Matt Bai is a veteran political journalist. For many years, he was the chief political correspondent for the New York Times Magazine. He was the national political columnist for Yahoo News. And he is currently a screenwriter and contributing columnist for the Washington Post. He has spent decades as one of the top voices on American politics. And this week he provided us with a stellar example of what’s often wrong with conventional and elite political journalism.

In a piece for the Washington Post—headlined “I reject both parties’ ideas of Americanism. And I’m not the only one”—Bai tells us that these days he feels “utterly repulsed from the mainstream of both parties.” He adds, “I’m pretty sure I’m not alone.” He notes that through his adult life he has been a Democratic-leaner, not a loyalist. But he writes that lately “I find myself feeling not so much ambivalent about the parties as alienated. I’m confronted with two extreme interpretations of what it means to be American, and I emphatically reject them both.”

His assessment of the Republican Party is harsh but accurate: “It seems self-evident that the Republican Party—more a celebrity fan club than a political organization at this point—would, if left to its own devices, destroy the foundation of the republic.” He notes that Donald Trump and his imitators “would blow up the integrity of our elections,” have “expressly countenanced a violent insurrection against the federal government,” and “basically admit to having no governing agenda beyond the reclamation of some mythical White heritage.” And, he adds, Trump’s GOP is racist.

He goes on to say: “You might think, given this Republican calamity, that any political alternative would be sufficient. And, yes, a party that doesn’t seek to limit ballot access and install an autocrat is definitely a step up.” But the problem for Bai is that he experiences no “kinship” with the Democratic Party and doubts he would be welcome within it if he did. Why not? Because “the left is in thrall to its own misguided cultural revolution” that is focused on identity politics, grievance, and the suppression of free speech and debate.

Here's classic both-sidesism. A pox on each of you! The Trumpist GOP wants to destroy the republic, and the Democrats are vindictive far-left culture warriors policing speech and smothering intellectual discourse. Yet Bai is smart enough to see this obvious criticism of his stance. He writes:

This is about the point where some (most likely some in my own business) will scream: “Both sidesism!” That’s the now-cliche argument that any criticism of Democrats whatsoever must be some kind of journalistic reflex to equate the parties, when clearly one is worse than the other.

One is worse than the other. But that doesn’t mean we have to feel jazzed about supporting a party that would grade our worthiness as people on a sliding scale of identity. It doesn’t change the fact that the broad center of the American electorate — traditional conservatives and liberals both — no longer has a political home.

Yet here’s the sleight of hand he pulls: equating the Democrats with the left. Bai’s critique of Trump and the GOP is based on actions and positions taken by Trump, the party’s leaders, and other prominent Republican officials. They are together pushing the Big Lie; downplaying, dismissing, or denying January 6; trying to rig the electoral system; and treating the party as nothing but an authoritarian-led cult. (Look at the Republican National Committee’s recent resolution denouncing the House investigation of the 1/6 riot and referring to actions that day as “legitimate political discourse.”) In all these endeavors, the Republicans are fully integrated with the conservative movement, which continues to embrace Trump and his dangerous disinformation.

On the other side of Bai’s they-both-suck ledger, though, the Democrats are not the left. Just ask Bernie Sanders. Bai tars the party with what he perceives as the excesses of the left—without providing a single example of a top Democrat engaging in the conduct he is offended by.

Bai points to Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How to Be an Antiracist, as an example of the left gone off the political rails, citing these lines: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” This isn’t the affirmative action I’d support, he says. But whether or not Kendi is right, the Democratic Party is not championing this position. Joe Biden is not bogged down in identity politics. He has devoted most of his time in office to passing—or trying to pass—legislation related to the pandemic and economic and kitchen-table issues. He has pushed for voting rights bills that Republicans have fiercely opposed. Which Democrats are prioritizing Kendi’s prescription over climate change action, economic inequality, universal pre-K, expanded Medicaid and Medicare, student debt relief, and other such matters?

