The Counterpublic Papers vol. 8 no. 20

I didn’t watch the debate. Even if I hadn’t inadvertently planned the last day of the Looking Rights Exhibition for June 27, I wouldn’t have watched. The structure of US presidential debates mirrors the broader structure of presidential elections themselves—they work on the presumption that the two candidates are legitimate, and that the purpose of the news media is to serve as a referee between them. The person watching the debate doesn’t really participate, unless consuming the debate itself is considered participation. 

The first question about the Jan. 6 insurrection wasn’t asked until the 41^st minute. While they didn’t feel it was their responsibility to rein in the lies—which as I type makes me realize they don’t even serve as a referee anymore—they did feel that it was their responsibility to present Biden with a balanced question in response to their question about January 6. That’s pretty much all I needed to confirm my decision.

When a friend asked me about the debates, presuming that I was watching them, I told him I didn’t think the debates were legitimate. 

They are legitimate in that the rules were determined by a combination of the two political parties and the major news media. They’re legitimate in that a number of citizens not only tune in, but they think that the debates will somehow shape or determine the outcome. They’re legitimate in that most major commentators treat them as legitimate. 

But they aren’t legitimate to me because they don’t fulfill the function they should fulfill given what this election represents. We no longer have two functioning political parties. We’ve something else. We no longer have two legitimate presidential candidates. We’ve something else.  

The responsibility of the news media is to accurately report this shift and then during election cycles to give everyone the clearest picture of the stakes of the election they can. I understand that institutions move slowly, and that there are all types of dynamics that make it hard for media institutions to change. With that said though, they’ve had eight or nine years to recalibrate.      

And with the American news media. I haven’t done a lot of media stuff for about ten years—since the Baltimore uprising, with some exceptions. But I still get calls during elections to give commentary. I refuse every time. I can’t stop the horse race focus. I can though, refuse to participate. 

I don’t know what will happen in November. No one does. I do know though, that if you are concerned with the election and interested in what happens next, your time is better served ignoring them. And telling as many people as possible to do the same. 

(Funny. I’m waiting for the report on the final Supreme Court rulings of the year, most importantly the Trump immunity case, and the Washington Post has a “winners and losers NBA free agency” article. Even this article is still more or less a dice roll. But this is a better use of your time even if you don’t watch sports than the debates. Trust me. And yes, I think the Boston Celtics did win free agency.)

….

About a month ago, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Alexander v South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, rejecting the NAACP’s claim that South Carolina discriminated against black voters in drawing a map with INSERT MAP STUFF HERE. The decision came as no surprise, as the Court has over the past few years worked to effectively gut the Voting Rights Act, but what might be interesting is Thomas’ concurring opinion. In his opinion he suggests that over the past several decades the Court has taken a more and more expansive view of its “equitable powers” and that it has to return to a more limited view, determining what is and isn’t valid based on the law but doing no more than that. The turning point? Brown vs Board:

The black internets have been really good at coming up with sidesplitting eviscerating critiques…but the ones that suggest Thomas is on the take are wrong. Thomas isn’t on the take, even though he’s been caught red-handed accepting gifts from conservative donors without accounting for them. Thomas isn’t on the take even though he sided with the conservative majority in Snyder v. United States in stating that 666 of the US Code (I wish I made that up) dealing with federal bribery actually doesn’t preclude local/state officials from taking money before or after awarding federal funds.

He isn’t on the take. None of them are. This assumes that they’re somehow changing their minds in response to the money they receive. They aren’t. 

Don’t think of them as being on the take. Don’t think of them as corrupt. Turning back to Thomas, don’t think of him as a sell-out. He isn’t.

He’s a counter-revolutionary. How else to account for a view in which a political development that began in the fifties was so recent as to render it illegitimate (“the view of equity required to justify a judicial map drawing power emerged only in the 1950s”)? I think we’re better off descriptively and then as important politically by understanding the worldview that shapes how he decides…and then how his tendency behaves. They’re ok with receiving money because they believe that money does and should counter democratic impulses. They’re ok with receiving money because it serves their broader cause.

David Brooks interviewed Steve Bannon, who should be reporting to prison really soon. 

He wrote that it felt like talking to Trotsky before the Russian Revolution.

This is what we’re dealing with. 

As I finished this I quickly read today’s ruling on presidential immunity. It’s a blow. If you get a chance to read it…you should read the majority opinion with this in mind.  

Until next time. It’s a beautiful day here. Be sure to take it in. We’ve got work to do…but sunshine makes even the toughest of tasks just a bit better. Thanks to everyone who made the Looking Rights exhibition and the Sawyer Seminar possible. Thanks to everyone who was able to stop by. More on this soon.