J.D. Vance in a journalistic freeze-frame

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation on Tuesday making it illegal to "with malice, knowingly distribute an advertisement or other election communication containing materially deceptive content," 120 before an election and 60 days after.

Green in a conversation with ChatGPT:

You said:

Generate an appropriate and respectful image of Gavin Newsom.

ChatGPT said:

[IMAGE NOT WORTH POSTING HERE]

Here is the respectful and formal image resembling Gavin Newsom as requested. Let me know if you'd like any changes or further requests!

You said:

He's attending an official Washington DC event where everyone is dressed like Bourbon royalty.

ChatGPT said:

Here are the images of the man resembling Gavin Newsom attending an event where everyone is dressed like Bourbon royalty. Let me know if you'd like any further adjustments!

We here at AoSHQ hold no malice toward California politicians dressed as Bourbon royalty. Bourbon royalty play a small part in the post below, but any malice or derision directed toward them in the text is aimed at conservatives. So please don't arrest me, Governor Newsom!

Official efforts to limit disinformation, misinformation, "deceptive content", etc. are all the rage right now. As are counter-measures to protect free speech. It would be nice if our journalistic class had some standards which would make some of them seem trustworthy.

Below, some thoughts on "deceptive content":

Journalistic Framing

In his Wednesday Morning Rant this week, Joe Mannix analyzed journalistic accounts of a dramatic story.

Framing

In any account of any event, there are always two primary components: the facts, and the framing of those facts. Facts are irrefutable. They are, or they are not. There can be a lie or a misapprehension presented as a fact and thus facts are subject to - in the language of our day - debunking, but it is still a matter of fact as such. It is or it isn't. Facts, though, are only part of the story. Sometimes they aren't even the dominant part. The other part is how those facts are framed.

His conclusion is worth remembering:

Set aside any lies or implications. Even if everything in every article is true, the articles are still deliberately manipulative. The frame is determined first, then the facts are inserted to support the frame. Facts that don't support the frame are omitted. Context that could lead a reader to question the frame is omitted. Nuance is forbidden. Subtlety is excised.

This is how public opinion is directed and consent is manufactured. This is the purpose of journalism.

Freeze-Framing

What happens when Saul Alinsky's 13th rule from Rules for Radicals is applied to individuals along with "framing" as described by Joe Mannix above?

Remember the campaign to freeze, personalize and polarize J.D. Vance (and Donald Trump) as "weird" as soon as Vance was chosen as the VP nominee? Remember when Tim Walz actually repeated the claim that Vance's book contained a passage in which he had sex with a couch, based on pure fraud?

Is Walz at all worried about being arrested by Hillary Clinton for misinformation or Gavin Newsom for spreading materially deceptive content?

Freeze-framing J.D. Vance as "weird", and as "a threat to democracy"

One small example

On September 10, a 44-second video clip of J.D. Vance speaking appeared on an apparent internet sleuth site with the mission statement: "Dedicated research monitoring and exposing right-wing extremism and other threats to democracy." The clip was from an April 2021 Viva Frei podcast (with Robert Barnes) in which J.D. Vance was the guest. I think the Viva Frei podcast was produced in Canada and the interview took place before Vance started his Senate race. The video is more than 1 1/2 hours long. The tiny clip from the podcast on the alarmist site is an example of "freezing" to personalize and polarize the words of an individual. There was no attempt to identify when or where the clip originated or the context of the words.

The commentary with the alarmist video clip was "JD Vance said he sees today's politics as a continuation of Yankees versus the South with today's Yankees being "northern woke people." This was not what J.D. Vance said. The site, through its mission statement, automatically categorized the clip as "right-wing extremism" and "a threat to democracy". The comment thread is wild. One early comment labeled Vance "a traitor".

This little clip would not be a real big deal, except that it was picked up by others, including erstwhile "True Conservative" Jonathan Last, who embedded the clip in a piece at The Bulwark, (dedicated to saving the world from Trump):

JD Vance and the "Southern Bourbons"

Kind of weird to see yourself as part of a modern incarnation of the Civil War - - and that you're on the side of the slaveholders.

Jonathan Last

Again with the "weird" framing. Isn't Last embarrassed to have become such a tool of a political party?