There are indeed debates within the Democratic Party between lefties and more centrist-minded members. But these important tussles tend to be over money, taxes, and social programs (and, on occasion, national security). The Number One Leftist in the party is Sanders, and he’s not focused on identity politics. Neither are Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi. The too-lefty rap on AOC is primarily based on her advocacy of the far-reaching Green New Deal proposal. The closest the Democrats have come to adopting the stance of the left that Bai is probably opposed to might have been during the Black Lives Matter–inspired discussion over how best to respond to police abuse. (Defund the police? Reform the police?) But that conversation appears to have worked itself out within the party.

I don’t begrudge Bai his alienation from the left and his concern over what he regards as rigidity and intolerance on the left. This is all worth debating—even if he believes the left won’t allow it to be debated. But these controversies neither define the Democratic Party nor are at the core of its mission (whatever that may be)—probably to the chagrin of the leftists whom Bai is put off by.

Despite his protestations, Bai is indeed serving up both-sidesism. To do so he is comparing a caricature of the Democratic Party with the actuality of the GOP. I could speculate that he’s been in the swamp of conventional reporting for so long that he still retains that compelling desire to stand mightily astride the line that divides the two parties and be the fierce observer not tainted by either.

He decries the current system of politics—and assigns blame in all directions—for favoring extremists on each side. And he notes that the “antiquated primary system…plays to an ever-winnowing group of fervent believers in both parties.” In some cases that may be true. The Republicans are certainly held hostage by their Trumpian base. But the last time we ran this experiment in democracy, a distinctly non-extremist Democratic candidate was chosen as his party’s presidential nominee by voters who you wouldn’t describe as the most “fervent believers.” The problem is not the same on each side of the aisle.

Bai ends up yearning for “the eventual triumph of an independent president, outside the two-party system.” In this moment of democratic crisis—as he himself describes it—that’s a cop-out. Even if Bai is correct to conflate the Democratic Party with an illiberal left, by his own reckoning, the Republican Party poses an existential threat to American democracy. It’s a pity the left leaves him cold. But in the current face-off between small-d democrats and authoritarians, a republic-loving patriot doesn’t have much choice.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Bai feels about the Democratic Party. The party certainly needs to reach out to a wide array of voters and develop strategies for connecting with Americans in swing districts and purplish states on bread-and-butter issues and with powerful messaging relating to values and themes to retain congressional power—and to be in a position to arrest the racist, hate-fueled, and authoritarian forces of Trumpism. But that’s not Bai’s point. He is calling for a mythical third way and belittling the party that is trying (though not always effectively) to oppose multiple assaults on democracy. Such a stance is of assistance to the wrong side in the battle for the nation’s soul. Yet with this article, Bai does provide a useful service by showing us how powerful the both-sides impulse can be and how it can undermine the fight against authoritarianism.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

Our cup runneth over this week. Let’s start with Fox “News” legal analyst Jonathan Turley. He’s perhaps best known for having testified in Congress in 2019 that the first House impeachment of Donald Trump was an overreach and driven by “anger”—even though he had argued in 1998 in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton. When Canadian PM Justin Trudeau moved to end the trucker’s blockade—which has been costing US and Canadian companies hundreds of millions of dollars a day—Turley defended the anti-vax protest as civil disobedience and quipped, “By this rationale, they could have cracked down on the civil rights movement. They could have arrested Martin Luther King."

Turley doesn’t understand civil disobedience. Often the action is taken with the understanding that arrests will happen. When protesters mounted die-ins at nuclear power plants, blocked the South African embassy (during apartheid), or held sit-ins at segregated facilities, they expected to be arrested and did not resist. King was indeed arrested—29 times. The aim of civil disobedience often is to be arrested to highlight the injustice being challenged. And glibly comparing the trucker protest—which has drawn extremists bearing Confederate flags, swastikas, and QAnon banners—to the civil rights movement is offensive. Certainly, civil liberties apply to all. But anyone who illegally shuts down vital passageways can expect to be removed.

Also on the network of disinformation and bizarro reality, Sean Hannity claimed the Canadian truckers have the “people’s support.”

Uh, no. About three-quarters of Canadians say, “Go home.”

Meanwhile, Maria Bartiromo pushed a new and particularly nutty conspiracy theory, that the Biden administration concocted a phony Russia-Ukraine conflict to draw attention away from allegations the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign spied on Trump.

