Wednesday Open Thread: Gay Doesn't Quite Go Away, Why The Oldies Were Better-ies

Open to all subscribers

imagine having non-ugly women in the pages of car and driver. protip: you can’t. not anymore.

Housekeeping: Feel free to talk about your resolutions, plans, or hopes for the New Year in this thread. I’m not doing it myself, but that doesn’t mean you are not encouraged to do so. Especially if having some sort of “accountability”, however ephemeral and digital, will help you meet your goals.

The third rail of American politics claims its least worthwhile victim, but she’ll still make bank

hey, it’s franklin

What if I told you that you could earn $900,000 a year by… being a low-functioning stupid person? And what if I told you that the $900k would actually be a consolation prize for losing a $1.3 million a year job? Welcome to the world of Claudine Gay. I downloaded and read through a few of her articles, like this one, so you wouldn’t have to. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that she writes like a poleaxed undergraduate trying to stretch 500 words of thinking into a 2,500-word paper. It’s also possible that you will just nod your head and say “duh” to the fact that Harvard was willing to make this unremarkable individual the public face of the institution despite the fact that she has never done anything that qualifies as real research, or even workmanlike assembly of previous research. Her work appears to fulfill that old joke about “both good and original: the good parts are not original and the original parts are not good.”

Embarrassingly for me, however, I cannot share whatever entirely justified cynical detachment you’re currently expressing to the screen. I personally believe that many of the “basketweaving” degrees have the potential to improve the human condition. I chose to leave Miami’s School of Business then focus on a mixture of literature and philosophy because I wanted to do real and valuable scholarship on texts that help all of us understand, and tolerate, real life. Yes, I wanted to discuss and even emulate the remarkable conversational skills of Dr. Johnson when he said things like

"I wonder, Madam," replied the Doctor, "that you have not penetration to see the strong inducement to this excess; for he who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."

but I also wanted to look more deeply into the core insight that generated such a brilliant turn of phrase. I spent years reading the great critics and philosophers, from Kierkegaard and Barth to Northrop Frye and Ralph Cohen. I take all of this bullshit seriously and it sickens me to see Harvard, of all places, led by someone who, were she to be employed at McDonald’s, would surely struggle to work the register and the drive-through headset at the same time.

How do I know she is not a smart person, her lamentable and fallow record of publication aside? Well, she sat in front of the United States Congress and allowed herself to get outmaneuvered by what Instagram calls a “mid-size girl”. The whole transcript is worth reading, but here’s the killshot:

Congresswoman Stefanik: Does that speech not cross that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel? You testified that you understand that that is the definition of “intifada.” Is that speech according to the Code of Conduct or not?

President Gay: We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a wide berth to free expression even of views that are objectionable, outrageous and offensive.

Congresswoman Stefanik: You and I both know that that is not the case. You are aware that Harvard ranked dead last when it came to free speech, are you not aware of that report? 

President Gay: As I’ve observed earlier, I reject that characterization of our campus. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: The data show’s it’s true and isn’t it true that Harvard previously rescinded multiple offers of admissions for applicants and accepted freshman for sharing offensive memes, racist statements, sometimes as young as 16-years-old. Did Harvard not rescind those offers of admission? 

President Gay: That long predates my time as president so I can’t speak -

Congresswoman Stefanik: But you understand that Harvard made that decision to rescind those offers of admission. 

President Gay: I have no reason to contradict the facts as you present them to me.

Stefanik is referring to multiple incidents in which Harvard has rescinded admission, or removed students, for merely being present in Facebook groups or other social-media arrangements where racial slurs or jokes are made. Harvard’s position on this is unequivocal. Any mocking or offensive language directed at Black Americans will get your card pulled. There is no “slack” to be had.

Is that a good thing? That’s up for debate — but I believe that you can no more create vigorous critical thinkers via censorship and mollycoddling than you can create champion powerlifters by having Mommy and Daddy each hold one end of their bar during competition.

Next question: If you openly call for a global intifada — which strictly speaking doesn’t mean “kill all the Jews” but also doesn’t reject the possibility that you’ll have to crack every Jewish head out there in order to make the omelet of Arab freedom — is that at least equal to being in a Discord where someone else says the N-word? We all understand that if my next Substack was titled “I Call On Everyone To Participate In The Global 9/11, Or Maybe The National Oklahoma City Bombing”, I wouldn’t be able to get a bank account thirty days later. Hell, I could say “I Call On Everyone To Participate In The Global Tulsa Race Massacre” and it wouldn’t take a week for them to cancel my Amex.