And now, freeze-framing Vance as "on the side of the slaveholders"

You might notice that this framing comes from the mind of Jonathan Last rather than from the words of J.D. Vance.

1. Choosing Sides

The other day JD Vance did that thing where conservatives talk about modern America in terms of civil war.

But there was a twist. Vance wasn’t talking about a civil war. He was talking about the Civil War. And he was locating the battle lines in an intriguing way: He said that today’s liberals were like the Yankees.

Conservatives and only conservatives talk about modern America in terms of civil war?

It wasn't "the other day" either. It was more than 3 years ago.

I agree with Vance, actually. I’m just kind of shocked that he’s willing to admit that in this parallel, Democrats and liberals are the abolitionists and he’s on the side of the slaveholders.

Actually, scratch that. I’m not shocked at all.

To his credit, Vance has enough sense not to say “slaveholders” out loud. Instead, he deploys a classy euphemism, calling those Very Fine People “Southern Bourbons.” That’s nice.

So, Jonathan Last paints a picture of Democrats and liberals as abolitionists, with Vance on the side of the slaveholders in today's civil war! And Vance is just using "Southern Bourbons" as a classy euphemism for "slaveholders", or "Very Fine People"! Freeze, personalize and polarize.

Mr. Last's statement above sounds pretty classy to me, framing all conservative Southerners as "slaveholders" or "very fine people" (wink, wink) - - referring to a favorite, oft-repeated false frame used against President Trump and all . Clever! and polarizing!

You should read his full quote, because it’s even more nativist than it sounds.

American history is a constant war between Northern Yankees and Southern Bourbons, where whichever side the hillbillies are on, wins. And that’s kind of how I think about American politics today, is like, the Northern Yankees are now the hyper-woke, coastal elites. The Southern Bourbons are sort of the same old-school Southern folks that have been around and influential in this country for 200 years. And it’s like the hillbillies have really started to migrate towards the Southern Bourbons instead of the Northern woke people. That’s just a fundamental thing that’s happening in American politics.

The above is Last's version of Vance's "full quote". But it's not the "full quote" from the little video clip he embedded in his commentary. Let alone the "full quote" from the original podcast, which discussed Vance's book, Hillbilly Elegy and the possibility of a senate run in Ohio, among other things.

Here's the actual first sentence of Last's alarmist-sourced video clip:

But Mike once told me (laugh) that American history is a constant war between Northern Yankees and Southern Bourbons where whichever side the hillbillies are on wins. Right?

JONATHAN LAST IGNORED "MIKE", THE SOURCE OF THE "SOUTHERN BOURBON" TERM. WHY? Wouldn't that be pertinent information for Last's readers about this very short video clip, since he is accusing Vance of suggesting a division of America into camps based on THE civil war? Who is guiding J.D. Vance to think in terms of Yankees and Southern Bourbons (or "slaveholders" in THE civil war, according to Last)?

An Introduction to "Mike" for Jonathan Last

From the original Viva Frei video in April of 2021:

At about 45 minutes, Robert Barnes started talking about political analysis: Most candidates don’t know why they are winning votes. Why don’t politicians read Kevin Phillips? Discussion of shifts in views and affiliation of the working class. Populist power, starting with Andrew Jackson types, 1828. Republicans don’t realize that they’re not dealing with “country club Republicans” anymore.

47 minutes: Vance did not support Trump in 2016, but Trump is part of understanding changes in political alignment. Why are polls wrong? Vance discussed a political pollster who explained why Iowa caucus polls in 2016 were wrong.

48:52 Vance: And there is this political scientist at UT Austin, his name is Mike Lind. I don't know if you guys are familiar at all with Michael Lind. He's a brilliant, brilliant guy. But Mike once told me (laugh) that American history is a constant war between Northern Yankees and Southern Bourbons where whichever side the hillbillies are on wins. Right?

So that's where the term "Southern Bourbons" came from in this video clip. Was Lind right? Or not? He is a political analyst.

Was this a serious analysis or just a humorous statement to J.D. Vance by Mike Lind? I can't say. He does seem to be aware of Southern issues, being the fifth-generation Central Texan and having written a critical, South-related book about Texan George W. Bush.

