Suggestions for a Post-Trump America: The Left's Problem Has Never Been. Its Packaging It's The Product The Voters Hate

 

A couple of years when I was writing about the failures of the Justice Democrats I used the following anecdote which was originally told about Henry Jackson in 1976:

The chairman of the board of a well-known dog-food manufacturing company called in his directors, sat them around a long table and, somberly, said to them:

“Gentlemen, we make the best dog food. We use the best ingredients. We have the best container. We have the most attractive label. Why doesn’t it sell?”

There was silence in the board room for several minutes, and then a solitary voice is heard at the far end of the table:

“Dogs don’t like it.”

This basically describes the problem with what the Justice Democrats attempted to do when they were founded in 2018. They were attempting to sell the kind of product they have tried to sell to the voters periodically over America’s history. They were attempting a repackaging of the progressive ideals – which are good ones – with a newer message and a more attractive label. It was certainly a more diverse one, featuring an overwhelming number of female, minority, and LGBTQ+ candidates. And in 2018 the voters basically gave the same message they inevitably give the left whenever they make a concerted effort into electoral politics on their own. They told them, in no uncertain terms, they don’t like the product.

Prior to the 2024 election I made the argument that rather then try to change the product the Justice Democrats would try to change the packaging or the labels. We saw in the leadup to the midterms that in fact the left tried to do just that when they tried to sell Graham Platner to run in Maine as a 'working class progressive'. Even before that campaign spectacularly crashed and burned it was already clear that he was just using the progressive platform while cosplaying as working class. In Michigan Abdul El-Sayid is currently trying to run for the Senate while using that same label, though he may ultimately be more successful.

By and large, however, in the last two years the left has basically stuck to the same formula it has that I argued that they would: by repackaging progressive ideas and in some cases socialist ones with a newer message, more attractive label and more diverse candidates. But by and large the typical Democratic primary voter, even two years into Trump's second term, still has no use for the product. We've seen that play out with Justice Democrat candidates losing more primaries then they won, with DSA candidates winning just 8 of 28 primaries and with voters rejecting Francesca Hong, the DSA candidate for governor in Wisconsin, in favor of David Crowley, a moderate who is looking very much like he will pull it out a victory.

And despite that there remains no sign the left will learn the right lessons from this. You get this reading their articles at the New York Times or the New Yorker, you can see it from so many celebrities. If anything they've actually modified the argument I made two years ago to its natural outcome. The problem isn't with their dog food; it's with the dogs.

As long as I've been alive and have argued in many previous articles, the left has always refused to accept how politics works.  As early as the first election by direct democracy in 1828 elections have never been about a respectful debate of ideas but which candidate the voters find more relatable, which one has the biggest celebrity, which one has the catchiest slogan. We've seen it with the election of so many generals to the Presidency from Jackson to Eisenhower. We've seen it with so many campaign slogans from the hard cider campaign of Tippecanoe and Tyler too to Harding's Return To Normalcy to I Like Ike. All television really did was move to a mass medium the idea of making a candidate relatable to the masses, it didn't brainwash the voters into doing something they weren't already doing for over a century.

Historically the intellectual has always disdained this process whether in books such as The Selling of the President' in regards to Nixon (ignoring how Kennedy also used TV to great effect) to Reagan's ability to relate the masses to so many negative campaign ads for the last half century. They say such emotional appeals degrade both the voter's intelligence and the electoral process. They ignore the evidence that it almost always end up working and always for the Republican. They will yell about how the Fairness Doctrine's gave the right a way to brainwash the voter with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and all the old talking points. And while there is always a grain of truth in this, there's a bigger issue.

Late night TV like The Daily Show and other comedians for decades have always mocked any time a politician held a rally or tried to act like a regular guy years before Trump whether it was a Republican or a Democrat.  That's because, by and large, so much of Hollywood and the left feels that this kind of behavior is silly. There's always been an idea among so many in the left that when a candidate tries to relate with the average voter – most of whom the left openly feels is intellectually bankrupt to begin with - -they're acting 'undignified and silly'. And that really does speak to how the left sees the whole process of politics.

They really do think they're smarter that the average person in Kansas or Arkansas or for that matter someone who comes to a Republican rally at all well before Trump. They can't believe people are dumb enough to buy what politicians are selling. And while there's again a grain of truth to that, it's also showing a remarkable contempt for the electoral process. 

They truly think that because the average voter doesn't have a college degree, doesn't spend several hours each day watching cable news, doesn't drown himself in policy details and doesn't know every single detail about electoral politics, the ability to chose who represents them in Congress or for Senate or President is wasted on them. They should make their decision for who to vote for based on an interview they gave to the Atlantic in 2014, not because of a campaign ad that the voter saw three days before Election Day!

The left has also always believed that whatever flaws are in a candidate, either through policy or character, should automatically be a demerit against them to the point it should disqualify the candidate from running for office or even an elected official to resign. But they've always underestimated how much personal appeal plays better with the voters then policy and that hasn't changed in the 21^st century. They've always had a different set of standards for ideal elected officials then the average voter – that no human being could meet them, much less a politician, is irrelevant – and they hold it against the electorate for not having the same set of standards they do.

To be a successful politician you have talk and interact with the voters and that means you have to act like you're one of the people. There's really nothing wrong with that, I'd actually argue that it is this humbling process that brings an elected official down to the average citizens that is one of the virtues of democracy. But historically the media, academia and other areas in which intellectuals, usually left-wing,  often use it as a way to humiliate elected officials that it finds lacking because they themselves find the process undignified of their time.

 When they mock a presidential hopeful at an Iowa state fair pretending to be interested about cows or crops it's because they hold in disdain both the elected official and the voter for believing the politicians cares about anything but getting their vote.  That's even more contemptible then the most cynical politician – and by nature most of them are pretty cynical. What do they expect the average dairy farmer to care about? The candidate's position on NATO?

The most successful politicians – and regardless of my personal feelings Donald Trump is one of them – have a basic understanding of a simple axiom: Ninety percent of success is just showing up.  And it's clear to me that with  DSA candidates and Justice Democrats they're not willing to do even that much. The only places they'll go are college campuses or student rallies, places where their people are. They engage in the same kind of mottoes and slogans that every right-wing politician does and they care as much about crowd sizes as Trump does. The difference is he would go to Alabama and Oklahoma and Kansas, places that he holds in as much contempt as the average left-wing intellectual and with a similar disregard with the citizens. But he showed up over and over. Yes, it was about him far more than them, no question, but he still showed up.

And the way that some columnists will act like Janelle Boule, a prominent Times columnist  and say: "There are no redemptive qualities for a Trump voter,"  proves their own arrogance and blindness. No redemptive qualities? All 63 million of them are monsters? Even the ones who voted for him three different times in New York City? You really think you can speak for every single one of them because they made a decision you disapprove of?

That is the kind of arrogance that frankly rivals POTUS on his worst days (or his best days, for that matter) and it also gives another in the seemingly endless amount of ammo that the Republicans can use to prove that all Democrats are elitist snobs who think nothing of the working class American.  Just to be clear many Republicans are also elitist snobs who think nothing of working class Americans – but if you hum a few bars, they can fake it better then the left who are deliberately tone deaf in this area.

And this leads to the kind of foolish thinking that makes many intellectuals walk away from the right answer and head to an even more wrong one. In the aftermath of the 2024 election the left seized on the idea that because Trump had appeared on so many right-wing podcasts that had led to his victory over Kamala Harris.  This led to many people in prominent columns wondering why the left didn't have its own Joe Rogan and a search for his equivalent, which was essentially trying to get a new mascot for a brand of dog food the dogs had made clear they didn't like.

Which led them to make yet another blunder which was to seize on the idea that Hasan Piker, a very popular left-wing podcaster, might be the answer to their prayers. Even by the standards of dumb ideas the left have had this ranks as one of  the dumbest.

First of all Joe Rogan is a Hollywood millionaire who just hasn't embraced the liberal Kool-Aid. He's not a working class American any more then anyone else in the industry but like so many conservatives and Republican he can fake it far better than most liberals can. Now I've never heard his podcast except in the occasional quoted excerpt so I can't speak for the kind of message he has. Frankly he sounds less radical then Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones ever did – I admit that's a low bar to surpass – but even when he was acting he had very much an everyman persona that worked very well for him. He isn't one but he has experience playing one.

Hasan Piker, to be very clear, is very much closer in his rhetoric to  Jones or Carlson and every part of the idea of him being the left-wing equivalent of Rogan is dumb. For one his audience is far closer to that of Jon Stewart and the rest of  late night – it's college educated, upwardly mobile progressives whose values have proven to be kryptonite to the kind of voters we need to reach. And what he's cosplaying at isn't an everyman in shirtsleeves but a college protestor wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt. This is a man who when interviewed by the satirist Ziwe was asked: "Did you always want to be a champagne socialist?" didn't hesitate before saying yes and then talked about meeting Jeff Bezos at the Oscars with a straight face.

