2021年2月20日 星期六

What was Rush Limbaugh’s legacy?

How he shaped the Republican Party into what it is today.
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

Before I get going, I want to apologize for my unexplained absence last weekend. I had jury duty on a medical malpractice case that lasted five days.

Rush Limbaugh died this week. My take on the totality of his life was that he used his talents to make the world a demonstrably worse place. I'm not a scholar of conservative media, however, so I thought it would be worthwhile to highlight the retrospectives of those who have studied Limbaugh, his peers and their influence on American politics. Writing for CNN, the historian Nicole Hemmer notes how Limbaugh filled a leadership vacuum in the Republican Party and laid down a template for future politicians:

At the end of the Reagan presidency, the G.O.P. had no popular leader. George H.W. Bush, though elected by wide margins and immensely popular during the first Gulf War, soon slumped in the polls. By 1992, he had been rejected by conservatives and was facing a right-wing challenge from Pat Buchanan in the presidential primaries. Casting about the political landscape, Bush landed on Rush Limbaugh as a possible savior: The popular broadcaster had been promoting Buchanan on his show; if he instead threw his weight behind Bush, perhaps his millions of listeners would come along, too.

It was not to be. Limbaugh, after being invited to stay over at the White House, did lavish Bush with praise, but Bush ultimately lost the presidency to Bill Clinton. Yet in singling Limbaugh out as a powerful figure in control of millions of votes, Bush further empowered him. Republican politicians were soon knocking down his door trying to win a few minutes of airtime or an endorsement that would shore up their conservative bona fides. When Republicans took the House of Representatives in 1994's landslide election, they gave Limbaugh the credit.

And in an interview with Greg Sargent of The Washington Post, the historian Rick Perlstein connects Limbaugh to the southernization of conservative politics.

When you talk about nationalized politics, we're really talking about nationalizing the southern politics of the Civil Rights era, where this kind of conspiracy theorizing, this kind of violence, was common. People like Limbaugh and Gingrich helped institutionalize it in, say, Wisconsin, as opposed to just the south.

There's an argument that we shouldn't connect Limbaugh to conservatism as an ideology, that he represents a perversion or betrayal of its ideas. But I think that's the wrong approach. If conservatism is anything, it is what conservatives do. And what conservatives have done for the past 30 years — from the highbrow ideology of National Review to the performative cruelty of "Make America Great Again" — is emulate Limbaugh and treat him as a figure of respect and admiration.

Rush Limbaugh is modern conservatism, and modern conservatism is Rush Limbaugh.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

My Tuesday column was on the almost total Trumpification of the Republican Party, and what that might mean for the future:

That this backlash was completely expected, even banal, should tell you everything you need to know about the so-called civil war in the Republican Party. It doesn't exist. Outside of a rump faction of (occasional) dissidents, there is no truly meaningful anti-Trump opposition within the party. The civil war, such as it was, ended four-and-a-half years ago when Trump accepted the Republican nomination for president.

Building off this, my Friday column was about how the Trumpified Republican Party has abandoned any interest in governing:

Amid awful suffering and deteriorating conditions, Texas Republicans decided to fight a culture war. In doing so, they are emblematic of the national party, which has abandoned even the pretense of governance in favor of the celebration of endless grievance.

Now Reading

Chris Hayes on the Republican Party's turn against democracy in The Atlantic.

Gabriel Winant on backlash politics in Dissent magazine.

Seth Abramovitch on the actress Shelley Duvall in The Hollywood Reporter.

Kelsey McKinney on the unfolding disaster in Texas in Defector.