Put aside how you feel about Israel and Gaza for a moment. Why is Harvard absolutely fanatical about racist jokes but ambivalent on the call for global violent action, starting at Harvard? I couldn’t call for open violent action against blacks, Mexicans, or New Zealanders at Harvard. What’s different about making the same call regarding Jews? We’re not even talking about Israelis here — we are talking about all Jews, including the ones who hate Israel and call for its dismantling.

Let’s flip the script one more time. If I held a bullhorn at Harvard and called for “a global Gaza clearout,” implying the removal of Palestinians everywhere, could I survive that as a student or even an employed person?

With all of the above in mind, it’s fascinating to watch Claudine Gay’s mind shift into neutral when it comes to the Global Intifada. Elise Stefanik isn’t sharp enough to get a refund at Starbucks, but she easily zeroes out Gay’s ability to argue Harvard’s case here. Largely because Gay has no case to argue. Harvard has looked the other way while its student body has called for the death of Jews. They are treating it as a special case…

…or, perhaps more correctly, they have chosen to treat speech that advocates for violence against Jews the same way they choose to treat speech that advocates for violence or other action against “white people”. Harvard has assigned “whiteness” to Jews the same way George Zimmerman became a “white Hispanic” when he killed Trayvon Martin.

And that is why Claudine Gay looks like she’s just fallen into an Outside Context Problem. She’s not quick-witted, so she can’t easily deviate from her pre-loaded position, which is explicitly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Why is that her pre-loaded position? Because American universities have spent the last forty years using the language and reasoning of “decolonization”. It was never meant to be applied against Israel, or even former colonial nations like France and Belgium. It was meant to be a killshot against middle-class white America. Unfortunately, however, much of the rhetorical description of “violent colonizers” could be said to perhaps fit the immensely powerful nation of Israel better than it does, say, a Dollar General cashier in rural Kentucky.

In other words, they loaded a gun, pointed it at the head of “bigoted” Americans, then accidentally shot Israel with it, because everybody involved was stupidly confident that today’s batch of profoundly coddled, substandard, and politically-chosen Ivy Leaguers would hear the real message of “Fuck Whitey” instead of the cover letter of “You must suffer for imposing your political will on certain brown people.” They were wrong. Kids tend to take things literally.

This is a problem, because while the general mass of white Americans have literally zero political will and consider it a fate worse than death to make any decision whatsoever based on the interests of their native countrymen and genetic neighbors, American Jews have long been courageous in the cause of advocating for their rights and advancement. True, that advocacy has always been aimed at generic “white people”, such as the aforementioned Dollar General lady, but just like the Harvard gun it’s capable of being pointed elsewhere.

A lot of Jews are absolutely gobsmacked to hear anti-white rhetoric being used against not just Israelis but Jews everywhere, the same way I’d be angry if I told my son “You need to punch every fat mouthy jerk in northern Ohio,” meaning Brad Brownell, and he instead interpreted it as a command to punch me, since I fit the description. They’re not taking it lying down. Elise Stefanik is doing their bidding here — not because of any “Protocols” or “Mein Kampf” conspiracy, but because she wants to raise re-election money and Bill Ackman can out-spend the average Gazan refugee.

Claudine Gay, had she been as smart as my son or my son’s least smart friend, could have said, “We’re going to handle the anti-Semitic violence, no sweat, thanks for calling me here,” She’d have gone home scot free, Elise would have turned her attention elsewhere, and Harvard could have kept doing what they want to do on behalf of The Glo-cal Intifada, the same way the UC system continued affirmative action after it was banned by law, then bragged about it. Unfortunately for “Doctor” Gay, she’s not smart and now she’s going to lose her job.

It’s a $1.3M job.

Her new job will only pay $900k a year. Still good money for being sub-normie. Still good money for embarrassing Harvard on the public record. And this is where her punishment will end. Because the progressive system as a whole is now stronger than the cadre of Jewish intellectuals who gave it so much momentum in the Sixties and Seventies. Indeed, it’s stronger than American Jewry as a whole. Because it is the de facto operating system of everyone in America who earns more than Dollar General people. Even “right-wingers” define themselves in opposition to, and therefore tacit recognition of, the progressive mindset. If it decides that Israel is in violation of its morals, and it kind of looks like it has, then American Jews will have to grin and bear it, the same way progressives in San Francisco have to openly espouse the many positive aspects of human shit and used needles on every sidewalk. Every Jewish educator who has fostered this “decolonization” mindset now finds himself or herself in the unpleasant situation of a white “pitbull mommy” whose precious dog just helped itself to a substantial portion of her infant’s windpipe.