It speaks to where the Democratic Party has been in the last few years that there were some people who actually thought Piker could be our salvation was a good idea. We've been spending so much of our time pretending that the average Democrats is not a coastal elite nepo baby limousine liberal socialist cosplayer and here comes a guy who seems like he could make every point on a Fox News bingo card before he opens his mouth.  Honestly with George Soros getting along in years the GOP was going to need a new boogeyman to scare working class-voters and Piker seems straight out of central casting for them.

In the aftermath of 2016 the Democratic Party was torn between two competing factors: had they lost because of those Sanders' primary voters who felt betrayed by Hilary's winning the nomination or because of Hilary's receiving a record low 28 percent of the white working class vote? The Justice Democrats were founded on the former  foundation and it was clear almost immediately that the electorate at large had no more taste for it then they had the Sanders campaign. But the left, engaging in the selective reasoning they do after every election, chose to argue that the Squad were where the party should go, rather then the center. They've spent far too much of the 2020s trying to sell the Democratic Party as a whole on their brand of dog food and the Party seemed willing to buy it even after it led to Trump returning to power.

It's now clear looking at the Democrats recruitment drives leading up to 2026 as well as the increasing successes of moderates in primaries that aren't in the bluest districts in America that the national party is resuming the big tent strategy and that it has made it very clear that while the DSA and Justice Democrats will have a place inside it, it's going to be in the corner and they're not going to let the Republicans make them the main attraction. In other words they're going to sell a brand of dog food dogs actually like.

Churchill once said the biggest argument against democracy was five minutes in conversation with the average voter. Even he might have issues with how the left has approached it these days. First they refuse to engage in conversation with the average voter at all. Second they assume that they know everything that average voter will say without even having to talk them. Third they hold in complete contempt anyone else who has a conversation with them. And last when they learn what the voters have to say, they argue very clearly that the voters don't know what they're talking about it.

That all of this has essentially yielded ground to the right is something that is never their fault: it is gospel the political powers that be or will are only supposed to listen to them and them alone because they clearly make the best dog food with the most attractive label, the best container and the best ingredients. That they've never even eaten it themselves has done nothing to convince them of the falsity of this claim; but they know the other brands are worse and the dogs who eat it don't know what real dog food tastes like and they've actually been sold cat food.

As I said back in 2024 the most damning words on the Justice Democrats come not from their enemies but the ones who know them best. Kyle Kulinski and Cenk Uygur, the founders of the movement in 2017, would criticize it in falling short in cultivating a unified cohort of legislators able to champion priority bills. Those who might see this as sour grapes should note that in November 2019 Uygur filed to run for Congress in California – but not as a member of the group he had founded. In a recent interview with the New York Times Sean Maloney, a Democratic Congressman from New York has referred to AOC more of an influencer then an elected representative,  someone more interested in creating content then legislating.

And that really sums up with what AOC and Ilhan Ohmar have been and very much what likely new members this cycle would become: more interested in improving their brand among their followers under the 21^st century version of 'No press is bad press'. For them a follower on Instagram or being called a left-wing radical by Sean Hannity counts the same in their eyes. That it's basically turning them to the left's equivalent of the Freedom Caucus both in word and deed is another in the endless line of things they choose to ignore but any rational Democrat does so at their peril.

Myself I'm done listening to their brand of marketing and I think the Democratic Party is to. They gave them four election cycles between 2018 and 2024 to sell their brand of progressive dog food to the masses under the Democratic Party label and the masses have no appetite for it. The Democrats have made it clear in this election cycle just how little use they have for it on a national level and that they are done both letting the far left – and by extension the Republicans – use it to define them. They have problems to work out to be sure and it will take more than a blue wave to repair it. But that they've been pushing the far left more to the backburner this cycle then the previous ones is the smartest thing they've done in a long time.

At a certain point the politicians have to listen to what the voters are telling them they want from their candidates and their parties and not what those who consider running for public office beneath them believe they should stand for. Until the Justice Democrats and the DSA can find a way to improve their brand of dog food so that dogs actually like it, I'm going to assume that the electorate knows better then them on this particular issue. The problem is with the consumer; it's with your product. And calling the electorate idiots and racists for not buying has never been a great marketing tool. Try to remember that in two weeks. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yankees Vs. Red Sox Greatest Rivalry in Sports…Now, Conclusion: How October's Been A Very Different Month Since 2004

 

In retrospect the Yankees winning the American League Pennant over the Red Sox in 2003 was the last gasp of what has been the last great baseball dynasty to this point. The Yankees of Jeter-Posada-Williams and so forth had managed to win six pennants and four World Series between 1996-2003. It remains one of the great accomplishments in baseball history, made all the more glorious that it would take until 2025 for another team – the LA Dodgers to win back-to-back World Championships. As we all saw this past week when the Brewers swept LA in four games in the NLCS, it has become all the harder to even come close to a three-peat in baseball.

The Yankees have always been a perennial contender during the 21^st century. They've won 9 American League East Division titles between 2004 and 2024 and have made the MLB playoffs every single year since 2017. But the last time they won the World Series was in 2009 and it wasn't until 2024 that they made it to the World Series again, albeit to be swept by the Dodgers in five games. And they've only made it to the second round of the baseball postseason four times besides this, losing three times to the Houston Astros. (And no there comes a point when you can't blame this entirely on their management: the Astros swept them in 2022.)

Boston has by contrast enjoyed far more success ever since the 2004 World Series having made the American League playoffs ten times since 2004. They've won three World Series since then, sweeping Colorado in 2007, beating the Cardinals in six games in 2013 and trouncing the Dodgers in five games in 2018. They haven't made it back to the World Series since then but that's more a nature of how baseball is radically different. The four World Series they've won are more then any other franchise has managed to do in the 21^st century, which represents more of the era in which we live.

The Red Sox's triumph in 2004 officially ushered in an era where championship droughts that took up decades, even over a century, came to an end. In 2005 the Chicago White Sox, whose last World Championship had been in 1917 and whose last World Series appearance had been in 1959, would sweep the Houston Astros (then in the National League) to end their eighty-eight year drought. In 2010 the San Francisco Giant, who hadn't won a single World Series since they'd moved their from New York in 1958 won their first World Series and would then have the closest thing to a dynasty we've seen since then, winning three World Series in five years.

In 2014 they'd managed to defeat the Kansas City Royals, who had not been to the World Series since 1985 when they'd won the franchises first World Series in an epic seven game battle. The following year the Royals returned to the World Series and would defeat the Mets in five games.

That year the Chicago Cubs won their first postseason series since the disaster that had been 2003 defeating the St. Louis Cardinals. However they would lose to the Mets who managed to get back to the World Series for the first time in 15 years. But the following year the Cubs broke the longest drought winning the NLCS. And in an epic postseason battle they came from behind to defeat the Cleveland Indians to win their first World Series in 108 years.

Other franchises that had existed for over half a century and had never won a World Series reversed their fortune. The Houston Astros have been one of the most controversial teams in baseball since they switched from the National League to the American League. But after defeating the Dodgers in 2017 in a controversial World Series they would defeat the Phillies in the 2022 World Series by a margin of 4 games to 2. In 2019 they would face off against the Washington Nationals in what was the first World Series for DC since the Senators had won the American League Pennant in 1939. The Nationals managed an epic seven game victory to give Washington its first World Championship since 1924 when Calvin Coolidge was in the White House.  A former Senators team – the Texas Rangers – had never won a World Series despite making it in back to back appearances in 2010 and 2011. In 2023 they won the first World Series in the franchises history, dating back to 1961.

During the last decade the most perennial contender in baseball have been the Los Angeles Dodgers. They have come closest of all the teams in baseball to having a dynasty, winning three pennants between 2017 and 2020 and back to back ones in 2024 and 2025. But it still took them 32 years to manage to break the drought that had plagued them since 1988's surprise upset – and it wasn't lost on them that they won under the conditions of a very shortened and Covid driven season in 2020.

Far more frequently in 21^st century baseball have smaller market teams have been managing to make it further in the postseason then they ever had a chance to do in the 'good old days' when there was no wild card and only two divisions in each league. This Friday we will see the ultimate realization of that as the Tampa Bay Rays will face off against the Milwaukee Brewers. The Rays have existed since 1998, the Brewers since 1970 and neither team has ever won a World Championship. The last time this ever happened in the World Series was in 1980 when the Philadelphia Phillies and the Kansas City Royals were battling and the Phillies won the first World Series in franchise history.

