Connect with us

Substacks

TGIF: Cheap Fakes Nellie Bowles

Published

on

Welcome back. It’s TGIF

→ Don’t believe your eyes: The big move from the Biden presidential campaign over the last two weeks has been to say that what you see with your own eyes is not what is happening, not at all, not even close. Biden is young and strapping (I literally just saw him jump off a galloping horse, spin, and land on his feet with a gun drawn). The target this week: Biden froze onstage for a moment as a crowd applauded, and it was a little weird, but it was made much weirder by Barack Obama taking Biden by the hand, giving it a little squeeze, and gently walking him offstage.

You shouldn’t believe me; simply watch the video for yourself. Disinformation police, gather! Fact checkers, unite! Here’s the Associated Press with a “fact check.” It’s not a freeze, it’s a pause!

And as the AP notes, it’s also not even a thing: “A source who helped organize, and attended, the fundraiser told the AP that there was nothing noteworthy about this moment.” The trouble is, it takes two to decide whether something is noteworthy. When I hit another car in the parking garage, is that noteworthy? I don’t think so. Why are you so obsessed with whether your bumper lives on the sidewalk now? “This did not happen,” said Eric Schultz, senior adviser to Obama, responding to the video showing that it really did happen. CBS News called one embarrassing clip “a digitally altered video,” yet it was the exact version shared by the White House. 

Others have come up with a new word for videos that are technically completely real but also annoying to the candidate who simply must win, and that term is cheap fakes. Like deep fake, but real, but we hate them.

Now listen, you can say, “Yeah, Biden is old, but the other guy is absolutely nuts and surrounds himself with maniacs, so who cares?” That’s a really good argument. That’s compelling. But that would involve persuasion and an admission that the dear leader is human. It’s much better to say: those videos are lies, because we just saw Biden water skiing while holding a goddamn dolphin over his head. Okay? Those are the real facts, please get back to work. 

→ Oh God, the polls: It’s looking tight. Though not in Iowa, where Trump leads Biden 50 percent to 32 percent among likely voters, while RFK earned 9 percent, according to a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll. The Register suggests that the former president’s convictions aren’t an issue for many voters. In fact, one poll respondent, who became a Republican because of Trump and plans to vote for him in November, goes on to say, “The more they try to get him out of the picture, the stronger they make him. I, for one, believe that the charges are bogus.” As Semafor political reporter David Weigel said: “No Democrat has gotten under 40% in Iowa since 1980. Biden at 32% would be the worst D performance there since 1924.”

But then, twist! A Fox News poll shows Biden two points ahead of Trump on the national stage. (It’s funny because the people who said Fox News polls can’t ever be trusted when they showed Trump ahead are now saying this is an amazing, definitive new poll.) I, for one, believe all the polls. I think it’s gonna be a tight, fun race, like watching two grizzled old tortoises get to a finish line. Which one will it be? Someone put an iceberg wedge on the field to keep them on course. 

→ Hell yeah, Congress: The Senate just overwhelmingly approved new pro–nuclear power legislation on Tuesday, with a vote of 88–2. Who are the two? Just two senators who hate the idea of copious clean nuclear energy and want us to stay on dirty coal so that the Extinction Rebellion kids can keep protesting by gluing their hands to our commuter thoroughfares. Logical. Simple. Yes, the two holdouts are Senators Ed Markey, and—you guessed it—Bernie Sanders. But let’s focus on the bright side: our Senate just did something bipartisan, functional, and pro-progress. We love to see it. 

The bill does a number of things, like streamlining the permit process, cutting costs for developers, and opening to new technology like small modular nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, protesting climate change or something, Just Stop Oil folks this week are spraying Stonehenge with orange powder. And honestly, it looks cool. Painting Stonehenge is not a bad idea. Especially if you want some angry Anglo-Saxon deity (oh my god it’s my dad! He wants to read Beowulf to you, and for you to get your elbows off the table!) to haunt you and your descendants. 

→ Hell yeah, LAUSD: The Los Angeles Unified School District voted Tuesday to ban cell phones during the entire school day. The nation’s second largest school district will now have to figure out how to actually enforce this new policy, considering solutions like phone lockers or maybe pouches, per The Wall Street Journal. This is part of a nationwide movement to free children from their phones, a movement majorly inspired by friend-of-The FP Jonathan Haidt, with whom I am personally obsessed (he’s so smart, he’s so nice, great hair). One boarding school in New England even replaced smartphones with Light Phones that have only calling and texting and look like this:

This image is terrifying to a 12-year-old. Imagine trying to watch TikToks on this old brick. No selfie camera, no apps, no nothing. Perfect. (To be clear, the phone situation is also the fault of helicopter parents who can’t stand the idea of their little preteens being inaccessible for a few hours.)

