My instinct is to believe that people who write for and work at New Yorker must be smart people. The magazine’s been around for 90 years. It’s got a really snooty logo. Seems high class by my standards. So the people there must be smart, right? I mean, that’s my immediate assumption.
Maybe I’m all wet. I’ve known professional writers, some of whom were dumber than dirt. I worked at a white shoe firm – once, briefly – and there I met some of the most insular, self-absorbed and oblivious people I have ever experienced. So maybe Allyson Hobbs and the editors of the New Yorker are simply stupid people. Maybe this is actually honestly meant, produced by people who are honestly stupid. I hope so.
And then again, maybe they know their audience. I hope not.
Because there really is an editorial in New Yorker which asks,
Why Aren’t We Inspired by Hillary Clinton?
The question is rhetorical, of course. The writer leaves us in no doubt as to why we should believe she doesn’t inspire us.
Or no. Wait. The question isn’t why Hillary isn’t inspiring. The question is why we have failed to be inspired. Couldn’t possibly be her fault.
It’s got nothing to do with the fact that even the most low-information among us have known her since 1992, and in the ensuing 23 years she has never done the slightest thing to convince us that she is anything but a grating, shrill, grasping, opportunistic harridan. No. That can’t be it. It couldn’t be because she has held two high government offices already, and her performance in each, on her good days, was uninspiring. Absolutely not. And of course the fact that she’s been proven over and over to be a compulsive serial crook couldn’t possibly be relevant.
No, no, no. The article never mentions any of those things. We’re not inspired by Hillary Clinton because we’re – wait for it…
Sexists.
But [an] obvious explanation is the persistent problem of gender bias in American culture. Perhaps the sexism—in both overtly hostile and less visible but still insidious ways—has helped stoke the fires of animosity towards Clinton while, at the same time, creating an almost impossible standard for her. Unlike her male opponents, Clinton has to be far more careful and measured in what she says and does. To be free from a strict choreography of words and actions is a form of male privilege that Hillary Clinton cannot access.
Christ.
No, I know it’s nothing new. But I read this piece of dreck and couldn’t help wondering – Do people really buy this shit? Because I’m looking at good evidence that a bunch of well-dressed people think they do. And I’m afraid they’re probably right.
Why this should still surprise, I can’t say. After all, this is a world where people fight hunger by putting spoons on their noses.
No, we “don’t favor Hillary” because … we perceive her as the Dark Force behind Bill.
And it was bad enough when we thought he was at least filtering her malaise (or was it malice?);
I just don’t think this country is ready for The Full Hillary.
Especially following right in the footsteps of Obama.
Don’t we get any days off, during this century?
I know *_I_* need a break!
The hell of it is, as uninspiring as Hillary might be, she’s not the worst of the sorry lot that are running for the Presidency right now. Am I the only one to look at that group and ask, “Is this really the best we can do?”
My theory is that anyone truly qualified for the office would be smart enough to not want it.
I signed up for a subscription to the New Yorker because I enjoyed a few of their stories online and the subscription is very cheap. Alas, each new issue leaves me vaguely ashamed of being white and financially stable. OTOH, at least I’m not a cis-gendered male…
I started reading the “Why aren’t we inspired …?” piece yesterday. Quit as soon as I got to “sexist.”
I don’t know if that’s stupidity. But it’s certainly head-up-assery.
Sheesh. Here’s this totally unlikeable, criminally dishonest power-seeker (I won’t even call Hillary a politician because politicians generally seem to like running for office, while Hillary clearly disdains the whole icky process as something one simply is forced to do before taking control). And the only reason we’re not inspired by her is because we’re a bunch of bigots.
I refuse to acknowledge that “we” are in any way responsible for these bozos.
“If Hillary Clinton wins, she will become the first woman President, and her victory will be a transformative moment in our nation’s history. There will be tears, hugs, and prayers.”
There will indeed . . . tears for the future of the republic, hugs for reassurance, and prayers for our deliverance.
Also rending of garments, gnashing of teeth, and anguish unprecedented in our lifetime.
They HAVE TO BELIEVE. Their fantasy world is so removed from reality that they can’t understand why their ‘shining example’ isn’t the rule of the land. They ignore the character of people like hilary because it conflicts with the way that they WANT the world to be. And the truth will not change their world view.
Clarence
[The magazine’s been around for 90 years. It’s got a really snooty logo. Seems high class by my standards. So the people there must be smart, right?]
They are probably coasting on their laurels, or however one would say that.
This story reminds me of bumper stickers. Yesterday I was behind a guy with an Obama 2008 sticker on his car. I never could figure out why anyone would be FOR a politician, and even advertise that fact, and for years and years. I can see being AGAINST a politician, as in voting the lesser of two evils. That at least has some sense to it, even if it tends to fall apart when you get into the details of it. Am I supposed to be impressed that this guy voted for Obama in 2008?