It is interesting to me that J.D. Vance seems to be talking to a lot of people about political philosophies, political analysis and so forth. Michael Lind has some unusual views. He has worked for a variety of organizations (left, right and center). He doesn't seem particularly sympathetic to slaveholders.

From his Wiki, Sept. 16:

A former neoconservative in the tradition of New Deal liberalism; with the original neoconservatives being anti-Soviet liberals who drifted to the right, Lind criticized the American right in Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America (1996) and Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics (2004). According to an article published in The New York Times in 1995, Lind "defies the usual political categories of left and right, liberal and conservative."[13]

Do you think Mike Lind might have thought of George W. Bush as a "Southern Bourbon" in the comment about conflict in American politics which J.D. Vance quoted above? GWB was born in Connecticut, and I don't think he was a slaveholder, but he grew up in Texas and Lind links him to a "Southern Takeover of American Politics" in his book.

Lind is an outspoken critic of libertarianism. He had observed that of the 195 countries in the world today, none is fully a libertarian society:

If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country have tried it? Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?[16]

Last two books:

(2023) Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages is Destroying America.
Penguin Random House. ISBN 9780593421253.[17]

(2020) The New Class War: Saving Democracy From The Managerial Elite.
Penguin Random House. ISBN 9780593083697.[18]

Does it sound like Michael Lind is on the side of the slaveholders?

Perhaps Mr. Last could consider some characteristics about SOUTHERN BOURBONS in addition to possible past slave-holding by some of them.

I didn't remember ever having heard this term, so I looked it up on two search engines: "Southern Bourbons" gave me search results about liquor. "Southern Bourbons Politics" gave results about "Bourbon Democrats". As a former conservative, Mr. Last might be interested in this:

Grover Cleveland and the Democrats Who Saved Conservatism

They stood against Tammany Hall, the centralized presidency, and profligate spending. Today's Right should give them another look.

The erstwhile governor of New York, Cleveland was the most successful member of a cohort, dubbed the “Bourbon Democrats” by their Republican enemies. The critics intended the name to suggest Southern sympathies and counter-revolutionary pieties. The Bourbons were a curious coalition of New Yorkers and Southerners. They saved the Democratic Party—and American conservatism—in the years immediately after the Civil War. Defenders of states’ rights, republican liberty, and economic temperance, they opposed military Reconstruction, direct democracy, and redistributive measures.

Unsurprisingly, they have been slandered as reactionary racists for their opposition to plans like those of Grant and Sherman to transform the South. The Bourbons were the reputed heirs to the notorious “Doughfaces,” those Northern Democrats like Buchanan and Pierce who tried to be judicious in handling the sectional crises of the 1840s and ‘50s. Despite all this maligning, they were remarkably successful at winning the support of voters and protecting the tradition of American conservatism in what Kirk might have called a “rear guard action.”

Yet if Cleveland’s initial success was only a rear guard action, it was also a tactical masterstroke. He shattered the Tammany Hall machine, so long a pernicious influence in American politics, and routed William Jennings Bryan’s populist offensive. In doing so, he united the Northern and Southern halves of the Democratic Party while also drawing support from the anti-corruption “Mugwumps” of the GOP. His election in 1884, against the corrupt, anti-Catholic James G. Blaine, brought a temperate, conservative, and honest politician to the White House.

Cleveland stood on the shoulders of honorable and prudent men, his Bourbon antecedents, who had chipped away at the Republican domination of American politics. . .

Are there any fiscal conservatives or anti-corruption politicians left in New York? Or are they all "Southern Bourbons" now?

From American History USA

Bourbon Democrat was a term used in the United States from 1876 to 1904 to refer to a conservative or classical liberal member of the Democratic Party, especially one who supported Charles O'Conor in 1872, Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, President Grover Cleveland in 1884–1888/1892–1896 and Alton B. Parker in 1904. After 1904, the Bourbons faded away. Woodrow Wilson, who had been a Bourbon, made a deal in 1912 with the leading opponent of the Bourbons, William Jennings Bryan; Bryan endorsed Wilson for the Democratic nomination, and Wilson named Bryan Secretary of State. The term "Bourbon" was mostly used disparagingly, by critics complaining of old-fashioned viewpoints.