→ Gaza pier is dunzo: The dream of America somehow using a beautiful pier to deliver food to Gaza, which would magically have a special non-Hamas government to then distribute the goods, is over. After what we’re told is $230 million in construction costs (you just know that amount is a quarter of what we actually paid), the pier is being dismantled very soon. I never thought I would yearn for the high-speed rail to nowhere, but it seems preferable to the pier to the bottom of the Mediterranean. 

As Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, the Central Command deputy commander, put it: issues with the pier “stemmed solely from unanticipated weather.” It’s summer in the Mediterranean, boys. How much unanticipated weather can there really be?

→ Candace Owens comes out against World War II: Candace Owens, a star conservative commentator now building her own media company, argues that it was a mistake for the U.S. to enter World War II. When a journalist asks to confirm this, saying: “So, you think that America shouldn’t have gone into that second world war?” Candace replies: “Yeah, and that is a radical statement. People don’t know how to deal with that because we’ve all been so brainwashed by the school system to believe that ‘Look how great things are. . . . ’ This whole idea of international liberalism—now it’s not just about your problems, it’s about solving the world’s problems. Let’s make sure that in Pakistan there’s a trans flag waving. No.” So, England should have fallen to the Nazis. Because otherwise we get The Trans Flag. This is where the new right is at. They believe World War II was a mistake; the Nazis would have been fine controlling Europe, which is none of our business anyway; and when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we should have said, “Thank you! Hawaii always seemed gay to us too! Men wearing necklaces made of flowers?!” Thanks for bravely saying what no one else will dare to, Candace.

Meanwhile, who’s Candace Owens’ new best friend, coming on the show to commiserate? None other than Briahna Joy Gray, the former press secretary for Bernie Sanders. It was inevitable they would find each other. All my favorites eventually do. 

→ Speaking of best friends: The cool internet Nazis gathered in person this week. Yes, Nick Fuentes, Sulaiman Ahmed, Lucas Gage, Jake Shields—and David Duke, the old KKK grand wizard—got together to take a bunch of pics and talk about the Jewish Question (and no, it’s not “What makes this night different from all other nights?”). If you want to watch an alarming scene, look at Nick Fuentes speaking to a cheering crowd in Detroit. They’re all really excited about the anti-Israel protests happening on campus. Vibing with Candace and Briahna, former Bernie staffer Matt Orfalea said Nick Fuentes makes a lot of sense: “This guy doesn’t sound like a ‘Nazi’ or ‘white supremacist.’ He’s antiwar, he’s outspoken *against* geocoding Arabs, and won’t vote for a presidential candidate unless they oppose war with Iran. Am I missing something? If so, what?” 


Read more

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Substacks

June 29, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson

Published

on

By

There are many things I would like to write, but I am home, finally, after many months on the road, and it has been a long week. I am going to bed.

Tomorrow, I will be out in my kayak in the place where I took this photograph, no matter what the skies decide to throw at me.

And after I have gotten my bearings, I will be back in the game.

Rest well, everyone.

Share

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

June 28, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson

Published

on

By

 

Continue Reading

Substacks

Book Club: The Triumph of the Yuppies Peter Savodnik

Published

on

By

This month, the Free Press Book Club is hosted by Peter Savodnik, who has two book recommendations: one old, and one new. (Illustration by The Free Press)

Last month, we launched The Free Press Book Club, in which one of our writers recommends a new book they love along with a classic work from the past echoing its themes.

In May, Nellie Bowles praised P.J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores—and the joys of political satire—and paired it with, what else? Her own book, Morning After the Revolution. (Did we mention it became a New York Times bestseller?)

Today, Free Press columnist Peter Savodnik picks Triumph of the Yuppies by Tom McGrath, who argues that the rise of the “young urban professional” in the ’80s corrupted America for good. Peter is matching this book with the classic Bright Lights, Big City by Jay McInerney, who became the unofficial “spokesman for the yuppies” after publishing his breakout novel in 1984.

