I was recently on the Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em podcast to talk about, among other things, this article from the Bulwark — and more specifically, the unflattering description of me contained therein.
For years I have followed the policy of not having an opinion on things I either don't understand or have no interest in. Economics? Sorry, that's a mystery to me. Who should be the next pope? Nope, not a Catholic so that's someone else's problem. And yet, as Ms Rosenfield notes, suddenly not having an opinion or, worse yet, not being sufficiently engaged means you are deficient if not downright evil. It's gotten to the point that if asked for my take on some public controversy I'm tempted to say "No habla ingles."
The world is full of extremists from both sides who are trying to pull independent thinkers to their side, perhaps for validation. In this respect, Coastal elites and progressives fall into the same category as MAGAs; judgmental and rigid in thought and so stuck on their position they can’t spot the enemy.
A painful and toxic position to be in, but your writing has always been a breath of fresh air. Hope you try not to let it affect you.
Love the crab metaphor. Never heard it put that way.
I notice that there are some Republicans who have gone full Resistance, and began to see this in Fall '24. I was okay with that, but they have repeated 2017 from making everything about Trump to this borderline misogynist attitude. Had to unfollow someone supportive after they called you names and attacked another friend of us.
Perhaps they try to redeem what they missed in the 2010s, or filling the space left by Democratic commentators, or just angry at people who have different priorities and being cool with that.
I quite enjoy your writing on culture, literature, the morass of the young adult publishing industry, and the rest, and have for years. I've never found any of it to be pro- or anti- anything really, which is fine. Writers don't always need to be on clearly defined "sides," and that kind of writing is usually facile and simplistic.
I have to say that I used to really like Cathy Young's writing. She was a sensible voice on sexual, cultural and other moral panics. She's become, in my opinion, unreadable and obnoxious. She pens and posts a constant stream of invective and insults to people that don't share her — or the Bulwark's — project, which is clearly nothing but extreme anti-Trumpism, anti-populism, presented without any complexity. She's often incredibly mean and nasty. I'm not a Trump person, but I find that entire project to be more damaging than helpful.
Someone recommended Young's debate with Scott Horton of the Antiwar/Libertarian Institute at some libertarian conference around the time the Ukraine war started. I'm no big fan of Horton, but he actually had citations, history and complexity on his side. He ran circles around Young — he embarrassed her. She apparently had no idea what she was talking about. She later wrote an article about "why she lost the debate," but chalked it up to Horton's "Putin talking points." Which is total nonsense, but even if that was case (it wasn't), why wasn't she able to respond to these talking points?
Her entire recent body of work (and endless nasty tweets) seem to exist to attempt to destroy other popular and/or influential writers who don't hew to the "superior," "informed" moralistic judgement of the Bill Kristol wing of Republicans in exile. It's not working.
Keep doing what you do. A lot of us enjoy it, and the nasty sniping only reinforces our reasons for reading it.
Completely. Cathy was always balanced and fun to read. She wrote really sensible points about Metoo, etc. Then, the war came, and everything went downhill.
Once someone has picked a team, that's when critical thinking flies out the window. They've relinquished their mental ballot to an omnipotent other and stopped working out opinions of their own. Why so many people are not just okay with that but actually brag about it...who knows? I guess I'll never stop being surprised by the urge that some people have to self-immolate.
I am happily uncommitted politically, and I plan to stay that way. To say any side has it 100% right or wrong is ridiculous to me. If folks want to sort me into one box or another and then get pissed over the thing that they just made up, that's their drama. Or psychosis.
You can also see that with Jesse. Instead of criticising Democrats for not learning from his pieces, he's now being attacked for a bunch of cretins for having written the reports on gender affirming medicine. In your case, it's even stupider. You write a piece criticising Trump and you're called pro-Trump. You write about Babygirl, and you're called a Conservative. It's more ridiculous coming from Bulwark, filled with hypocrites and fanatics (and I've a personal experience regarding this).
I do agree, but Ms. Rosenfield probably remembers that the anti-anti- trope was common some time ago during the Cold War to describe people (often liberal-wing Republicans) who opposed anti-Soviet efforts by their more conservative GOP brethren.
The Bulwark was once required listening until everyone involved got captured by the tribalism they decried in the beginning. By the time I cancelled my subscription I couldn't tell The Bulwark from MSNBC.
I am generally sympathetic to your point, so hope these quibbles will be received in the spirit of advancing the conversation.
Not that you were guilty of it, but I think "anti-anti-Trump" did describe a real phenomenon and was a useful term. (not that you are guilty of it, and I am using "you" in the rest of this paragraph symbolically). For someone with some sympathy for Trump's policy goals, or who is friendly with some Trumps supporters, but who finds Trump personally repulsive and vigorously opposes how he pursues those goals, criticizing how, say the press covers Trump is a bit of a safe harbor. You don't have to risk pissing off your friends, and you can support your preferred causes, if not the person who is bringing those about. So, rather than criticize Trump for deporting people to Salvadoran prisons, you look for something Biden did that was sort of similar, and note that the press didn't make a big deal about it. The "anti-anti-Trump" label is a check against this temptation.