While some small market teams are still struggling to make it back to the World Series – the Pirates, the Reds and the now homeless A's are currently among the teams with the longest droughts -  it's hard to argue that the extended baseball postseason hasn't given a chance for expansion and smaller teams to get closer to the World Series then they ever had before. The Rays are the best current example of this, but the White Sox managed to win their first postseason series this year after three consecutive seasons of 100 losses or more, something unprecedented in baseball history. And its done wonders for some franchises who were known as perennial losers. The Phillies managed to win three pennants and a world series during the 22 years of the 21^st century which is nearly as many as they won during the entire 20^th. They've also made the postseason five consecutive years after not getting close to it since 2011. And the St. Louis Cardinals have continued to thrive, having won four NL Pennants and two World Series (neither against the Red Sox, of course, and remaining until recently, one of the most consistently winning teams in baseball. They thrive under any system.

As for the Yankees and Red Sox their rivalry has now taken an added turn as they fight in what is very well the most talented division in all of baseball: the American League East. The more the wild card race is expanded the longer it takes to settle which teams in it won't be getting into the postseason and the battles between them take on an added fervor that never goes away. It is not lost on the fan that the Rays have become just as much a force in baseball as the Yankees these days and that all the other teams are just as sharp.  The Orioles have been contending in 2023 and 2024, the Blue Jays made it last year.

So when the Red Sox in the postseason it’s a battle that counts and so far, it's dead even. In 2021 the Red Sox beat the Yankees in the AL Wild Card Game 6-2 before losing to the Rays. In 2025 the Yankees beat the Red Sox in a best of three game playoffs but were then beaten by the Blue Jays. And this past year the Yankees swept the Red Sox in what was a dominant postseason but were in turn swept by Tampa Bay.

So 25 years into the 21^st century the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry is on even terms at last. It is now in truth what in the 20^th century it was only in name: the greatest rivalry in baseball. That being said I'm going to be pulling for the Brewers in this series. When you haven't won a World Series since Eisenhower's second term and your only other appearance in one took place before Reagan's first midterms, well, it really does make the Yankees 'championship drought' look mild by comparison.

Besides, I'm still from a Yankee household. If I rooted for Tampa I might very well be disowned.

 

 

Criticizing Criticism Series: Yet Again The New York Times Won't Let Us Just Love TV Without Analyzing It To Death

 

As a TV critic I have enormous respect for the men and women who do this job either in professional capacity and an online one. I've expressed admiration for writers such as Alan Sepinwall and Nikki Stafford and I have huge respect for those such as Ben Travers for the Hollywood reporter as well as those who write for online publications. This is a tough job and you do it well.

What makes a good TV critic is someone who can manage to keep their analysis of a TV show basically on television itself. You reflect on what it was like in the era the show was made, you draw parallels to other television shows and given when the show was made you try to read outside factors as to how they might have affected things. At the same time the best are fans as much as they are critics and they can tell you why so many people keep going back to TV over the years.

This is one of the reasons I have far less patients for those non-critics, mostly academics, who will look at television shows – or honestly other works of art – and essentially try to read deeper context involving gender, racial, or socio-economic readings into them that almost certainly were never the intention of those who made the art in the first place. It is one thing to interpret something that was written or produced over a century ago and try to get into the creator's mind. But the closer we get to the current day – which is basically so much of television – that kind of reading becomes almost ridiculously highbrow. It takes a real special person to look at The X-Files with not only the glut of work written on it at the time but with nearly every creative force linked to the show still alive and available for question – and then say with complete sincerity: "This is what they were actually saying with their work."  Vince Gilligan is still alive; you could ask him if your interpretation is correct. That you think you know better than him what he was writing twenty years ago is arrogance that truly should be saved for academics.

That is a big reason when I looked at the Times earlier today and saw an article with the headline "These 4 shows heralded America's Fall" I thought to myself "Here we go again."

To be very clear ever since Trump was elected in 2016 everyone with a post-doctoral degree and his mother who also has a post-doctoral degree has been trying to explain how America could let this happen. The overwhelming number of these articles were written not so much with a sense of dismay but rather the attitude can be expressed with 'Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah!" Because America was of course paying the prices for institutional racism/late stage capitalism/ the patriarchal state/interleague sports/ etc. And of course every one of those writers saw it coming a mile away but only chose to tell us when it was too late to do anything.

One of the smaller subsets of this was trying to find a way to look at so much of popular culture to 'explain' why America would vote for Donald Trump. (That the electorate might find something appealing about his message is of course something the academic never considers because the American people are all ignorant idiots.) They looked at reality TV (of course) superhero movies, shows involving the war on Terror, The Walking Dead and quite a few other comedies as well. The contradiction that Hollywood is by far the most left-leaning industry in America (aside from academia, of course) was one these scholars never chose to look at closely even as they were doing a deep dive into Game of Thrones and comparing it to neoliberalism. (I'm guessing there's some paper on that out there by now.)

All of this demonstrates what I was consider the difference between a scientific theory and academic theory. In scientific theory the scientist find a hypothesis then perform experiments to either prove or disprove what you believed in once before. In academic theory – and while this is speculation I think there's a manifest truth – the academic starts with a basic conclusion and then finds evidence that proves their original point while jettisoning any inconvenient facts that might disprove it. And because academic theories never have to be put into a real world setting you don't ever to have to deal with the possibility that you are completely full of crap.

Which brings me to today's article. The article is written by a man named Stephen Marche. Like the overwhelming majority of people who write for art I'd never heard of him before today. Marche is a Canadian novelist, essayist and cultural commentator, who writes for Esquire. His biggest piece for the Times include 'The Closing of the Canadian Mind' and 'The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido'. Most recently he wrote: "America Came for Canada. We Said No." The titles alone tell you just where he stands on most issues. Oh and I didn't know this before but he also co-authored The Last Election with Andrew Yang, which is the definition of progressive fiction, someone actively rooting for America to collapse as well as The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future.

This is a guy who to be very clear is  not only actively rooting for America to collapse but seems to be looking forward to it. You can tell that by the subtitle of his piece: The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad and Mad Men 'predicted the societal fracture and decline of the United States.'

Now credit where it's due The Sopranos and The Wire are shows about the death of the American dream. Both David Simon and David Chase have been very expansive about that. But the rest of this article has the idea of calling them 'a televisual Four Horseman of the Apocalypse. Critics, at the time of their release, saw them collectively as prestige antihero television. We can now see they all had the same antihero at their core: America itself."

Again "we". Last I checked there hasn't been some kind of meeting saying that all of these shows are about America's failures. Marche is saying his opinion and his alone counts for the masses, which is as arrogant as anything Trump says. And I have a feeling when he watches shows like this he's providing commentary akin to: "That's it! Show them how screwed America is! Die American Dream, Die!"

And his  'interpretations' of these four classic series are ridiculous to the point that, if you saw them anywhere but a left-wing journal, you would dismiss them as the ravings of a madman.. He argues that Breaking Bad is a portrait of a 'capitalist overlord run amok', an allegory about the material rise and spiritual decline of Silicon Valley. Like tech lords Walter White sells an addictive product, produced by a proprietary formula, along global  logistics networks, that generates a pile of cash so big the money is virtually meaningless…Seen from the vantage point of 2026, it's almost too on the nose that Mr. White joins forces with a crew of white-power supremacists in his relentless quest for impunity."

Wow. I mean, wow. So the show only worked because of Bryan Cranston. No mention of the brilliant direction and camera work, the cartel, Gus Fring, Mike, Saul Goodman. I have to say Vince Gilligan would be stunned to know he was actually writing about Silicon Valley this whole time. And as a side note you've essentially taken out everything that made this show enjoyable for viewers and basically turned into an academic thesis. Walter White himself would think you're a lousy chemistry teacher.

His reading of The Wire is better but it's worth noting that he focuses on 'journalism erodes, beset from within and without. The police devolve into a military force imposing its will with ever more desperate brutality against the most vulnerable citizens."

I'm sorry, did the Unit ever  kill a random black person when I wasn't watching the show? Was Marlo Stanfield and his crew not bad but misunderstood when they killed of 30 members of the drug war and left them in high-rises as tombs? Wasn't 'Hamerstdam' the most realistic portrayal of harm reduction both the good and the bad?" Where was the warning about the corrosive effects of hyper-capitalism that Marche is talking about in one of the poorest and most Democratic cities in America? Oh and that he wrote the entire essay and didn't mention Baltimore once, really makes me wonder if he watched the show,

Mad Men is, of course, a series that is a reflection of the Trump era, making America great again. It's about the darkness inside American life. 'The countercultural critique of advertising is that advertising turns values into slogans and emotions into products and once a feeling has been sold, it's gone. And Marche reads that one of the most polarizing endings in TV history is, of course "that the counterculture the authentic opposition to corporate consumption of human feelings – just wants to buy itself a sugary drink under the slogan "It's the real thing." Transaction is the only reality and everyone sells out."