Steven Klein on the rise of the conservative welfare state in Foreign Policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to your friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

I have no memory of taking this photo, although the metadata says it was taken at some point in 2017. It shows the magnificent Waddell Memorial Presbyterian Church in Rapidan, Va., built in 1874 to serve the community in and around Culpeper County.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Eating: Greens and Beans With Red Chile and Fresh Cheese

We're big fans of simple beans-and-greens preparations in the Bouie household, and this is a very simple preparation. But it does require a little work, because it calls for using whole dried chiles. The recipe is from Rick Bayless, and while he uses kale, I prefer collard greens, sliced thin and parboiled. Whatever green you use, however, I think this is a pretty good meal, perfect for a light lunch or dinner. Fresh tortillas — either homemade or from a restaurant — bring it all together.

Ingredients

  • 3 tablespoons vegetable oil or leaf lard
  • 8 medium-large (about 2 ounces) dried guajillo chiles, stemmed and seeded
  • 3 garlic cloves, peeled and roughly chopped
  • 1 teaspoon dried Mexican oregano
  • ½ teaspoon ground black pepper
  • salt
  • sugar
  • 1 medium bunch Tuscan kale, stems removed, cut crosswise in ½-inch strips
  • 1 15-ounce can black beans, drained and rinsed
  • crumbled Mexican queso fresco or other fresh cheese such as feta
  • corn or flour tortillas

Directions

Heat the oil in a large saucepan over medium. One or 2 at a time, fry the chiles until they are aromatic and change color (they'll lighten a little on the inside and brown on the outside), 10 seconds or so on each side. Remove to a bowl, cover with hot tap water, weight with a plate to keep them submerged and rehydrate for about 20 minutes. Set the pan aside.

Scoop the chiles into a blender jar, along with ⅔ cup of the soaking water.

Add the garlic, oregano and pepper and blend to a smooth purée. (If the mixture won't move through the blender blades, add a little more of the soaking liquid to loosen it up.)

Return the oily pan to medium-high heat. When hot, set a medium-mesh strainer over the pan and press the chile mixture through. Discard the skins and seeds left in the strainer. Cook, stirring nearly constantly, until the consistency of tomato paste, about 4 minutes.

Pour in ¾ cup water (or stock), reduce the heat to medium-low and simmer, stirring regularly, until the sauce takes on a medium consistency, about 5 minutes. Taste and season highly with salt, usually about 1 teaspoon. Adding about ½ teaspoon sugar will bring out the natural fruitiness of the chile and balance the heat a little.

Add the kale and beans to the sauce all at once, tossing to coat with the guajillo sauce. Cook, stirring often, until the kale wilts, about 5 minutes. Transfer the mixture to a warm serving bowl. Sprinkle with fresh cheese and serve with tortillas for making tacos.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年2月19日 星期五

On Tech: Why we want tech copycats to fail

Plus, Facebook can't admit how Facebook works.

Why we want tech copycats to fail

Alvaro Dominguez

One of the things I obsess about is whether our current state of technology is immutable.

Are Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple and other tech giants invincible? Will they forever command a big chunk of our attention and money, shape how economies and labor markets operate and influence what people believe? Or is there room for others?

One way to explore these questions is to look at tech copycats. When we do, I see a glimmer of hope.

This tale starts with TikTok. It's a rare example of an internet property that became huge and wasn't owned by one of America's tech stars. It's owned by … a very large Chinese internet conglomerate called ByteDance. But that still counts as different.

There are plenty of concerns about TikTok, including what it's doing with people's personal information.

But TikTok's popularity shows that it's still possible for a fresh-faced internet star to break through.

With any success there are inevitably rip-offs. The technology news outlet The Information recently wrote about one of China's internet superpowers, Tencent, trying and mostly failing to copy Douyin, ByteDance's version of TikTok in China.

The efforts included Tencent's widely used WeChat app requiring people to use the company's Douyin copycat if they wanted to send virtual cash envelopes, a common practice around Lunar New Year. It's not clear if WeChat's arm-twisting worked.

ADVERTISEMENT

Both YouTube and Instagram (owned by Facebook) have introduced their own TikTok-like apps. My colleagues wrote last year about how much they disliked the Instagram version, Reels. It's hard to tell how Reels is doing, but it certainly hasn't taken over the internet yet.