Also, it is helpful to know who will have your back, and who will be there when you're up against it.
Of course, the result of this is writing filled with disclaimers and accusations, which isn't great, either.
Seems to me that the people described as "anti-anti-Trump" are people who tend to say things that come off as apologetics for Trumpian batsh*ttery without committing to being on Trump's side per se. This can come off as disingenuous or naive.
And I'll be honest, paraphrasing "But [Liz Cheney]'s a very dumb individual, very dumb. She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. Okay? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face" as "these pro-war people wouldn’t be talking such a big game if they were on the front lines" does come across as downplaying what Trump actually said, leaving out the details that indicate just how unhinged Trump comes across.
I tend to think of you as similar to John McWhorter in certain ways. You have interesting things to say that serve as a corrective for where the left overreaches, but sometimes you overcorrect and give more credence to some (not all, but some) right-wing BS than it deserves.
I think my paraphrase was much closer to the truth than that he “called for Liz Cheney to face a firing squad,” which was the context in which it was being discussed— people were taking the latter claim and running with it. The point was that Trump is so unhinged there’s no need to embellish or mislead
"[C]loser to the truth"? Relatively speaking compared to some other paraphrases? Yes, but it still doesn't convey the sheer mean-spiritedness of it, how it comes off as something a wingnut shock jock might say, rather than something a head of state says in public.
No, relative to the paraphrase I specifically identified in my previous reply. I wasn’t engaged in a conversation about the tone of his comments. I was engaged in a discussion about the importance of accurate reporting
You write like a dream, which is why I read you. But I often disagree with your opinion. That’s all it is; I disagree. In this column I sense that your bucketing those who disagree with you is a bit of the pot calling the kettle.
I’ll try again. You seem to be calling all who disagree with you on a particular article as a sort of a “Column A” warrior. That is not necessarily the case. Yet what you are criticizing is people who leap to assumptions about your own personal political beliefs because you don’t criticize MAGA enough. I see jumping to conclusions on both sides.
For years I have followed the policy of not having an opinion on things I either don't understand or have no interest in. Economics? Sorry, that's a mystery to me. Who should be the next pope? Nope, not a Catholic so that's someone else's problem. And yet, as Ms Rosenfield notes, suddenly not having an opinion or, worse yet, not being sufficiently engaged means you are deficient if not downright evil. It's gotten to the point that if asked for my take on some public controversy I'm tempted to say "No habla ingles."
The world is full of extremists from both sides who are trying to pull independent thinkers to their side, perhaps for validation. In this respect, Coastal elites and progressives fall into the same category as MAGAs; judgmental and rigid in thought and so stuck on their position they can’t spot the enemy.
A painful and toxic position to be in, but your writing has always been a breath of fresh air. Hope you try not to let it affect you.
Love the crab metaphor. Never heard it put that way.
your battlefield painter metaphor is perfect (and extends to novelists too)
i liked your comment that we have decided politics is an avatar for someone's morality and personality
I notice that there are some Republicans who have gone full Resistance, and began to see this in Fall '24. I was okay with that, but they have repeated 2017 from making everything about Trump to this borderline misogynist attitude. Had to unfollow someone supportive after they called you names and attacked another friend of us.
Perhaps they try to redeem what they missed in the 2010s, or filling the space left by Democratic commentators, or just angry at people who have different priorities and being cool with that.
I’m old enough to remember when Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods were criticized for not being vocal enough on “issues.”
So, consider yourself the MJ or TW of “…<deleted>… Cat Ladies.”
I quite enjoy your writing on culture, literature, the morass of the young adult publishing industry, and the rest, and have for years. I've never found any of it to be pro- or anti- anything really, which is fine. Writers don't always need to be on clearly defined "sides," and that kind of writing is usually facile and simplistic.
I have to say that I used to really like Cathy Young's writing. She was a sensible voice on sexual, cultural and other moral panics. She's become, in my opinion, unreadable and obnoxious. She pens and posts a constant stream of invective and insults to people that don't share her — or the Bulwark's — project, which is clearly nothing but extreme anti-Trumpism, anti-populism, presented without any complexity. She's often incredibly mean and nasty. I'm not a Trump person, but I find that entire project to be more damaging than helpful.
Someone recommended Young's debate with Scott Horton of the Antiwar/Libertarian Institute at some libertarian conference around the time the Ukraine war started. I'm no big fan of Horton, but he actually had citations, history and complexity on his side. He ran circles around Young — he embarrassed her. She apparently had no idea what she was talking about. She later wrote an article about "why she lost the debate," but chalked it up to Horton's "Putin talking points." Which is total nonsense, but even if that was case (it wasn't), why wasn't she able to respond to these talking points?