Again that's not what actually happened on Mad Men and it ignores the very real rise of feminism in the characters of Peggy and Joan and it really does leave out the entire show. But why let reality get in the way of a good academic thesis?

When it comes to The Sopranos he's closest to reality about how we are willing to cheer a gangster on and that everyone in America is out for themselves. "It offered a critique of the emerging hypocrisies that justified self-interest above all." But even here he's making stretches comparing a minor character who appears in a single episode to a 1947 film critic who was responsible for a book showing the rise of the Weimar Republic as part of the soul at work.

The only way I  can read Marche's article is as the worst kind of  cherry picking. He had his pre-ordained conclusion in mind and he basically picked random quotes from episodes, melded them with his own interpretation of the show and then put them together with enough academic words that he sounded intellectual. But like every other academic piece on television – or honestly much art in general -  it uses a lot of intellectual words to basically say very little.

Marche also knows that his audience is also very left-leaning which means by definition they have a bias towards believing the absolute worst about American values, capitalism and democracy. And by framing his judgments in such a way, as always, the burden is on those who disagree to prove a negative. None of this is remotely the kind of subjects that Vince Gilligan, Matthew Weiner, David Simon and David Chase and his writers had in mind when they were writing these incredible TV shows and I suspect when they read this article they will be astonished about how loosely their work has been interpreted by yet another highbrow academic. Considering that in quite a few of these shows they express great disdain for intellectual and how little use they have in the real world I suspect they'd actually be amused – Simon in particular might actually think "At least he didn't bring up the Dickensian aspects of my show."

I loathe articles like these for two big reasons. First as someone who has respect for academics and who can see them occasionally do good things with television analysis when they choose to see the kind of writing involving cherry picking and ten dollar words that would frankly be lacking in a college thesis on the subject, much less a supposed academic, Marche's article triggers all the worst impulses me.

The second is as a TV critic and fan because it is yet another horrible example of a critic taking several shows that I was a huge fan of that I've watched multiple times and that I have celebrated due to their multitude of great things – acting, writing, directing, all the technical aspects – and essentially turning it into a self-serving, presentist lecture. It's yet another academic telling me we can't have nice things or if we have them, they must be turned into either homework or spinach. Furthermore it's another example of conservative derangement syndrome making connections to things that just aren't there – Elon Musk to Walter White? Really? – and knowing that because your article is written in The Times it will be taken seriously.

It makes what is, by any standard, already a difficult job for people like me all the harder. The main thesis of this series has always been that the masses basically view all critics as highbrow intellectual snobs who look down on the average viewer. Pieces like this basically confirm all the worst things about people like me. In my pieces I've always made it clear that my opinions are just that – my opinions – and I never try to substitute my judgment for the viewers. I think all art is subjective and what I take away from it is different than from what others will. Writers like Marche make the blanket assumption that what they take away from something is the only thing anybody should take away from it – and that's the definition of entitlement.

Marche, like every other academic, thinks that it is the job of entertainment not to provide an escape from the world around us but to hold a mirror up to it, not to give us respite from the horrors around us but to tell us just how horrible things are and how horrible they always will be. Given just how lousy the last decade in particular has been for so many people there's an argument that what the world needs is escapism and a way to find enjoyment. Marche, like his brethren, want their world to see the glass always half-empty, to always be in  sackcloth and ashes. I would feel pity for him were he not making such a good living by arguing how horrible the world is. In his own way he's capitalizing off the misery of the masses just like the right does.

So to end this essay I'm going to take a page out of Marche's own book and make an analysis of why he was really drawn to these shows – an analysis I think it's more pertinent – and that he left out.

All four of these series have a white man at their center who believes either by education or his position that he is superior to everyone, his colleagues, his friends, even his family. It is clear to many of those who encounter them just how toxic their personalities are and they seem to do much of what they do just to prove that they're smarter then everyone around them. All of them judge everyone by standards that they can never make and more often then not when they go into 'the real world' they quickly learn how little their skills apply when they leave the comfort of their safe spaces.

That describes the average academic writer to a tee just as much as it does all of these leads. Only I should be clear it's a lot more fun to watch Don Draper or Jimmy McNulty then it is to read the turgid prose of someone like Marche analyze what they are doing.

So in conclusion while Marche will claim he's writing to explain a deeper thesis or to provide a larger narrative about America, in our heart people like me know the real reason he wrote this essay:

I did it for me. I was good at it. It made me feel alive.

Yeah deconstruction, bitch!

Lost Character Study Part 2: What Evangeline Lilly Did With Kate Deserves Far More Credit

 

 

In my very first piece regarding Lost I made it clear how much of a fan I was of Evangeline Lilly's work as Kate Austen. I made it clear that I thought that many of the  argument made by Emily St. James in Finding Lost about Kate were essentially presentist views of TV from 2024 that had little to do with what television was Lost was being made in 2004. I argued that I believed much of the reason Kate took abuse from the fanbase had to do with the same kind of toxic misogyny that turned them against Skyler White and Debra Morgan when Breaking Bad and Dexter were on the air and actually recounted one such example I had encountered. (Naturally the first comment on that article when it was published was one that basically coated in that same toxic misogyny.)

I don't expect to win any more hearts and minds with this article then the first one did: haters gonna hate, particularly with female characters on pop culture TV shows. And it's not like I denied there weren't flaws with Kate's character during Lost's run. What I do think is that its important to understand that part of the reason for why I was impressed with Lilly's work at the time and always am after every rewatch is in large part because of the actress herself and how television was in transition when Lost was being made in 2004 and how it had shifted by the end of its run.

First let's deal with something we've all forgotten: Evangeline Lilly was essentially unknown when she was cast in Lost.  She had a handful of screen appearance prior to be cast in Lost but all of them, even in shows like Smallville were uncredited. She'd been in three films uncredited and honestly I don't think anyone would want credit for appearing in Freddy vs. Jason or White Chicks. The casting director went way out on a limb when they cast a complete unknown as a major character on Lost. That no one expected Lost to even get picked up to series, much less become one of the biggest hits in TV history, doesn't change just how big a limb the producers went.

Now I acknowledge that the role was changed immensely was the decision was made before shooting began to not kill Jack Shephard off in the Pilot and much of Kate's backstory ended up going to other characters. It doesn't change the fact that almost from the start of the series the writers decided that Kate was going to be a vital part of Lost going forward.

St. James makes the argument that had J.J. Abrams, who wrote the Pilot stayed with Lost Kate's character might have had more dimension then she did when Darlton took over the showrunner duties. There's weight to this: Felicity and Alias had already become critical successes by having a strong female character at their center. But having seen both of those series it leaves out the fact that both dramas were only critical hits and not popular successes. (Indeed Alias only had its greatest ratings during its fourth season when it aired immediately after Lost on Wednesday nights.) And the unfortunate truth is that I'm not sure America was ready in 2004 for a network drama to succeed with an ensemble show with a female as its main character.

Network television was changing immensely by the time Lost aired as was the role of the female characters. There may have been few Buffy Summers and Sydney Bristows at the center of most dramas but the ground had begun to improve on network TV for female characters beyond the tropes of wife/girlfriend/mother that most network dramas had been casting women in. We'd seen it with Alison Janney's immense popularity on The West Wing as CJ,  Mariska Hargitay creating what is the most iconic policewoman in history as Olivia Benson on Law & Order: SVU and today forgotten but then popular and Emmy winning shows such as Judging Amy and Joan of Arcadia.

The biggest shift for female characters came not long after Lost debuted when in March of 2005 ABC launched as a mid-season replacement what was at first a critically maligned and only marginally more ratings successful medical drama known as Grey's Anatomy.  While my dislike for all things Shonda Rhimes is well documented elsewhere I can't deny the way she expanded immensely opportunities for actresses, particularly of color with more complicated characters then they'd been allowed to have to that point.

Now I watched Grey's Anatomy during the first five seasons despite my multiple issues with it at the time and many of which I believe are still valid. But I think a large part of the reason I still have immense respect for the work Evangeline Lilly did as Kate on Lost stems from what the showrunners did differently about her as opposed to all of the female interns, residents and attendings at Seattle Grace. (That is what it was called while Lost was on their air so I'm going to refer to it as that for the sake of these articles.)