As I (and others) pointed out, the recent court filing submitted by special counsel John Durham—which triggered hair-on-fire stories in right-wing media claiming the Clintonites had hacked Trump’s servers—shows no such thing. This was another outbreak of Trumpian disinformation. But only someone totally detached from reality could suggest there’s nothing of true note occurring on the Russia-Ukraine border. Bartiromo consistently demonstrates there’s apparently no cure for Fox Derangement Syndrome.

Though we tend to refrain from issuing this award for dumbass comments referencing the Holocaust—it’s too easy—this week there’s no avoiding it. Elon Musk posted a horrendous meme comparing Trudeau to Hitler—and deleted it after a shitstorm hit. And prominent Trumper Charlie Kirk, appearing at a conference held by his Turning Point USA outfit, groused about having to show proof of vaccination when he entered a restaurant. “I never want to hear again, like, how could the atrocities of Germany happen? Like, go to Corner Bakery, alright? You'll see."

Considering all the idiotic Holocaust references we have witnessed during the pandemic, it is tough for someone to stand out in this category. But give Kirk credit—and this week’s win. Does he not for a nanosecond pause to ponder how this false, crass, and stupid analogy is particularly offensive to anyone who suffered during the Nazi reign or who lost relatives in the Holocaust? It’s hard to believe that it needs to be said that being prevented from ordering a panini for not vaxxing is not genocide. Someone get this guy a copy of Maus.

The Mailbag

First, thanks to the readers who responded to my request for new names for this newsletter, as we deal with a trademark issue that I explained in the last issue. I’ll report back when we have selected one. There were many heartfelt responses to my article in which I contemplated the propriety and effectiveness of publishing gruesome video and photographs of the Christmas Eve massacre of civilians in Myanmar that was committed by the brutal military regime that overthrew a democratically elected government.

Sue Crumpton wrote:

Every day on the six o’clock news we watched the Vietnam war. I believe it spurred the antiwar movement to protest and ultimately end the useless deaths. I, like Christopher Hitchens, believe we should be made to understand what war means and how it affects people.

John Craig expanded on this point:

I see your dilemma regarding the graphic photos of a monstrous act. Two points I have been thinking about. 1) Wasn't it graphic photos that help turn the tide against the Vietnam war? Also the civil rights movement seemed to get energized after seeing the Emmett Till photos. 2) We sanitize gun violence in the U.S. I think we would have better gun safety laws if photos were released after Sandy Hook and the mass shooting in Las Vegas.

I’ve often wondered—and have discussed with my Mother Jones colleagues—what the impact would be if authorities and families released the horrific photos of victims of gun violence. Would that move the needle and place more pressure on politicians to pass gun safety legislation?

Dave Bashore’s note was encouraging:

David, thank you for today's This Land about the tragic, outrageous massacre in Myanmar and its woeful aftermath. I happened to view the videos you provided in the essay's link, which have left me both sad and pissed off. (I'm heading to the gym to work off the latter.) Although I'm resigned to the fact that little will come of it, I'm going to write to Pres. Biden and my US senators and congressperson and ask them how we can let something like this go unanswered. Keep up the great work. PS, I've gotten off my butt and actually signed up for a paid subscription to This Land!

Lou Cerrone emailed:

The police brutality against the civil marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and its publication, were instrumental in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The nightly broadcasts in America of the carnage inflicted by human beings against other human beings in Vietnam were instrumental in the US ending their involvement. The federal intervention and forced integration of schools in the south (Little Rock? Alabama?) were also the result of nightly broadcasts of the violence inflicted upon the Black protestors by white civilians and police….I also understand how the American public has become desensitized to violence, even graphic violence. We are bombarded with it on television, in movies and in video games. War/the military/violence are glorified. I remember when mass murders were on the front page and were the lead stories. They rarely are, and then they do not stay there long before they are relegated to the middle. I also understand that if these events do not take place in a locale or country in which our government has a national security interest, it does not matter. Think Yemen.

