David Wang at Cracked explains "Why You're Being Kept in a Constant State of Impotent Rage." The major points -- that we can entertain ourselves so much more easily than back in FDR's day, that we let corporations make too much of our lives like pop culture fandom, that "the same media that connects us profits by making us all feel like we're under siege" -- are, of course, indisputably correct and artfully-put. But I maintain that even if you're part of the problem, you can also be part of the solution -- indeed, I suspect it's impossible not to be both. (And, as an aside, that jerkwad who put up the "no gays allowed" sign got what he deserved -- the knowledge that he could lose money and good will for being a jerkwad.)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) says flat out that a Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade "would not be acceptable." Now here's why that's utterly meaningless: if Roe v. Wade comes up in the hearings, the nominee will either dance around the issue or make positive noises about Roe v. Wade and stare decisis, and then, having secured Ms. Collins's vote, he'll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade at the right opportunity. Look, if I've figured that out, I'm sure she has. And how many potential future Roe v. Wade annihilators has she already helped put on the federal bench during this Administration?
Sen. Ted Cruz R-TX) says flat out that the good voters of Illinois's 3rd district vote for anyone, even a Democrat, instead of Republican House nominee/Nazi symp Arthur Jones, even going so far as to say "(t)his bigoted fool should receive ZERO votes." He's absolutely correct about that, of course, but it's not exactly the height of courage to say "don't vote for an avowed Nazi" out loud; we're just more inclined to think so because our President has encouraged so many Nazi wannabes to come out of the woodwork, a matter about which Mr. Cruz has had little comment. And would Mr. Cruz have said anything if Mr. Jones wasn't running against the famously center-right Dan Lipinski, but someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Speaking of which, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's thumping of a 10-term incumbent in New York's 14th district Democratic House primary sends, to Ryan Grim of The Intercept, a "sobering message to Democrats reliant on big money: it won't save you." And you would think Democratic pols would find this not a "sobering" message but an uplifting one! And not just because our elected officials really don't like spending half their time trying to scare up campaign donations, but because, in America, we all think we want more money, but what we really want is freedom from money.
Finally, here comes Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois -- who lost her only competitive Congressional race, in a Democratic wave year, no less! -- to instruct us that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's politics won't play well in the Midwest. Really? "They have money, but we have people" doesn't catch the average voter's elbow? And telling your primary opponent that you'll have to go to your supporters before committing to support him should he win the primary isn't how most people already think democracy should work? This critique, mind you, comes from the woman who had half her limbs blown off in Iraq but when asked in 2006 if she supported the war, said "there's good and bad in everything," which came off more as wishy-washiness than zen equanimity. So, one more time: as much as your positions matter, how you talk about them matters more. Or, to put it another way, if you have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's politics but you talk about them like you're Tammy Duckworth, then yes, you'll lose, anywhere in America.