Her entire recent body of work (and endless nasty tweets) seem to exist to attempt to destroy other popular and/or influential writers who don't hew to the "superior," "informed" moralistic judgement of the Bill Kristol wing of Republicans in exile. It's not working.
Keep doing what you do. A lot of us enjoy it, and the nasty sniping only reinforces our reasons for reading it.
Completely. Cathy was always balanced and fun to read. She wrote really sensible points about Metoo, etc. Then, the war came, and everything went downhill.
Once someone has picked a team, that's when critical thinking flies out the window. They've relinquished their mental ballot to an omnipotent other and stopped working out opinions of their own. Why so many people are not just okay with that but actually brag about it...who knows? I guess I'll never stop being surprised by the urge that some people have to self-immolate.
I am happily uncommitted politically, and I plan to stay that way. To say any side has it 100% right or wrong is ridiculous to me. If folks want to sort me into one box or another and then get pissed over the thing that they just made up, that's their drama. Or psychosis.
You can also see that with Jesse. Instead of criticising Democrats for not learning from his pieces, he's now being attacked for a bunch of cretins for having written the reports on gender affirming medicine. In your case, it's even stupider. You write a piece criticising Trump and you're called pro-Trump. You write about Babygirl, and you're called a Conservative. It's more ridiculous coming from Bulwark, filled with hypocrites and fanatics (and I've a personal experience regarding this).
I do agree, but Ms. Rosenfield probably remembers that the anti-anti- trope was common some time ago during the Cold War to describe people (often liberal-wing Republicans) who opposed anti-Soviet efforts by their more conservative GOP brethren.
The Bulwark was once required listening until everyone involved got captured by the tribalism they decried in the beginning. By the time I cancelled my subscription I couldn't tell The Bulwark from MSNBC.
Fandom Politics is the perfect descriptor for what's become the norm.
I am generally sympathetic to your point, so hope these quibbles will be received in the spirit of advancing the conversation.
Not that you were guilty of it, but I think "anti-anti-Trump" did describe a real phenomenon and was a useful term. (not that you are guilty of it, and I am using "you" in the rest of this paragraph symbolically). For someone with some sympathy for Trump's policy goals, or who is friendly with some Trumps supporters, but who finds Trump personally repulsive and vigorously opposes how he pursues those goals, criticizing how, say the press covers Trump is a bit of a safe harbor. You don't have to risk pissing off your friends, and you can support your preferred causes, if not the person who is bringing those about. So, rather than criticize Trump for deporting people to Salvadoran prisons, you look for something Biden did that was sort of similar, and note that the press didn't make a big deal about it. The "anti-anti-Trump" label is a check against this temptation.
Also, it is helpful to know who will have your back, and who will be there when you're up against it.
Of course, the result of this is writing filled with disclaimers and accusations, which isn't great, either.
Battlefield painter! Yes!
Seems to me that the people described as "anti-anti-Trump" are people who tend to say things that come off as apologetics for Trumpian batsh*ttery without committing to being on Trump's side per se. This can come off as disingenuous or naive.
And I'll be honest, paraphrasing "But [Liz Cheney]'s a very dumb individual, very dumb. She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. Okay? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face" as "these pro-war people wouldn’t be talking such a big game if they were on the front lines" does come across as downplaying what Trump actually said, leaving out the details that indicate just how unhinged Trump comes across.
I tend to think of you as similar to John McWhorter in certain ways. You have interesting things to say that serve as a corrective for where the left overreaches, but sometimes you overcorrect and give more credence to some (not all, but some) right-wing BS than it deserves.
I think my paraphrase was much closer to the truth than that he “called for Liz Cheney to face a firing squad,” which was the context in which it was being discussed— people were taking the latter claim and running with it. The point was that Trump is so unhinged there’s no need to embellish or mislead
"[C]loser to the truth"? Relatively speaking compared to some other paraphrases? Yes, but it still doesn't convey the sheer mean-spiritedness of it, how it comes off as something a wingnut shock jock might say, rather than something a head of state says in public.
No, relative to the paraphrase I specifically identified in my previous reply. I wasn’t engaged in a conversation about the tone of his comments. I was engaged in a discussion about the importance of accurate reporting
You write like a dream, which is why I read you. But I often disagree with your opinion. That’s all it is; I disagree. In this column I sense that your bucketing those who disagree with you is a bit of the pot calling the kettle.
I don’t understand this comment, sorry!
I’ll try again. You seem to be calling all who disagree with you on a particular article as a sort of a “Column A” warrior. That is not necessarily the case. Yet what you are criticizing is people who leap to assumptions about your own personal political beliefs because you don’t criticize MAGA enough. I see jumping to conclusions on both sides.
what? sorry I’m just really confused, where do say anything about “all who disagree with me”, let alone call them anything?
Heading out the door so gonna try later. Thanks for listening :).