Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What You Can't Have: A Tale of Buttigieg and de Blasio (Election 2020)

53 views
Skip to first unread message

rubard...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 25, 2020, 3:12:15 PM2/25/20
to
From the "western avenue", a few reflections. (Yes, I wear on me too.)

A topic that was "implicitly defined" in events diverse occurring in Washington County over a space of some months was the old American trope of "Too Tall". "Too Tall" is a term well-enough-known to basketball enthusiasts and refers to a man that is ridiculously tall (almost "at any height"; the point is about their role in social interaction, not literal gigantism). "Too Tall" is a character that gawks around literally looming over others, perhaps not intending evil but occasionally effecting it as per *legitimate* accident.

So much about "Too Tall" in general, but one notable such character in American life today is Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York City. Mr. de Blasio has built a long career serving that distant burg in various roles, never quite leaving a "radical" role in the civic discourse (one which may not in truth quite carry over to his relationship with his wife Chirlaine McCray and their two children, now young adults). It is odd that the mayor of one of the richest cities in the world, in world-history, calls himself a "socialist" but he does.

According to the traditional "cinematic" theory of American political charisma, "Too Tall" de Blasio would make a maximally acceptable Democratic presidential candidate "from the left" -- and yet *does not*. Mr. de Blasio thoroughly scouted a bid for this election and was left wanting, but not in terms of implied "steadiness at the wheel" or palatability in terms of bromides offered. So, a question *naturally* raises itself whether we want it to or not: why would the much older and "redder" Bernard Sanders make a better candidate?

Bona fides? I have read most of the works of Marx in German (perhaps pointless and perhaps not), but I will tell you there is hardly any credible account on which Sanders would make a better candidate than Bill and thusly the question is genuinely "begged" what at all the Democratic Party is doing in not pursuing more plausibly electable candidates. Pete Buttgieg was not my favorite entrant in the early contest, with a carefully-milled "centrist" approach and a personal life which would naturally raise the hackles of social ultra-conservatives (though his relationship with Mr. Glezman may have *actually* borne some looking into) but...

Isn't it entirely the case that "Mayor Pete" is far more electable than a Sanders who could not best an entrant that could not win? A lifetime Democrat does think so.

Cordially,
Jeffrey Rubard

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Dec 7, 2021, 2:06:53 AM12/7/21
to
So how's Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, working out for you?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Dec 9, 2021, 10:41:34 AM12/9/21
to
In some circles, "The president is ----" would be given as a "baby's first fact": it's actually liable to misreport -- one forgets oneself who it is, sometimes -- and permits a great number of normative critiques. When *no* such "baby's first fact" can be granted, though, many of us naturally figure that...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Dec 10, 2021, 12:07:56 AM12/10/21
to
NB: I believe "Joseph Biden is President in 2021. What else is that much of a fact?" was once known as "Parsons' Gambit", after the sociologist Talcott Parsons, who would use the argument a great deal during the New Deal.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Dec 11, 2021, 1:13:28 AM12/11/21
to
I didn't get up to voting for Biden in November 2020 - I was already homeless, so it would be illegal.
My father found this view "dubious", but it was only another case of "so much the worse for you" as it definitely is illegal to vote without a fixed address.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jan 11, 2022, 1:45:52 AM1/11/22
to
2022 Update: And now it is a Mayor Adams? (I don't recall visiting NYC in the 21st century).

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 2, 2022, 7:54:34 PM5/2/22
to
...and a President Biden, D-Delaware?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 9, 2022, 5:20:11 PM5/9/22
to
However, it *still is* just realistically interestingly true that Pete Buttigieg's dad Joseph translated huge parts of the
work of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Yeah, that's right, "Mayor Pete" with all his lameness. So "where were
you going with this"?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 10, 2022, 3:38:31 PM5/10/22
to
No, really. This statement about the dad of "Mayor Pete" is... it's gonna trip you out bigtime... "actually true".
Like, if Buttigieg or you or I "didn't like it", that would really be "too bad".