For all of the cosmetic flourishes of Grey's Anatomy I've always held its essentially a soap opera disguised as a medical drama. And on a soap opera the primary subject that defines all the characters is who they're sleeping with. For all the pivots to female solidarity and racial equality that the saga of Meredith Grey and Christina Yang seemed to be about, they nevertheless regarded a lot of their identities as to their sexual entanglements and romantic attachments. You didn't watch Grey's Anatomy the same way you watched ER (still going on when the show premiered) which never forgot it was a medical drama first. The residents at Seattle Grace were all becoming specialists in dysfunctional romantic relationships and frankly on their best day their bedside manner was worse than Jack Shephard's at St. Sebastian.

It might not seem like a high bar that Kate managed to be a better female character then Meredith Grey but it is telling that even during the creakiest stages of the love triangle she was tangled in Kate seemed to be more concerned with helping everybody first. This was true even if it seemed counterintuitive. Critical to the first half of Lost is how active Kate is trying to get everybody rescued when we know by the time the Pilot is over, the only thing waiting for Kate in civilization is handcuffs. By any reasonable definition Kate should be spending her time on the island enjoying that she has two men lusting after her but as she tells Jack early in the first season "I can't dig in." This is the opposite of Meredith going to Derek and saying: "Pick me. Choose me. Love me" and then spends most of the next season mooning over Derek as she does her residency.

On a more direct criticism one of the reasons I always found Lost a more substantial show then Grey's Anatomy was that love stories were more important to the show's foundation then a series that ostensibly was about finding love in the workplace. Regardless of what you think of the final season and the series finale I defy even the most nitpicking of fans to argue that what's not important is the island but finding the person who makes you whole and that love can transcend everything. This is the complete opposite message of Grey's Anatomy both while Lost was on the air (and honestly still today) which essentially argues that what matters is having as much as sex as possible and that soulmates are just something you move on from with enough time and a need to scratch a similar itch.

There's also the fact that, even by the standard of the horrible parent issues every character had, Kate's are among the most complicated. As I've written before:

It wasn’t just that Diane Janssen was married to Wayne a man who regularly beat her, forced her daughter to live in the house with this drunk, and he may very well have molested her into the bargain but after Kate killed the man she thought was her stepfather in an act to see Diane up for life, Diane still took the side of Wayne and reported her to the Marshals. Furthermore when Kate returned to learn why  Diane called Kate the selfish one for killing the man she loved. To be sure Kate had done what she did when she learned that Wayne was her real father but it doesn’t make Diane’s sympathy for this devil any more horrific.

But unlike so many other characters on Lost Kate had actually someone in her life who did love her very much. Kate spent her childhood thinking that Sam, Diane’s first husband, was her birth father. Sam knew the truth – that Wayne and Diane had been having an affair and that he couldn’t have been her real father – but he never treated Kate that way and loved her like she was his own daughter. When Diane divorced Sam when Kate was five to marry Wayne, Sam kept quiet about it because he that if Kate learned the truth about it she’d kill him – which is how it played out. Diane was the main parent in Kate’s life but Sam was always a presence, taking her on camping and hunting trips and was always devoted to her.

And yet as we see in the second half of the series Kate manages to take all of this and find a way to break the cycle by taking on the burden of being Aaron's mother when its thrust upon her and proving that you don't have to have be a birth parent to be a good mother.

Kate spends the first half of Lost trying to figure out which relationship makes her whole: Jack or Sawyer. In what is perhaps the most daring conclusion of any network drama her final answer is 'none of the above'. Because when Kate gets back to civilization she decides to take on the role of being Aaron's mother and it clearly makes her whole in a way that neither Jack nor Sawyer does. Indeed it's pretty clear that her relationship with Jack ended because she was putting Aaron's needs above her personal happiness: she couldn't have her son be around a drunk and increasingly degenerating partner.

Many chose to blame Kate for much of what happened in the Season 5 finale, arguing that Jack was really willing to blow up the whole island because he lost Kate and Sawyer and Juliet's relationship blew up because Juliet was scarred by Sawyer seeming to pick her. But as Sawyer himself points out Kate was right there and Jack had many ways to fix things, none of which involved dropping a hydrogen bomb into an energy pocket.

If there's something that frustrated me about  Kate – and I'll confess it became an irritant for me at times – it was that she seemed very much to be Lost's Hamlet: she could never truly decide between running away and coming back. In large part this was because she cared too much about the people around here, which is far from the worst flaw for a character to have. The problem was as Nikki Stafford pointed out as early as Season 3:

While Marshal Mars told her she'd never stop running, Kate always comes back. She returned to her childhood sweetheart Tom in Born to Run (and got him killed), she came back to see her mother twice, despite her mother's hatred, and its disastrous both times. When she returns to get Jack, she thwarts his chances of leaving. She runs away from circumstance but returns to the people she loves (usually inadvertently hurting them.)

During Season 4 she accepts probation as part of a plea bargain  where she can't leave the state for five years, ostensibly because she wants to stop running. And yet as we see in Season 5 her flaw of coming back keeps getting in her way. She keeps going to see Cassidy to talk about Sawyer mainly because she made a promise to him. When an attorney (paid for by Ben) comes to her door demanding a paternity test her first decision is take Aaron run. She then goes to see Sun because she's someone and believes she cares about her, not knowing that Sun is using her to find and kill Ben – and inadvertently setting a course that will separate Sun from her son forever (though she can't take all the blame there)

When she learns what Jack and Ben are planning she says (rightfully) that they're all nuts and then heads off with Aaron. But when she realizes that Aaron at some level subconsciously misses Claire she makes the hardest decision of her life to come back to the island to find her and reunite her with her mother.

As I've written before (and I expect to get more hate mail for repeating it) none of what happens in Dharmaville is Kate's fault directly. She goes with Jack and Dan to find the Others even though she clearly thinks Dan is crazy because she the only one who knows where to find them and no one else from Sawyer's group is willing to go with her. She tries to protect Jack from getting hurt by what happens to the Others who she knows will not hesitate before killing her – and indeed Eloise tries to kill her when she's about to leave them. It's clear she came back to the Barracks to stop what Jack was planning and indeed she makes it very clear what was going to happen when she's in the sub with Sawyer and Juliet. Kate spends most of the Season 5 finale trying to stop carnage from happening. And its telling when Kate tells Jack why she came back to the island, he doesn't care about it either. He spins a narrative that Claire might decide not to give Aaron up for adoption but the viewer is as aware as Kate about how many promises he's given that he's never kept. Even in the final minutes before everything goes boom we see Kate doing everything she can to haul Sawyer and Jack away from the pocket. She's still trying to help people.

By the time the final season of Lost aired TV was firmly in the era of White Male Antiheroes and it had a very clear vision of the wives and girlfriends in this world: they were wet blankets stopping the viewer from enjoying the horrible behavior we watched each week. Why is Betty Draper so upset? She should be thrilled Don comes home after a busy day of having sex with his clients! Why does Rita Bennett have to be so demanding of Dexter? Doesn't she understand he's got an active nightlife killing people?! How can Skyler White think to put the needs of her family about that of a hard-working crystal meth cook? Walter's busy watching Jane die and letting mid-air plane crashes happen as a result!

So naturally during one episode when it looked like Kate might have been shot, half of the Lost fans seemed to be rooting for it. I myself never lost sympathy for Kate and that's particularly true during the final season.

Kate is still unconcerned with so many of the horrible things as the series enters its endgame and it must be devastating watching her be rejected time and again. She goes after Sawyer and tries to explain why she came back and he won't even look at her. She's been trying to bring him back for years and she's failed. She finds Claire in the pit back at the Temple and her first reaction to when she tells her that Aaron's alive is to say that she'd better hope I don't get out of this pit. When the Monster attacks the Temple she goes after Claire to protect her and is shocked to find Claire seems just fine with it. Ultimately she's told by Widmore herself that while he's there to protect the candidates he has no problem letting her be collateral damage.

As if to drive the point home late in the series after Jack decides to stay on the island Kate tells Sawyer we have to go back for him. Sawyer looks at her and says: "We're done going back."

And yet throughout the final season time and again she defies so many of the burdens set by the island. She constantly rebels against the Others and does everything she can to help Claire. When he initially plans not to take Claire off the island (for reasons I'll get into later) Kate defies him and brings her on the Elizabeth. And let's not forget in the final battle between Jack and the Man in Black, the winner was…Kate with a bullet.