Below, you’ll find an essay from Peter about how yuppies came to be such an influential and corrosive force in our culture—ultimately leading to the election (and possible reelection) of Donald Trump. And if you’re a paid subscriber, we have a special treat for you. At the end of this piece, you can watch Peter in conversation with Tom McGrath and Jay McInerney about the legacy of the yuppie. They discuss Boomers, Wall Street, the culture of consumerism, a few questions from Free Press readers, and ultimately, they answer the bigger question: What can yuppies teach us about America today?

If you’re not already a paid subscriber, become one now to join our monthly book club. You can watch Peter’s conversation, comment on this essay, and get invited to future in-person book club events. (More on that later!):

Subscribe now

Meanwhile, send us your thoughts about yuppies at books@thefp.com, and consider buying Bright Lights, Big City and Triumph of the Yuppies from the good people at Bookshop, where every purchase through these links earns a commission for The Free Press. Or if you’re an Amazon customer, click here for Tom’s book or here for Jay’s.

And now, here’s Peter on the Triumph of the Yuppies:

My wife and I were at a dinner party a few months ago, in the Hills, in Los Angeles. 

Everyone was in their late 40s or early 50s, and there was a weariness that permeated the conversation—no one wanted to talk about the election, or the border, or China, or AI, or the encampments, or even Ozempic (which, I suspect, two or three people there were injecting regularly). Instead, we talked around the news. There was a vague longing for The Great Before. Before the screens, the brands, the narratives, the curators, the audience-builders. Before there was a conspiracy theory, or theories, swirling around literally everything.

The Great Before—“the time before everyone went crazy,” as our host put it—is the quasi-mythological, prelapsarian America we grew up in: the ’80s. 

This is the thing you need to bear in mind about the ’80s: the gargantuan, unapologetic success of it all.

It wasn’t just about money. It was about ostentatiousness, and, really, the celebration of ostentatiousness. “Material Girl” was a hit. Family Ties was a hit. Working Girl was a hit, with its famous, wince-inducing line, uttered by Melanie Griffith: “I have a head for a business and a bod for sin—is there anything wrong with that?” 

It was also about the American Dream—which had been battered by Vietnam, stagflation, crime, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian storming of the U.S. embassy—suddenly rising once again. It was morning in America, as Ronald Reagan reminded us, and the problem was not us, but the communists and big government.

The subtext of all this amounted to an updated social Darwinism: our things were a testament to our national superiority, and our duty as Americans was to keep acquiring them. If we didn’t, could we really say we were superior to everyone else?

All of which is to say that it was not a terribly introspective moment.

Had it been more introspective, we might have realized that the rampant materialism of the yuppie led to a division that now threatens to undo our republic. 

That is the suggestion of my Free Press Book Club pick today: Tom McGrath’s Triumph of the Yuppies: America, the Eighties, and the Creation of an Unequal Nation. While a lot of people made a great deal of money in the ’80s, McGrath writes that the era also fundamentally changed the country for the worse. And we are still living inside that country—whether we realize it or not. 

(Grand Central Publishing)

Specifically, he argues that America, “in its push to revive itself, in its zeal to recapture the dominance and prosperity of the postwar era,” ultimately ended up “elevating self-interest over any sense of the common good.” In short, “the country had created a new economic and social order that wouldn’t easily be undone.”

We all know what the yuppie looks like—he’s the guy in the Hugo Boss power suit with the pocket square, the Rolex, the monogrammed silk suspenders, crushing it with his fellow investment bankers, throwing back gin buck cocktails at the Harvard Club. 

But where did this chump, with his unslakable shallowness, come from?

In the late 1970s and early ’80s, immediately prior to the rise of the yuppie, there was—imagine this, young people of 2024!—a great deal of anxiety about the future.

“The economic burden fell particularly hard on the Baby Boom generation, who were twice as likely to be unemployed as their parents had been in the ’50s and who, even if they had jobs, hardly felt like they were getting ahead,” McGrath writes. Adjusted for inflation, he notes, young people’s salaries actually decreased by $300 annually from 1970 to 1980.

This anxiety, he argues, led to a renewed focus on money and ambition and making all the right decisions—about where one went to school, what one majored in, where one moved after college.

Or who one married, according to the yuppies quoted in McGrath’s book.

Like 28-year-old Robert Drumheller, who told Newsweek in 1981, that “it was very important for me to marry a professional person. One of my goals was to have a high standard of living, and with two incomes you get to the easy life much faster.”

All of a sudden, there was a race for jobs and promotions and spouses, and a relatively small number of young people surged ahead. In 1985, the Chicago Tribune estimated there were 4.2 million yuppies, or 5 percent of all Baby Boomers. Everyone else had been left behind. The era of shared, widespread, upward mobility that had characterized the ’50s and ’60s and petered out in the ’70s, was officially over.

