In the News: Montana GOP candidate
May. 25th, 2017 08:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutAn increasingly normalized thread in the Republican party is attacking reporters and/or the media. Generally speaking, these attacks are verbal in nature. In Montana, however, things have recently taken a turn for the crazy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gop-candidate-cited-for-assault-as-newspapers-pull-endorsements/2017/05/25/eb416990-413b-11e7-8c25-44d09ff5a4a8_story.html
Short form: Guardian reporter in candidate's office asking questions about the health care bill (the one recently scored by the CBO). Another reporter, from Fox News, and her camera crew are also in the office, but not recording. Someone is recording audio (presumably the Guardian reporter). The reporters are in basic agreement that the candidate then physically attacked the Guardian reporter, who later went to the police. Misdemeanor assault charges have been brought against the candidate; sheriff saying it didn't rise to the level of felony assault and there is the interesting sidelight that the sheriff has given money to this candidate's campaign, apparently.
OK, so let's just start with the most amazing part of this story, which, IMO, is NOT that a crazy candidate physically assaulted a reporter. It's that the crazy candidate did this on (audio)tape, in front of multiple witnesses, including, and yes, I'm about to be sexist here, because I'm reflecting the sexist world in which I was raised, one of whom was a woman. (ETA: If you are too young to have been raised in that sexist world, yay! There used to be norms among men about beating each other up in front of women.)
Who does that?
I'll tell you who does that. I mean, other than, this guy, who I sincerely hope voters in Montana now know better than to elect, but honestly, as I noted to my husband, when you put Montana up next to Idaho for unusual, Montana wins pretty much every time, because there's fewer people and more space, so people looking for a place to freely exercise their nuttery in the lower 48 but who do not care for the heat tend to go there.
Here is an article about who does that, and how it starts young, and what can be done to redirect people who suffer from this collection of disabilities:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/
It's not a great article, but it does get one thing really right. It breaks down a monolithic conception of psychopathy into modules of disability, and explores which ones might be modifiable. One of the particular modules of disability is -- and it is portrayed brilliantly in this article, without being specifically addressed -- is a total lack of ability to take perspective. The "lock" that people with this set of issues suffers from is relentless. When this candidate beat down a reporter in front of another reporter, I doubt it even occurred to him that the other reporter would have an issue with this. And if it had, he wouldn't have cared. It certainly didn't occur to him what would happen to his political career once it all came out (in front of reporters! Dude!).
A sizeable minority of our population similarly suffers from problems with perspective taking. Fortunately, most of these people have enough cognitive abilities and/or fear to know better than to do stupid shit like this (ETA: In front of reporters. Who are recording.) Unfortunately, a lot of them still really _want_ to do stupid shit like this. So if you are in Montana, and you recognize what a bad idea it is to have a representative that can't see things from more than their own perspective -- whatever that perspective might be -- please vote for anyone but him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gop-candidate-cited-for-assault-as-newspapers-pull-endorsements/2017/05/25/eb416990-413b-11e7-8c25-44d09ff5a4a8_story.html
Short form: Guardian reporter in candidate's office asking questions about the health care bill (the one recently scored by the CBO). Another reporter, from Fox News, and her camera crew are also in the office, but not recording. Someone is recording audio (presumably the Guardian reporter). The reporters are in basic agreement that the candidate then physically attacked the Guardian reporter, who later went to the police. Misdemeanor assault charges have been brought against the candidate; sheriff saying it didn't rise to the level of felony assault and there is the interesting sidelight that the sheriff has given money to this candidate's campaign, apparently.
OK, so let's just start with the most amazing part of this story, which, IMO, is NOT that a crazy candidate physically assaulted a reporter. It's that the crazy candidate did this on (audio)tape, in front of multiple witnesses, including, and yes, I'm about to be sexist here, because I'm reflecting the sexist world in which I was raised, one of whom was a woman. (ETA: If you are too young to have been raised in that sexist world, yay! There used to be norms among men about beating each other up in front of women.)
Who does that?
I'll tell you who does that. I mean, other than, this guy, who I sincerely hope voters in Montana now know better than to elect, but honestly, as I noted to my husband, when you put Montana up next to Idaho for unusual, Montana wins pretty much every time, because there's fewer people and more space, so people looking for a place to freely exercise their nuttery in the lower 48 but who do not care for the heat tend to go there.
Here is an article about who does that, and how it starts young, and what can be done to redirect people who suffer from this collection of disabilities:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/
It's not a great article, but it does get one thing really right. It breaks down a monolithic conception of psychopathy into modules of disability, and explores which ones might be modifiable. One of the particular modules of disability is -- and it is portrayed brilliantly in this article, without being specifically addressed -- is a total lack of ability to take perspective. The "lock" that people with this set of issues suffers from is relentless. When this candidate beat down a reporter in front of another reporter, I doubt it even occurred to him that the other reporter would have an issue with this. And if it had, he wouldn't have cared. It certainly didn't occur to him what would happen to his political career once it all came out (in front of reporters! Dude!).