Perhaps the best way to view Evangeline Lilly's Kate Austen is not to compare her with the other female characters of so many dramas of that era but to see her as a link between those network heroines that came just before Lost debuted and the many more fascinating female leads in the decade to follow. One can see her as a model in many of the fascinating female leads and supporting characters such as the uber sexual investigator Kalinda on The Good Wife, the bipolar but often laser focused Carrie Matheson on Homeland, the more devoted to the cause then her husband Elizabeth Jennings on The Americans and Kim Wexler on Better Call Saul who spends much of the series trying to choose between the angel and devil on her shoulder.  I can see bits of every part of Kate in all of these brilliant characters during the 2010s and it's worth noting none of them ever suffered the kind of toxic backlash that any of the wives and girlfriends of those white male antiheroes – or Kate herself ever did. That's more than anyone could have expected from Evangeline Lilly when she was cast in her first major TV role of significance and it's a legacy nearly as great as Lost's itself.

 

 

 

 

AOC Just Flagrantly Sold Out The Foundation Of Her Movement. Here's Why We Should Care - Even if Her Followers Won't

 

There's been a common theme for so much of the modern left, whether it comes from George McGovern, the Green Party, Bernie Sanders, the Justice Democrats or the DSA. And that is money.

It is the ultimate poison and the ultimate cure. It is salvation and damnation. It will solve every problem society faces; it has caused all the problems of the world we live in. It has corrupts everyone who possesses it; it is the only thing that can be use to bring redemption. And it has destroyed all good things about government and it is the only thing that can save it.

If this sounds completely opposite to what so many progressives speak of in their stump speeches or online, it is because they never use the term money in regard to any of their own policies. They will use phrases such as 'leveling the playing field' or 'balancing the scales', they will use in terms involving social justice such as racial equality. But make no mistake the only way they can think to solve these problems is through money.

As I made clear in an earlier piece the foundation of the modern left comes down what Theodore White referred to as liberal theology or 'the belief that money solves all problems'. And as I pointed out the Justice Democrats platform takes this to its biggest extreme:

No less than six of the eight bills that were used as the foundation for the Justice Democrats are the example of the belief that money can solve all problems: Medicare for All, Free College Tuition, Workers Rights, Women's Rights (which involves Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance) Environmental Justice and Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights. The last one is labeled "Justice is Not For Sale Act' which is noble but ignores the fact that like everything else justice costs money. The policies go further in the platform, including a federal job guarantee, universal education as a right, including a free four year public college, making the minimum wage a living wage and tying it to inflation, passing the paycheck fairness act. Furthermore active social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid will never be cut, and single payer healthcare will become universal.

 This is Money Solves Everything on steroids mixed with amphetamines. And it begs the question how are we supposed to pay for all this? The only hint we get at this in the entire platform is the eighth part of the platform: Taxing Wall Street. There is some talk of chaining capital gains and income tax, increasing the estate tax and ending offshore financial centers. In other words were going to raise taxes – but only on the wealthiest people in the country – and that alone should be able to pay for everything on this wish list. Oh and we won't bother to supplement it with arms sales because we won't be selling to countries who violate human rights laws.

That was mostly about how money solves problems. What I want to talk about her was the foundation of the Justice Democrats main principle which was advocating for campaign finance reform. One of the key principle of the Justice Democrats was that they must 'refuse donations from corporate PACs and lobbyists" and "banning private donations to politicians and campaigns'.

Now I've written before the problem with getting money out of politics is that it takes money to run for political office.  More to the point during the 2000s quite a few states agreed with publicly financed elections but after two or three election cycles most states repealed them because the public didn't want to finance them. I'm going to do a longer essay down the road about why campaign finance reforms while noble in spirit have never worked out as well in practice but the fact remains it takes money to finance an election.

I honestly think that if you passed everything the Justice Democrats wanted on campaign finance tomorrow we'd still be facing the same problem: how could anyone afford to run for office? They say its free speech but it's actually very expensive. TV ads, campaign stops, advertising, all costs money and I hate to say it, $25 contributions from individuals only go so far. That has been a reason the Justice Democrats have such a horrible losing record. They've been bound by their own rules on finance and no one else will play by them.

Until recently.

I mentioned that Abdul El-Sayid, who is running for the Senate in Michigan, was once a Justice Democrat. He ran for governor of Michigan in 2018 the same year AOC ran for and was elected to Congress. AOC is still a Justice Democrat.

Now I'll be frank. I don't know if once the Justice Democrats win the Democratic nomination for any major office in a primary  – Congress – the DNC will fund their campaign in the general. I assume the DNC does so. I am aware the DNC doesn't have the same illusions about corporate money as the Justice Democrats do when it comes to ideological purity. They will take million dollar donations from Hollywood and other rich donors and it will eventually reach all Democratic candidates including those who are running as Justice Democrats or DSA candidates right now.

I also assume that when they run for reelection all of these left wing candidates will do the same thing because they want to win. How much the DNC actively has been willing to help them is an open question in some cases: as we saw just two years ago Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush were primaried by more centrist candidates and they lost.

Finally I do get that railing against the special interests during election season while taking their money to buy your vote  is Politics 101 and predates social media, television, radio. Et al. At this point I'm starting to see Republicans running with those same ads going forward so I know its standard campaign talk. You do what you have to win.

None of this bothers me in theory or even practice. It does however irritate the hell out of me when certain progressive candidates use their platform to raise outrage about billionaires trying to 'buy elections by dumping money for Republicans'. Now don't get me wrong Elon Musk and other billionaires are openly doing just that as well as many other Silicon Valley, so in that they're not lying. I have my own opinion on whether money actually does as much to influence the voters as the left thinks. For example just two years ago the Harris campaign spent far more money in the general election then the GOP did – and Trump had his biggest electoral win yet.  If the wealthy were trying to buy an election for anyone it was Harris and they sure as hell didn't get a return on their investment.

And I expect most politicians to be hypocritical to an extent, but that's because I know that campaign rhetoric rarely translates into policy. That's fine with me because in two, four or six years the electorate will get a chance to vote on whether their officials failed to meet their needs. And honestly I have more faith in the electorate then the average progressive does but we've been through that before.

With all that said when AOC made it clear this past week that she was publicly donating $1 million to El-Sayid's campaign for Senate, it struck me as the biggest example of hypocrisy for both. This wasn't illegal but it was a violation of what the Justice Democrats were founded on. Nor did she do it quietly, it was a very open announcement.

I should also mention AOC has been very quiet when it came to endorsing either House or Senate candidates this cycle compared to previous years when she's openly endorsed many left-wing candidates running for office. She didn't bother to endorse  her own campaign manager Saikat Chakrabarti this cycle when he ran for Congress. Again to review:

"Chakrabarti is the co-founder of the Justice Democrats and served as AOC's campaign manager and then her chief of staff. He was part of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign which was the impetus for the Justice Democrats foundation. He is one of the major forces behind policy such as the Green New Deal.

But when he ran AOC not only refused to endorse him but wouldn't even mention him in interviews, despite the Justice Democrats backing his campaign. He actually started his campaign one month after Trump's inauguration even before Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had not yet decided she was going to seek reelection, announced her retirement. His rejection is the loudest and clearest sign of not only the lack of appeal the Justice Democrats have but how their own leaders will turn on their own.

Now AOC may very well be considering a Presidential run in 2028 (please let that just be a rumor). She doesn't have a great reputation among Congressional Democrats nor a particularly good track with endorsements. I can understand why she'd campaign for El-Sayid considering their platforms and rhetoric overlap as well as the fact that El-Sayid is clearly facing a tougher campaign for Senate mainly because of his harsh rhetoric. And I do get that this would be a way to make her seem publicly behind him – though as his primary win showed, his problem is with the center not the left.

There's an argument to be made, furthermore, that is a sign of pragmatism on the part of the most famous face of the American left. By being willing to donate this much money she is acknowledging that while campaign finance reform is in theory a good idea it must meet the reality that in practice it only works if both sides play by the same rules. For  the purposes of running for higher office it shows her to willing to be a team player in a way she historically doesn't have the best track record with the Democrats for being. And it's not like the Justice Democrats will send her into exile for breaking a fundamental principle if it helps them get an ally into the Senate – which as I've illustrated they desperately need after five election cycles.

The thing is this is somewhat belied by a campaign ad AOC sent to me earlier today in which she justifies her decision to make her contribution. She's honest about the closeness of the race and that she wants to do more to help get El-Sayid elected, which is legitimate. However its undercut by this:

It's important for you to know that this isn't a $1 million I have sitting around in a personal bank account. This money comes from small pieces of the more than 2 million individual donations made my people across the country this election cycle.

It is not MY contribution. It is OUR contribution.