But having a second-class product — maybe even a bad one — doesn't spell doom. A powerful company can make a product a hit through sheer force of will, a willingness to spend money like crazy and repeated exposure to millions of people.

That's what Slack, the workplace chat app, said Microsoft was trying to do with its Slack-like software. And that's what Facebook did with its video-and-photo montage "stories" feature, which was copied from Snapchat.

Sometimes copycats in technology succeed big — just look at Microsoft's Windows, the iPhone or Facebook's social network. (Also, sometimes the rip-offs are much better than the original.)

ADVERTISEMENT

But it doesn't always work. Tencent's WeChat is an inescapable force on the Chinese internet, but its popularity hasn't translated into success for the company's Douyin clone. For now.

We've seen before that big leaps forward in technology can bring down industry titans, like the cellphone pioneer Nokia. But boy, it sure feels like the tech giants today are so entrenched, so good at what they do — and, perhaps, skilled at tilting the game to their advantage — that they simply can't be beaten.

It would be better for all of us if Big Tech wasn't an absolute and invulnerable force. I'll see the wobbles of TikTok's clones as a sign that it's still possible for Big Tech to fail.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Facebook can't admit how Facebook works

Facebook and its WhatsApp chat app got unwanted attention when they rolled out a confusing update to a privacy policy. After thinking it over for a few weeks, the companies are still getting it wrong.

Quick catch up: There was a mini global freakout last month when WhatsApp started notifying people about what appeared to be new steps that forced WhatsApp users to hand over their personal data to Facebook, which owns the app.

WhatsApp didn't actually change very much, but its communications were awful. And it was a moment for people to consider something they perhaps had not before: Facebook already collects a lot of information from what people do on WhatsApp.

In response to the drama, Facebook and WhatsApp said they would pause and think over people's criticisms. On Thursday, WhatsApp responded. It was better but still not quite right.

WhatsApp keeps saying what it doesn't do with people's personal information — that messages are scrambled so that no one can peer at the contents, and that WhatsApp doesn't share your phone number with businesses. But WhatsApp still isn't saying what it does do with people's personal information.

The plain talk is that Facebook gathers information when people use non-Facebook apps on their phones. The company harvests people's physical location even when they're not using Facebook. It keeps track of people you unfriended, all of the websites you visit and your contacts. Many of us understand this, even if we don't want to acknowledge all of the gory details.

Most of Facebook's data harvesting applies to WhatsApp, too, although Facebook says that WhatsApp contacts aren't shared with Facebook.

So why can't WhatsApp just say all of this?

Here is the fundamental problem, I think: People at Facebook are unwilling to be honest about how Facebook works.

When people freak out about privacy on WhatsApp and Facebook, what they often mean is that they want privacy from Facebook and its data surveillance machine. Facebook cannot give them that. As WhatsApp's communications show, Facebook won't even say out loud what the problem is.

Before we go …

  • Protecting people from surveillance, or enabling it? The software company Oracle offered to help buy TikTok and prevent data from possibly flowing to Chinese authorities. But the Intercept writes that Oracle has also been marketing its own software for Chinese authorities to harvest and analyze more data on their citizens.
  • Do you want to read about farmers hacking their tractors?! (You do.) The bigger point in this Vice article is that companies like John Deere are using software locks to make it impossible to repair our own stuff. Apple does this, too.
  • Garfield is the soul of the internet: The orange cartoon cat has inspired loads of clever internet remixes, an avowed Garfield fan, Dan Brooks, writes for The New York Times Magazine. There are Garfield cartoons with Garfield removed and panels generated by artificial intelligence with the characters as twitching mollusks.

Hugs to this

Meet Elizabeth Ann, the first successfully cloned black-footed ferret. She is supremely cute, and may point the way to protect species from extinction. (The article also mentions a cloned horse named Kurt.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018