Lynne Burt-Jenkins offered this smart comparison:

Actually, being able to see, in the past several years, the killings and deaths of numerous Black Americans who were doing nothing wrong, has led to an eye-opening experience for many. We knew, in the backs of our minds, that discrimination was leading to deaths. But we really, seriously did not know how prevalent that is.

Bobbi Walbert had a personal take:

I’m a 73 -year-old granny of seven precious grandbabies. All five of my children attended Sandy Hook School from kindergarten through 5th grade. Most, if not all residents of Sandy Hook & Newtown, CT, will never forget the horror of the massacre of 20 precious little children and 6 of their courageous educators, on the morning of December 14, 2012. Personally, I would not want to see, or even have the ability to view, forensic photos of victims of massacres or other unimaginable crimes. I have seen some of the footage of the massacre in Myanmar—the burned vehicles—and those images are more than enough for me to realize the terror and horror the victims must have experienced. To say my heart hurts for the victims, their loved ones, and friends is an understatement.

A few readers wrote in to respond to my article on rocker John Fogerty, who calls himself a liberal and a Democrat, playing a private concert at the Palm Beach estate of Steve Wynn, a Trump and GOP megadonor who has been accused of sexual assault (and who denies the allegations). The consensus was simple: It’s all about the Benjamins. Hollywood agent Mitch Kaplan put it this way: “All about getting paid a shitload of money that performers get for these private events.” And Benson Goldenberg asked, “Could it be that Fogerty is just trying to make a living?” Perhaps. But would you perform for just anyone for a buck? (I know, Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding in 2010.) Jonni Gray remarked, “Perhaps he will donate the money from Wynn to groups working to save democracy. Any suggestion?” If Fogerty calls, I will have recommendations.

Pen Harms followed my recent recommendation to check out Brit musician Ian Prowse, who’s a favorite of Elvis Costello. She wrote, “Gave a listen to Ian Prowse...am going to order the album. I'd never heard him before.” Neither had I, and I’m delighted to spread the word. One of the rewards of doing this newsletter is to see readers occasionally follow my advice. We have all sorts of nifty ways to determine what links in each issue are clicked on. It was encouraging to learn that many readers watched the video of Tommy Raskin performing one of his poems that I referenced in my interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin.

No mail for Moxie this week, but Karen Martin wrote, “I am new to This Land. I love it and you!” This reminds me of Barack Obama on the campaign trail in 2008. The crowds were large and enthusiastic. Often someone would shout, “I love you, Barack!” He would immediately reply, “I love you back.” It was both joke-y and sincere. Karen, thank you.

MoxieCam™

Moxie is so happy to see Havi that she’s even willing to share her ball.

Read Recent Issues of This Land

February 15, 2022: Why is John Fogerty serenading Trump crony Steve Wynn?; can Trump be barred from running for president because he flushed documents down the toilet?; The Woman in the House Across the Street From the Girl in the Window doesn’t know if she’s in a parody or not; Elvis Costello tells us to listen to Ian Prowse; and more.

February 12, 2022: Would you want to look at photos of a massacre?; rebranding This Land; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 8, 2022: The Trump coup: maybe we can’t handle the truth; Steve Martin and Martin Short shine in Only Murders in the Building; Invasion’s odd but conventional take on the sci-fi/alien-attack genre; and more.

February 5, 2022: Can we call Trump’s race war a “race war”?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Michele Bachmann and Rick Scott); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 1, 2022: Please tell me: Why is Michael Flynn crazy?; an impressive film about Nicolas Cage and his pig; Wajahat Ali’s impressive memoir about growing up Muslim and nonwhite in America; and more.

January 29, 2022: The inside story of the banning of Maus—it’s dumber than you think; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

January 25, 2022: The snowflake-ization of the right; would you buy cryptocurrency from this man (Steve Bannon)?; Belfast, a feel-good movie about a civil war; Elvis Costello’s delightful and cynical new album; and more.

January 22, 2022: Readers speak out: How to save the republic from Republicans; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

January 19, 2022: Why the Democrats must yield to Manchin to keep the Trump cult from gaining power; gushing about The French Dispatch; a true-crime podcast with political and international significance; and more.