To be clear AOC does have a PAC called Courage to Change. She founded in 2020 to support progressive primary challengers, working class candidates and Democrats who refuse to accept corporate donors. Most of the nominees its endorsed are Justice Democrats or candidates who've failed. To be fair I really don't want to throw too many stones because in addition to endorsing Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush she did endorse Mary Peltola for the House in 2022 and since I am currently trying to help her win the Senate I'll let this part slide for now at least.

What I have to be clear on is that AOC has basically just sat out the 2026 midterms to this point. She hasn't publicly endorsed any candidates and her PAC hasn't done so either. El Sayed is the only candidate of any consequence she's chosen to endorse and give money to this cycle. Indeed the only other major candidate running for office this cycle is Angie Nixon in Florida and Justin Pearson in the Tennessee House race, both of whom are very likely to lose this cycle. She has endorsed almost every other major progressive running this cycle in the Justice Democrats, but as I've mentioned most of them are heavily favored to win anyway.

There's no question El-Sayid's race is the most critical one, given the commonalities between the two as well as the importance of winning the Senate for the Democrats. And to her credit at no point did she endorse Graham Platner in Maine the same way so many of her progressive colleagues did. She hasn't endorsed Troy Jackson either but she did endorse Sara Gideon in 2020 and it ended up backfiring when Susan Collins won reelection. She might have learned from her mistakes and has decided to become more pragmatic, which is honestly to be applauded.

So what is this article about? Well it's not about my personal feelings for AOC or El-Sayid. I've documented them multiple times over the last few months; I'm not going to relitigate them.  It's more addressed to the media, particularly the mainstream one. To be clear in the last few months many of you have been doing a better job at holding progressive candidates and elected officials accountable when it comes to their electoral successes, failures and just how flawed they can be. So now going forward it must be done with AOC in this regard.

Whenever she rails against the corporate billionaires, you must remind her she had a million dollars to donate to a Senate Democrats. When she talks about campaign finance you must immediate ask her why she chose to violate the foundation of her own movement. You must also ask why she did so for El-Sayid and not the man who put her on the first place. You must ask why she chose to put her money behind El-Sayid specifically and not other major candidates. I do want to know why she was fine  endorsing Peltola for the House in 2022 but not for the Senate this cycle (although to be honest I don't know how much that would help in Alaska)

Whatever plans she has for the future – and even if she doesn't run for President this cycle I have no doubt she has plans for higher office – she must be held accountable in a way she and the majority of her colleagues just haven't been in the last decade. The left is very big on the idea of 'keeping the powerful honest'. Well someone has to keep them honest because they sure as hell won't. That includes why she put her money where her mouth was for El-Sayid – and not say Sherrod Brown or James Talarico.

 

 

 

 

Homicide Rewatch: Full Court Press

 

Written by Philip B. Epstein ; story by Philip B. Epstein & David Simon

Directed by Clark Johnson

 

On its own merits Full Court Press is a brilliant episode that deals with a subject that if anything is more pressing today then before. It argues that even before the era of social media, active shooter drills and the helicopter parenting that drives everything high school has and always will be a hierarchy that allows the athletically gifted to coast by because of their talent and let a multitude of other sins go unchecked. This is made clear even through the detectives themselves: Gharty is more than shocked about the death of a high school athlete who's literally called 'Mr. Basketball' while Munch is cynical throughout about how nothing has changed since he went there.

Underlying this episode is the fact that the Mahoney storyline is now taken up speed towards its horrific climax that is already starting to touch beyond those detectives who already know about and a brilliant comic subplot involving Bayliss and Pembleton who almost never get to have funny storylines during their entire tenure on the show.

We see Marc McCarron, senior at Mencken High in what is clearly a photo shoot for himself as Mr. Basketball with what is the entire faculty staring at him. Then we find him dead in the shower with two bullets in the chest.  We get the impression that Marc is a good kid from the janitor whose impressed by how early he comes into practice and how polite he is to him. His coach is impressed by how good a teammate he is  but he only knows about his grades and family casually – and it turns out not as well as he thinks. The McCarron's make it seem like everybody loved their son and that everybody wanted to be a part of his success. His father, however, tells them something interesting. Despite the fact that every single college was calling him with recruitment offers, Marc was planning to go pro right out of high school. It's there his father's subtle racism becomes clear as he says that the pros would want Marc because he's white, arguing that the scouts wanted the next Larry Bird more than the next Michael Jordan. Munch can sense this immediately but Gharty still fixated on the power of McCarron as a player, ignores it – maybe because of his own less then enlightened racial views.

Munch's attitude is genuine: he can't understand why his father's reaction is that its such a tragedy he didn't sign an NBA contract. Gharty actually seems more upset than Munch doesn't seem to think very highly of sports or of McCarron as an athlete.  Munch does care about sports but its clear he thinks that we spend too much time focused on athletes then we do intelligent or musical prodigies. I actually agree with him about our national priority about it, though I'm not sure I can tie it to the world coming to the end.

The larger truth comes when after talking to most of the students they learn that Mark has so prioritize sports that's he failed his SATs twice. When they go to the principal and point that this doesn't jive with his B average. It turns out the high school has been letting him coast for awhile because his extra-curriculars don't leave him time to study.  And the principal makes it clear they've also been covering up his disciplinary problems which neither Munch nor Gharty will let go. Talking to the other students they make it clear he was a jerk who just seemed to pick on kids at random because he knew he could get away with it. He seems to have random 'pals' and the most recent is David Ternowsky.

Its when they find David and they understand that Marc used to pick on him that David responds: "He can't pick on me anymore." David is the first person we've met who doesn't speak about Mark with reticence and they bring him into the box.

David is played by Steve Burns, who at the time was known to millions of preschoolers for his work on the Nick Jr show Blue's Clues. Here we get one of those senses of powerful performances from unlikely sources in a brilliant interrogation scene that is essentially a monologue from Burns. The detectives try to tell David about his rights about what happens and he doesn't seem to care that much. When they ask him to get a lawyer he says: "What's he gonna do? Take a beating for me? I'm protected. Now." He gives a sample of what had to have been weeks and weeks of bullying, how the principal prioritized the star athlete over the child he was bullying, and that his father wouldn't have a chance dealing with McCarron in a fight – and its clear who the school would back in that battle. He brings up an example of horrible bullying done by the entire team and humiliates him in front of the girls. He says how he got a gun just to scare McCarron.  David makes it clear he's been thinking of killing himself to end the bullying  and he just wants to scare him. Marc gave him the same smile he's given everyone else, that clearly has fooled everyone in school, the college recruiters, his parents – and then David just goes blank.

Munch tells him everything changes now. David just makes it clear he isn't sorry about a damn thing. And it's hard not to look at this nearly thirty years later and see that this kind of violence is fictional only in the sense that it ended with only one dead student and the shooter going to prison.

As we enter what will be the final phase of the Mahoney storyline I think it's important to keep looking how much the detectives at the center of it have changes. And by far the most notable one is Kellerman.

My own view has changed over time as well. Twenty years ago I could justify Mike's behavior during this period as a result of having been dragged through the system and coming out the other side. Now watching Kellerman with fresh eyes it’s a lot harder to make that argument.

The main reason Mike was so insistent on not being tarnished as 'a dirty cop' was because being a good cop was all that mattered to him. Now in the aftermath of violating his badge there's been a huge amount of collateral damage already and he seems increasingly indifferent not only to it but even being a cop at all. He doesn't seem that interesting in investigating the case of Calvin Barnes even before he knows who it is. Ballard who he's partnered with points out just how much of a bear he's been and she's genuinely trying to help him. Once again someone is offering him a chance to open up and his reaction is to tell her to go to hell.  His response to Ballard: "Screw the dead. What have their moldering asses ever done for me?" is arguably the most shocking line we've heard any detective on this show ever deliver and you can see just how shocked Ballard is to hear it.  Two weeks ago he told Meldrick that they were about to come out on the other side but now we genuinely wonder what that matters if the job itself is essentially meaningless to him.

The way he is seems so willing to mock Calvin Barnes is repulsive and you can appreciate how much is must be taking for Ballard to withhold her disgust. To be fair the fact that Barnes, who was alive when they got there, doesn't seem to care who killed him is kind of impressive. When he says he doesn't deserve a cop standing over him if he won't bother to speak for himself and Ballard reminds him its not about deserving, he just brushes it off. And the way he decides to take a picture with 'the birthday boy' with a big smile on his face and whistling Happy Birthday is a level of mockery that we've never seen any detective show. Even Beau Felton had the common courtesy to wait to the safety of the squad room to talk this meanly about the dead.

He doesn't care about solving Barnes' murder even for the perspective of his job even when Ballard points out that he worked for Mahoney. She tells him five bodies have fallen and that this might be a drug war. Kellerman's reaction that we're just the garbagemen. This causes Ballard to be genuinely appalled: "Are you out of your mind?" is practically mild at this point. It begs the question why Mike is still so determined to hang on his badge. If he's not even interested in doing what he's paid to do as a homicide detective, then why is he even showing up to work?