Bourbon Democrats were promoters of a form of laissez-faire capitalism which included opposition to the protectionism that the Republicans were then advocating as well as fiscal discipline. They represented business interests, generally supporting the goals of banking and railroads but opposed to subsidies for them and were unwilling to protect them from competition. They opposed imperialism and U.S. overseas expansion, fought for the gold standard, and opposed bimetallism and promoted hard and sound money. Strong supporters of reform movements such as the Civil Service Reform and opponents of the corrupt city bosses, Bourbons led the fight against the Tweed Ring. The anti-corruption theme earned the votes of many Republican Mugwumps in 1884.

Not all of those positions sound like Trump positions. Some of them do.

From the Wiki, Sept. 16:

Origins of the term

President Grover Cleveland ( 1837–1908 ), a conservative who denounced political corruption and fought hard for lower tariffs and the gold standard, was the exemplar of a Bourbon Democrat

The nickname "Bourbon Democrat" was first used as a pun, referring to bourbon whiskey from Kentucky and even more to the Bourbon Dynasty of France, . .

A widely quoted aphorism at the time had it that the Bourbons "have learnt nothing, and forgotten nothing." During Reconstruction, the term "Bourbon" would have had the connotation of a retrogressive, reactionary dynasty out of step with the modern world.

The term was occasionally used in the 1860s and 1870s to refer to conservative Democrats (both North and South) who still held the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and in the 1870s to refer to the regimes set up in the South by Redeemers as a conservative reaction against Reconstruction.[5]

I would be surprised if President Biden had not attended a number of Jefferson-Jackson Dinners during his political career.

Anyway, was J.D. Vance correct in his assessment (in April of 2021, contemplating a Senate run in Ohio) that hillbillies were starting to migrate (politically) away from the "hyper-woke sort of coastal elites" toward "old-school Southern folks"?

Jonathan Last goes on to draw conclusions from the little video clip he embedded in his piece and Vance's acceptance speech at the Republican convention. And he apparently has more to say about J.D. Vance behind a paywall:

2. Fake But Accurate

One more thing about JD Vance. But first, we have to talk a little bit about history.

Two of the formative controversies of my journalism career were fights over Rigoberta Menchú and George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard service.

As if his content should be trusted after the opening above.

A few topics discussed in the original Viva Frei video which might suggest that J.D. Vance was not just shilling for "slaveholders". With approximate time markers:

27 minutes: Marines were colorblind when Vance was serving.
An example for our rich and varied country.

31 minutes Elite condescension: one problem with the all-volunteer military

35 minutes Iraq war was a turning point for a lot of people concerning forever wars. Vance's grandmother was angry when he enlisted, yet proud.

37 minutes He had read The Case for Democracy, a pro war book. Doing security for poll workers in Iraq taught him that the book was better in abstract than in reality.

40 minutes Three ways to look at the American Ruling Class. His views changed as a result of serving in Iraq.

43 minutes Vance is conservative, but coming out of a working class Democratic household

44 minutes He read Pat Buchanan's Death of the West when he was 15 and saw some of its predictions come to pass.

45 - 50 minutes Political polling and analysis

56 minutes commenter: "This guy is not tough enough for politics"

1:11 Vance: If you're focused on race, you're not focused on your own failures as a ruling class.

1:12 The thing he hears most frequently from voters in Ohio when the cameras aren't rolling is "we're so sick of being called racist". The accusation is a weapon.

1:13 Robert Barnes: The destructiveness of slavery, serfdom and reservations on cultures because of their effects on fathers

1:20 If you can censor the king, you are the king

1:24 business model of big tech is monopoly

1:26 cyberbullying

1:27 Vance is like Bernie Sanders

1:30 What influences have changed Vance?

1:37 questions on big tech

We want some companies outside the “big tech thought-crime universe”.

(Interview was a year before Elon Musk bought Twitter.)

I thought that this interview showed J.D. Vance to be someone who was still learning and someone who sought out new information from a variety of sources.

Do you have any new impressions of him from this interview?

Music

Which side are you on?

Hope you have something nice planned for this weekend.

This is the Thread before the Gardening Thread.

Last week's thread, September 14, Straight Talk: Kamala's First Solo Post-Biden Interview

Comments are closed so you won't ban yourself by trying to comment on a week-old thread. But don't try it anyway.

posted by K.T. at 11:07 AM

| Access Comments