…whom?

#45 Comment By MM On August 9, 2018 @ 7:53 pm

JeffK: “Democrats have positions to address all of the points you mentioned.”

Yes, they do: Make them all worse.

#46 Comment By fozzie On August 9, 2018 @ 9:40 pm

She’s a tech write that hates white men, the very people that made most of it.

#47 Comment By Thomas Hobbes On August 10, 2018 @ 12:54 pm

VikingLS says
I wonder if some of the “nobody knows who Jeong is” comments are coming from people who either aren’t on social media, or have carefully weeded out anyone left of center from their feeds.

I doubt that 90% of Americans could name a single tech writer off the top of their head. How many real followers did she have on twitter prior to this?

I certainly wouldn’t have recognized her name prior to this. I am not on twitter (it has nothing to offer me), I am on facebook where the majority of my “friends” are left of center. I do follow tech news to some degree, so presumably I may have read an article or two of hers at some point. As usual with this type of outrage, coverage is much more visible in right wing media and political news than main stream news.

#48 Comment By VikingLS On August 10, 2018 @ 4:26 pm

“I doubt that 90% of Americans could name a single tech writer off the top of their head. How many real followers did she have on twitter prior to this?”

@Thomas Hobbes

She’s famous NOW and not because of her tech writing but because of the story about her tweets which is being discussed both on left and right venues, not just the conservative media.

Most people in flyover country have politically diverse networks because even if you are a liberal here, you have conservative friends and family, and vice versa. So even if something is “only in the right wing media” it’s still going to be something you are likely to see from a friend or relative.

Did you really honestly believe I meant she was famous because she was a tech writer? Seriously?



#49 Comment By Thomas Hobbes On August 11, 2018 @ 2:48 pm

VikingLS says:
Did you really honestly believe I meant she was famous because she was a tech writer? Seriously?



No, I thought a good portion of the “nobody knows who Jeong is” comments were talking about the fact that she was a nobody rather than an important political figure and thus her tweets won’t have any more serious impact on voting decisions than the other crazy tweeters with moderate amounts of corporate power.

I admit there was a long gap between when I read your comment and most of the other ones on this thread.

#50 Comment By Andrew P On August 14, 2018 @ 9:27 pm

I don’t know who the Dem nominee will be in 2020, but I can say one thing with confidence – their nominee will be Black. Having failed in 2016 with Mrs. Clinton, the Dems will fall back on the most recent working electoral model – a charismatic(?) Black candidate who can turn out the Obama Coalition. They have many contenders to choose from, and who knows how it all plays out in 2 years. But it is entirely possible that they nominate a real lefty or a radical.