Stivers and Ballard made it clear that the people dying in the shootings aren't soldiers but lieutenants. Kellerman seems fine with the street law working better than the law of the land. Then Falsone comes in with a double murder in what seems to be a firefight at a Mahoney stash house. It appears the two victims shot each other.  This seems to indicate the Mahoney organization has turned on each other and Kellerman actually says, in front of his lieutenant, that they just let it play out and let them kill each other. Giardello has no illusions of their being any innocent bystanders but he's more worried about someone winning it then losing it. When he tells everyone to "work their cases…hard" he's looking right at Kellerman when he says it. But as we see Kellerman doesn't even bother waiting to go along with it. Kellerman actually seems to blame them for not wanting to make his life easier and seems perfectly fine letting Ballard talk to the victim's mother herself.

Kellerman then goes to the FBI determined to play both ends against the middle. He plays the recording he made. The FBI points out that this tape is almost certainly inadmissible in court and they tell him what Meldrick did: that it's hardly definitive. Kellerman now seems determined to make the FBI do their jobs and they treat him with more courtesy then he deserves. One of the Feds then tells him that they have Gibbons under investigation for four months and that they think he can give him Georgia Rae. They're actually polite when they tell him this and Kellerman gives his first genuine smile all season as he seems to get proof things are finally turning a corner.

But for who? At this point Mike has essentially burned his bridges with much of the squad save for Munch, who still has no real idea of how much his partner is drowning. The only people he hasn't isolated yet are the ones who haven't worked closely with him this season – and perhaps not coincidentally, have not handled any of the cases dealing with the Mahoney family during the last two years.  He's now officially torched his relationship with Ballard and by the time this case comes up again its clear they're not even speaking any more.

Which brings us to Lewis and Falsone. During the episode  we see that Lewis has been following the Mahoney organization around with the photos Falsone gave him. When Paul meets with Meldrick he points out what we've already suspected: that the names that are on the board in red are some of the very names Paul has been giving to him ever since the two met in secret a few months ago.  Falsone asks him outright if he's killing them himself and Meldrick says he's a cop and doesn't play by those rules. When Falsone asks what rules he plays by Meldrick seems perfectly fine by saying he's letting information be told to other members of the crew. No matter how you slice it, though, Meldrick is essentially killing  the Mahoney organization by proxy which in itself is a violation of the badge – and doesn't seem bothered by it.

But just as appalling is Falsone's actions. If he was able to engage in willful blindness that what he was doing was shady before he acknowledges during this exchange that he is aware of the consequences. His involvement to this point is at the best conspiracy and at worse could make him an accessory to murder. And yet he still came to Meldrick with more information on the Mahoney's and despite his clear reluctance as well as knowledge of the consequences of his actions, he still gives Meldrick another group of files.  The only thing he says is to tell Meldrick to be careful. He knows that people are dying as a result of his partners actions but he cares only about Meldrick's safety. This episode wipes off most of the shine on any halo Falsone had at the start of the season and in a few more episodes, it will be gone forever.

Because of all this tension we're grateful every time the writers cut to Tim and Frank. At the start of the episode they're under pressure from Gee to close the murder of Reggie Gaynor. They have a suspect Manuel Rendeiros but the suspect has never been arrested as he's only been in Baltimore a year. but they have only a vague description of him, an idea of where he hangs out and his pager number. (This case, I should mention, could only work in the 1990s.) They don't have a picture all they know is that he hangs out at the Derby on the East Side where every thug in Baltimore does, according to Frank. Finally Bayliss comes up with a clever plan. When Frank mocks him, as he does, Bayliss's response of: "Do you have a plan?" causes Frank to admit he has no plan.

The plan is for Bayliss to go in and use the pager – but when he finds out the clientele of the Derby is all black – he immediately goes back out and says: "Change of plan." Pembleton goes inside places a drink order and Bayliss uses the pager. A black man answers the phone then goes outside. Bayliss and Pembleton are in pursuit. They could snatch him up right now, but they want to find out where he lives so with an address they can find a murder weapon.

Ah the best laid plans of mice and homicide detectives. They follow Renderos for hours and he stops and starts with countersurveillance. This finally irritates Frank and Tim and they decide to haul him in. They arrest Manny who doesn't know what they're talking about. They've actually arrested Bernard Weeks and made the biggest drug bust in Baltimore history – by accident. This utterly astonishes Weeks, who can't believe that this happened to him after such hard work, nonplusses are two detectives who realize what's happened. And sure enough after taking a photo op with Bonfather (during which he argues that this has been planned for months, of course) as well as commendations in their jacket. Giardello congratulates them – and send them back out on the street because they've done nothing to help him. (Spoiler: The Gaynor case is never close and Bernard Weeks will be back on the street in less then two years. No doubt he ended up working for the Barksdale's after this.)

The episode ends with Gharty and Munch at the Waterfront decompressing after the case. But this is different then usual. Munch says he completely gets where David was coming from, that it wasn't a picnic for a Jew going to high school in the 50s.  Munch tells Gharty in a bit of earnestness we rarely see just how frequently and often he was bullied at high school. Gharty essentially says its part of growing up and is actually open about how when he was growing up he was a bully. It was testosterone. Munch says he hated morons like him.

What happens next is shocking. Gharty seems willing to let John take his best shot at him. We're used to Munch being a lightweight, the first guy to hit the floor when things get tough and its clear Gharty doesn't take him seriously. So when Munch grabs an ashtray and says: "You said my best shot!" it stuns the viewer as much as Gharty. And yet amazingly we're on Munch's side: both Gharty and Munch are cynical men roughly the same age, but Gharty's has always been mixed with a kind of bigotry and we wonder if John has sensed it as well. Gharty manages to calm him down but this represents a fissure between the two men and they'll never get along after this.

The episode ends with Stivers having caught a triple homicide. The Mahoney killings just hit double digits. What she doesn't know – but the viewer does – is Lewis is watching from down the block. What the viewer knows is that things can only get worse from here.

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

Calvin Leroy Barnes's saying 'Stick it" for his last words when asked who shot him actually comes from Simon's book when one citizen was killed and a detective asked. To be sure he used language that couldn't be broadcast on NBC but it was part of a larger trend of how those who were found on the verge of death never had anything useful to say to help arrest their killers.

"Detective Munch": Those two words, emphasized with a  big slur, come from Dr. Dyer who has by far the best moments involving Munch in this episode. She clearly hasn't gotten over their relationship. "This is one hunky specimen," she tells Munch. "Kind of refreshing to see one who's in shape. If you had this kids pecs, you and I'd still be an item." When Munch says: "At least I'm not stone cold dead," Dyer responds: "Matter of opinion."  She delivers the response of the body result as if she's about to start crying.  It ends with Munch asking Dyer to call him if she finds anything new on the autopsy. "You call me," Dyer says. Munch is honest with Gharty. "I'm always put in the position of having to make the first move. Then I learn there's no percentage in that." Gharty's reaction is absolutely perfect: "You're a bitter man. A bitter, bitter man."

 

Hey, Isn't That…Reg E. Cathey who plays Bernard Weeks began his acting career in 1984's A Doctor's Story. His most prominent TV role (and the one this viewer grew up with was) his work on PBS's brilliant math related TV Show Square One TV which aired from 1987-1992. After that he made appearances in films as diverse as Airheads, Clear and Present Danger and The Mask with his most famous appearance as the ME in Seven.

However once you made the acquaintance of both Tom Fontana and David Simon they don't forget. In 2000 he appeared as Martin Querns who briefly took over running Em City on Oz and Scalio in The Corner. While he kept working in film in TV Simon used him to great effect again in The Wire as Norman Wilson the campaign advisor to Carcetti's political career. He had a role in the FX series Lights Out in 2011. But the world really took note of him as Freddy, the man Frank Underwood buys ribs from for the first two seasons and who becomes emmeshed in the political rise of Underwood. He received three Emmy nominations for Best Guest Actor in A Drama winning in 2015. His career was truly hitting meteoric status – he'd starred in the Cinemax series Outcast and had been cast as James Lucas in Like Cage. Sadly he passed away from lung cancer in February of 2018 at the untimely age of 2018. He is much missed.

NOTE: There have been some very changes to the soundtrack between the DVD and what you get on streaming and syndication just as with the rest of the series. But honestly I can't in good conscience say any of the changes have affected the atmosphere the way they clearly did in past episodes. I'll let you know going forward if my opinion changes and if so which episodes.