A sizeable minority of our population similarly suffers from problems with perspective taking. Fortunately, most of these people have enough cognitive abilities and/or fear to know better than to do stupid shit like this (ETA: In front of reporters. Who are recording.) Unfortunately, a lot of them still really _want_ to do stupid shit like this. So if you are in Montana, and you recognize what a bad idea it is to have a representative that can't see things from more than their own perspective -- whatever that perspective might be -- please vote for anyone but him.
no subject
Date: 2017-05-25 03:54 pm (UTC)He may have figured that no one who mattered, would mind. The problem is being right about who matters. President Trump's first press conference was “a f---ing firing squad” where he hauled off on the “chattering classes” and talking heads for their treatment of him. In such a climate, body-slamming a reporter might be perceived as no more politically harmful than punching a paparazzi - might indeed redound to his credit, or so he may have thought.
only comparable instance I can find is Michael Grimm
Date: 2017-05-25 06:15 pm (UTC)Grimm did not physically assault a reporter, but he did threaten him in a manner that may well have been a crime in and of itself. The wikipedia article has quotes and links indicating that this wasn't the first reporter Grimm treated in this manner.
While this was not the reason Grimm lost his seat in Congress and went to prison, I would argue that whether one chooses to view this as mental illness / cognitive deficits (as I have framed it), bad judgment (as you suggest) or a generalized criminality/bad character/bad morals, in both cases, treating reporters as enemies doesn't go really well for these politicians.
Other instances of people treating reporters as enemies can be cited to show that the politicians benefitted from this -- making money doing public speaking and so forth.
But whatever instances are identified, I sincerely doubt you will find examples _in the United States_ in which being known to have physically assaulted reporters worked to benefit the politician who did it.
At least, not in the last few decades.
ETA:
Alan Grayson and Dovere from Politico. Video apparently in this case.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/florida-congressman-accuses-reporter-of-assault-after-allegations-of-domestic-abuse/
Again, not what did Grayson in, but goes to character -- and it just not turning out well for the politician.
ETAYA:
Amos Newsome was convicted for assaulting a reporter on video. Nothing like what happened to the Guardian reporter.
http://www.dothaneagle.com/news/crime_court/commissioner-amos-newsome-found-guilty-of-assault-on-wtvy-reporter/article_51daa7cc-0027-11e6-8e07-43efa40de658.html
There are more of these than I realized.
ETA: In Alaska, State Senator alleged to have slapped a reporter. Senator can't be arrested until the session is over -- and this was this month!
http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Alaska-state-senator-accused-of-slapping-political-reporter-421250143.html
ETA: Also this month, much less clear cut, no charges filed:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/An-angry-Sen-Wagner-takes-matters-into-his-own-hands---literally.html
ETA still more: so weird, hard to know what to think of it. It definitely supports the, hey, this is okay! thought process theory (basically, it's now okay to break the law because reasons vs my theory which is, didn't even think about the consequences because never does think of how other people will perceive the action).
http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/16/greenwich-town-council-member-arrested-after-political-argument/
Re: Thunderdome
Date: 2017-05-26 02:29 pm (UTC)[correction: With me, more. It's been obvious for a long time that the Hollyork infotainment cartels are in their own little world, bracketing the “flyover states” they scorn - and the harvest of contempt and disregard they've diligently sown they're reaping now. Problem is, two wrongs don't make a right.]
The angry forces that propelled President Trump’s rise are beginning to frame and
define the rest of the Republican Party.
When GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte assaulted a reporter who had attempted
to ask him a question Wednesday night in Montana, many saw not an isolated
outburst by an individual, but the obvious, violent result of Trump’s charge that
journalists are “the enemy of the people.” Nonetheless, Gianforte won Thursday’s
special election to fill a safe Republican seat.
“Respectfully, I’d submit that the president has unearthed some demons,” Rep. Mark
Sanford (R-S.C.) said. “I’ve talked to a number of people about it back home. They
say, ‘Well, look, if the president can say whatever, why can’t I say whatever?’ He’s
given them license.”
Trump — and specifically, his character and his conduct — now thoroughly dominate
the national political conversation.
Traditional policy arguments over whether entitlement programs should be overhauled,
or taxes cut, are regularly upstaged by a new burst of pyrotechnics...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gop-inherits-what-trump-has-wrought/2017/05/26/4e1943ea-4177-11e7-adba-394ee67a7582_story.html?utm_term=.ebec039d5981
Re: only comparable instance
Date: 2017-05-26 02:32 pm (UTC)> in which being known to have physically assaulted reporters worked
> to benefit the politician who did it.
Well, it didn't do him any harm!
Nonetheless, Gianforte won Thursday’s
special election to fill a safe Republican seat...
Re: only comparable instance
Date: 2017-06-08 01:49 am (UTC)http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/crime/gianforte-requests-two-week-extension-to-appear-on-assault-charge/article_882ff2eb-83b1-545f-a4ed-6e4c04a549ed.html
However this particular charge is resolved (and it isn't yet resolved), one characteristic of the way contemporary scandals unfold is that they are quite rapidly replaced by the scandals of the day after, the week after, etc.
On the other hand, another characteristic of the way contemporary scandals unfold is that they are very easily brought back to life. In previous eras, we had to rely upon journalists digging through previous coverage and editors letting them devote precious column inches to revisiting previous developments. Today, google lets us dig through earlier coverage -- and there is no preciousness to space on the internet.
I don't know where this is going to go. And I don't think anyone else does yet, either.