My latest draft post for ESPN+ subscribers looks at the top prospects from last week’s NHSI tournament, including C.J. Abrams, Riley Greene, and Jack Leiter; as well as Saturday’s outing by Elon RHP George Kirby.
Here are some of the leftover longreads I hadn’t gotten through in time for yesterday’s post:
- The Guardian looks at the evolution of the influencer market, which continues to grow even through scandals and fragmentation. The article also focuses, a bit oddly, on influencers’ drive for “authenticity,” which strikes me as a contradiction in terms.
- A reader sent this lengthy Current Affairs overview of Pete Buttigeig as seen through his book Shortest Way Home, arguing that he’s not a progressive candidate and that progressive voters shouldn’t want any part of him as a Presidential candidate. I think the article makes many good points, notably when discussing his policies as South Bend mayor and how he seemed to deprioritize issues like poverty reduction or racial inequality, but also makes some dubious inferences and leans too much on the book itself, which is a campaign document. Buttigeig also wrote about his ten favorite books for Vulture and I find it hard to believe that these ten, which read like the list of books you want other people to believe are your favorite books, are actually his favorites.
- The Indy Star profiles John Franzese, whose testimony sent his father, a Colombo crime family boss, to jail, and his life after leaving witness protection, trying to work with recovering addicts like himself.
- I’ve read two great books on the Chicxulub impact event, the asteroid collision with the earth that wiped out the dinosaurs and caused the KT mass extinction event, in the last year: The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs and T. rex and the Crater of Doom. The New Yorker has a piece right in line with those, looking at the recent discovery of a site that may have a fossil record of the first few hours after the impact.
- Matthew Komatsu documents his experiences as a Japanese-American in the wake of the 2011 tsunami, and what he found in his 2018 return to the country.
My sister was living and teaching in Japan when the tsunami hit and destroyed much of her town (Kamaishi). She wrote a personal account of the experience for Oregon Live:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/my-hillsboro/2011/04/personal_account_of_tsunami_and_aftermath_in_japan.html
She’s wanted to return to the town but hasn’t been able to yet. I’ll definitely forward the article to her.
Thoughts on the Pete Buttigeig article, and lots of others like it i’m seeing lately: These may all be valid points, but is putting them in the framework of a long-read article (sometimes with, sometimes without a subversive headline) doing the work the writer hopes it’s doing? TL;DR: “Democrat X is actually not as [something] as you think”…. I fear I’ve become cynical, in that I don’t expect the average reader to RTFA and draw a nuanced conclusion. I expect either a straw man (“So we should vote for Trump?”), a write-off (“your so bias”), or a proof point (“See! This is why only Democrat Y is the right choice!”). I just have this fear that more people fall into any one of those groups than the group that considers and re-thinks its own position, and seeks out additional information. And I’m certain I fall into one of the first three groups way more than I’d be proud of.
I read articles like this and just get bummed out: I kind of like this guy, but obviously his record and stances are going to be more complex than what are provided in his own autobiography or favorable early profiles. But which candidate is without fault, and is looking for the perfect human being our top priority right now?
My question is: are articles like this helping, in the grand scheme of things?
I don’t think these articles help, not when they’re this bloated and also feel a bit slanted. But I do think there are good points within the piece for anyone who has the time and willingness to read it closely – for example, that Buttigeig’s entire philosophy as mayor was not progressive, and probably would surprise many people who are considering supporting him. Slagging him for being a Rhodes Scholar or working for McKinsey, however, is absurd.
@Ken – the author followed up with an answer to your question: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/why-bother-trying-to-persuade-anyone
@Mike – thanks, I appreciate the writer’s reasoning. I just feel that some of these articles, especially in tone, view four more years of Trump as an acceptable risk for making their carefully constructed arguments. E.g., this writer was “horrified” reading Buttigeig’s book – what’s the benchmark for horror?
I’m not sure why you’re implying the “view four more years of Trump as an acceptable risk” part. This is a Democratic primary, and it’s time to pick the candidate that best reflects the policy positions and worldview of Democratic voters. Buttigeig is almost certainly not that candidate.
BTW, if your concern is “electability,” that’s a farce pushed by the centrist wing of the party. The Democratic contenders all regularly poll within the margin of error of each other when going head-to-head with Trump. For example: https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/PPP_Release_National_12219.pdf
Thanks, that head-to-head consideration for each candidate is what I’ve been looking for. But the acceptable risk part, I’d say, is trusting that the 9-12% of “unsure” voters aren’t going to tip the scale (or that some voters will view 47-41 as “certainty” and stay home).
I should add – I’m probably the exact person these articles are trying to reach, and in getting me to think more critically about a candidate’s real policy positions, the author has succeeded. But I’m feeling some backlash burnout, so I’m wondering if others have the same sense, and – if so – is this kind of in-depth “dissection” (as the author calls it) having the intended effect on a larger scale.
Sorry that wasn’t clear…..I meant that the 47-53% that the various dems got were within the margin of error with each other. I agree that Trump is entirely too close for comfort.
Why do I somehow get the feeling that the author of “All About Pete” was a Jill Stein voter? I agree that we shouldn’t be infatuated with Buttigieg, but if we’ll only vote for the perfect liberal, we’ll get Trump for another four years. At this stage, if Buttigieg (and I’m not a supporter of his) has the best chance of defeating Trump, I’m all for him.I may be showing my age, but I remember in 1968 and 1972, when the Democrats self-destructed by looking for the ideal Democrat and allowed Nixon to become President. As an aside, Nixon, compared to today’s Republicans, was very progressive.
@ Mike’s comments about electability, I wouldn’t discount that so quickly, regardless of those polls. I realize this is a n=1 comment, but as someone who considers himself center-right, I would almost certainly vote for Mayor Pete over Trump, but I would absolutely not vote for, say, Bernie, under any circumstances. I suspect there are many more with a similar POV.
As a progressive, I don’t think for a second that it’s important to have someone who is perfectly aligned with my thinking to be the Democratic nominee. I think there should only be one prism through which our decision (as a party) is made: Who can ensure our country is not subjected to four more years of horrific policies, disregard for science and established facts, and Presidential-endorsed hate and bigotry? I think Buttigeig has as much right to that claim as anyone right now, regardless of how progressive his policies in South Bend may or may not have been. If I thought Mary Poppins would be the best person to beat the idiot in the White House, I’d vote for her and write her a campaign contribution check. Our goal is not ideological purity; it’s saving the country from unmitigated disaster.
Yes. 100% yes.
Just an FYI: Every single reference in both the main text and the comments is misspelled. His last name is actually Buttigieg.
Okay?
Um, I don’t really understand your response.
His last name ends g-I-E-g; and everyone here–including you–has it g-E-I-g. That is just as incorrect as spelling it Donald Trupm or Barack Omaba. Since you generally correct any other spelling errors that are pointed out, I presumed you would want to correct this one. Perhaps I was in error.