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 11, 2022, 3:55:35 PM5/11/22
to
Can you think of other "actual facts", or things that *might* be actually factually true?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 12, 2022, 3:30:38 PM5/12/22
to
Perhaps they even stay true "day to day", without "hand-jive" and similar phenomena altering their truth-value?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 13, 2022, 11:56:22 AM5/13/22
to
Like, the older Buttigieg still did this, whatever you had for breakfast? (No, he's dead. Kind of even "puts a point" on it, yet?)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 13, 2022, 8:34:40 PM5/13/22
to
Has a doubt about this "info" regarding the Buttigieg family crept into your mind?
"Naoooww."
Well then...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 14, 2022, 7:19:57 PM5/14/22
to
'Cause, yeah, actually that wouldn't be rational.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 15, 2022, 2:13:30 PM5/15/22
to
"Supertasters of humanity", introductory: I don't believe I ever spoke to the elder Buttigieg about Gramsci.
"Oh, I see" etc.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 16, 2022, 8:22:22 PM5/16/22
to
Well, instead of "seeing", maybe you should try "thinking" once in a while.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 17, 2022, 4:05:14 PM5/17/22
to
"Have you ever met 'Mayor Pete'?"
?

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 18, 2022, 7:50:35 PM5/18/22
to
"I guess maybe literally, or maybe not. What's it matter to you? We don't hang out."

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
May 23, 2022, 4:13:24 PM5/23/22
to
"So why are you talking about his father's academic work?"
"Cause it's an easily, strangely easily, verifiable and believable fact. As opposed to... your dangerous "bullshit"? Yeah, pretty much."

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jun 26, 2022, 1:08:21 PM6/26/22
to
Also, that's actually how discussion of written works (including "questions of authorship") works: debate and conjecture, not the
worst sort of "spectacle" or "controversy" one could imagine.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jun 27, 2022, 4:58:22 PM6/27/22
to
"I don't like that."
Then let's not go about it, okay.
"No, you don't understand. I *don't like it*."
Oh, man...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jul 2, 2022, 11:43:30 AM7/2/22
to
In the kind of most pathetic way, I'm talking about an "established fact" about Buttigieg's father.
"Established to whom?" To those that know it, and not to others; good point. Otherwise, all
the endless "pettifogging" of my adult life has been... has been...

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jul 2, 2022, 8:40:55 PM7/2/22
to
not even "idle speculation", but feigned hypotheses for those too "knowing" or ignorant to check.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jul 14, 2022, 5:22:27 PM7/14/22
to
"There's a problem. Do you want to hear about the problem?" kind of stuff.
(No, it's simply not the HIV virus. Sorry, guys. But "it's like that".)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 8:36:56 PM7/20/22
to
"Excuse me? Pete Buttigieg? Excuse me?"
It's not a Democrat I'm thinking of here, sorry.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Jul 26, 2022, 9:23:39 PM7/26/22
to
"Begging the question" stuff, although "beggaring belief" seems to simply be an accepted *economic* strategy these days.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Aug 15, 2022, 8:05:12 PM8/15/22
to
(Maybe it was a bad example, though.)

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Aug 20, 2022, 6:33:34 PM8/20/22
to
"Why?"
Mr. Buttigieg's Gramsci scholarship is a pretty "gauzy" fact compared to most of those that matter to us most of the time.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Dec 11, 2022, 5:35:17 PM12/11/22
to
"Pete Buttigieg? I think you're crazy."
No, his father's field. Easy "confusion" to make, I suppose.

Jeffrey Rubard

unread,
Dec 26, 2022, 4:50:51 PM12/26/22
to
Update: "Apparently you can have both Buttigieg and de Blasio, dear."
The sclerosis of American politics works in strange ways, perhaps occasionally in a salutary way.
But it's "weird", you know.
0 new messages