Yuppie America, McGrath told me, was “where you really start to see this divide in America along economic and educational lines.”

It was in May 1980 that the journalist Dan Rottenberg, writing in Chicago magazine, coined the term yuppie, McGrath writes. 

But it would take a few years before the public really became aware of this phenomenon—and before the phenomenon became aware of itself.

Then, in September 1984, Vintage Books published Jay McInerney’s Bright Lights, Big City, catapulting McInerney—then 29 and living on Manhattan’s Lower East Side—into something of a star.

“I woke up one morning right after the book was published,” McInerney told me, “and it was published to very little fanfare initially, but The Wall Street Journal picked up on it very quickly, and they announced that I was the spokesman for the yuppies, which kind of horrified me.”

(Vintage Books)

Interestingly, the term yuppie never appears in Bright Lights, Big City. In 1983, when he wrote the novel, it was not yet popular; by the time the novel came out, McInerney said, “We were deep in the middle of this thing.”

In Bright Lights, McInerney’s unnamed, second-person protagonist, who inhabits the periphery of the yuppie universe, offers the first vivid account of this emergent, slightly horrifying species.

On the one hand, he is a New Yorker fact-checker and an aspiring novelist who fashions himself a man of letters—definitely not a yuppie. On the other hand, McInerney said, the protagonist’s best friend-slash-coke dealer, Tad Allagash, “has really no values except having more fun than everybody else and looking good while doing it, so there’s no question that I was chronicling that world.”

After Bright Lights, Big City took off—Triumph of the Yuppies notes that it sold 10,000 copies in its first three weeks and New York City bookstores couldn’t keep it in stock—McInerney had to change his phone number.

“People were calling me up to ask me advice on how to get to these various places” that he wrote about in the novel, “including quite a number that I just made up,” McInerney said. “There is no Lizard Lounge, but a lot of people wanted to know what street it was on.”

McInerney told me the new yuppie materialism amounted to “a rejection of parental values”—TV dinners, the suburbs, all the assumptions that had governed postwar, middle-class life.

What distinguished this boom time from previous boom times, McGrath added, was not simply the ferocity with which yuppies went about buying their Porsches and Cuisinarts and Julian Schnabel paintings and pretty much everything at Sharper Image. It was the nature of the materialism itself. 

Earlier generations of Americans had subscribed to an “inclusive materialism,” McGrath told me—it was “a keeping up with the Joneses era,” when everyone shopped at Sears. But for yuppies, “it’s more of an exclusive materialism. ‘I’m going to own this thing, because most people do not have it, and it’s a way of setting myself apart, as opposed to a way of being part of the community.’ ” 

“A new generation of young professionals wanted something more, something less common. The buzzword that people started using was quality. The things they purchased would be, like the lives they were trying to create for themselves, excellent.”

By 1985, the anti-yuppie backlash had begun. DIE YUPPIE SCUM started to appear on buildings and streetlamps downtown.

Then, on October 19, 1987, the stock market crashed—with the Dow Jones losing nearly 23 percent of its value, or $500 billion, in a single day. The era of the yuppie was apparently dead.

McInerney smirked when I suggested as much. “Yuppie culture is like the undead,” he told me. “It persisted and thrived and metamorphosed.” 

In fact, both authors noted that the spirit of the yuppie is now alive and well in the ur-yuppie known as Donald Trump. Ironically, his 2016 election came about, McGrath writes, because “families at the top of the economic pyramid controlled 79 percent of all wealth in America, up from 60 percent in the 1980s.”

By then, the long-percolating anti-yuppie sentiment in blue-collar America had curdled into an angrier anti-elitism.

And the billionaire Donald Trump “somehow persuaded many working-class Americans that he was on their side.”

I loved talking to both of these writers and reading Triumph of the Yuppies and rereading Bright Lights, Big City. If you’d like to learn more about New York in the go-go ’80s, Ivan Boesky, Tad Allagash, the story behind the rise of Madonna, and Bolivian Marching Powder (read the novel, people), scroll down:

To listen to Peter’s discussion with Tom McGrath and Jay McInerney, become a subscriber today. You’ll also be able to continue the conversation in the comments.

Subscribe now


Read more

 

Continue Reading

Shadow Banned

Copyright © 2023 mesh news project // awake, not woke // news, not narrative // deep inside the filter bubble