What do they like to say? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Which is why Ricky Vaughn is going to spend most of 2024 in jail… and why Claudine Gay will only earn $900,000 in 2024. Things are tough all over, I tell you.

Better Days Behind

ACFer Andy rather expertly took me to task like so this past Sunday:

0. Except for appliance vehicles automotive journalism doesn't and hasn't existed to funnel information to prospective buyers. It provides a second-hand experience for someone who can't afford the car and, at best, a set of "benchmark" numbers with which the non-buyer can compare other cars he can't afford.

1. There have always existed appliance vehicles. Mainstream buff books provided OK information about price, features and usability. Now if you want to know about price, features and usability, YouTube vids are at least as good as Car & Driver used to be. Look at their Archive articles.

2. Old automotive journalism didn't assume the prospective buyer of even a "performance" car would "track" the car to its presumptive limits. Except for maybe a skidpad, road tests were almost always done on a road. Old auto journos knew most readers wouldn't go near a track. Having a racing license was as necessary as an appendix for the vast majority of auto journalism.

3. The main difference between old and new auto journalism is the added dollop of politics. EV being the most obvious, but also girl power and Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's not welcome.

4. Aside from politics, I don't think new auto journalism is particularly worse than old auto journalism. Most of the old stuff was workmanlike, formula writing. Features featured a winding road, implied boozing, and dumb driving that no reader took seriously. (I dare anyone to drift the tail of a 85hp '70's Japanese car).

Now I know how the steak feels when the “Salt Bae” is done slicing! As fate would have it, however, I’ve spent the past three months reading old issues of C/D, mostly from 1975 to 1986. There’s plenty to criticize about them, and I’ll do so in an upcoming feature, but they are fresh enough in my mind for some response-by-numbers to Andy, like so:

0. Yes, but: In the glory days, exotic or high-performance cars were a rarity in C/D. The average article of the time was mostly or even entirely cars that a middle-class person could afford. You’re minimizing the value and impact of having Chevrolet Citation X/11s and Pontiac Trans Sports in the magazine.

1. I’m not sure you can in any way compare the average press-rotation YouTuber to the C/D staff of 1980, which had more engineers and industry veterans than it did blowhards and pretenders. I did events with the current crowd. They’re not competent to evaluate vehicle dynamics, and they rarely know much more than what they’re told in the press materials.

2. Agreed — because the cars were so slow. Operating something like a 488GTB or McLaren 765LT near its limits on a public road is far more dangerous and difficult than turning a half-decent racetrack lap. You’ll be in triple digits for anything less twisty that Route 129. Now here’s the thing — I’ve done just that. Again and again. More than almost anyone else. But it’s not a workable long-term proposition. You can’t explicitly hire for someone who will do 160mph on the PCH. Nine of ten new hires will get killed.

3. I’d argue there’s also a competence gap. Spend an hour with Don Sherman, and you’ll be amazed at how much the fellow knew about the products, from nose to tail. Nobody has that knowledge now. Not me, not Bozi, certainly not the modern idiots. Sometimes that information really matters.

4. Yes, it was formulaic — but it was a better formula, and they stuck to it, and people wanted to hear each new car evaluated in that formula. Why is the new R&T Ferrari review so bad? Because it doesn’t put the car in context, it doesn’t give you the same information you got from its predecessor’s review, and it focuses far too much on the Snowball politics of young Mack Hogan. If they’d given me the car, I’d have told you how much faster and better it was on a backroad than a 488GTB or 765LT. But that sort of macho drama won’t pass muster in this enlightened era.

None of this is to defend, say, Motor Trend of any era, or the average second-tier Mustangs & Fast Fords publications. But there was a lot to admire, and emulate, about the best of print autowriting. The worst thing about the C/D staff in 1985 was that they were all too self-satisfied to do proper succession planning, which is how you got the Csaba years and the Eddie years, which fundamentally murdered the magazine.

If someone wants to give me $15 million a year up front, I’ll bring it all back. Fully instrumented testing, forthright reviews, bad black-and-white photography. I’ll run the 296 GTB at the absolute limit of the tires on Route 664, the same way Bedard ran a Corrado G60 at the absolute limit of the tires. (I mean, if he could run that road at 90mph, I can run it at 190, right?) I will give you a C/D that is to the 1978 issues what a 2024 Mustang GT is to a 1978 Mustang GT: the same idea, but dialed up to 11… thousand. We’ll drown a Maxima and race a Pinto and make fun of the federal government and whatever P.J. did that got everyone so angry. (For the record, it included a joke about the difference between Wellesley girls and actual pigs, or the lack therof.) Toly Arutunoff will write one letter to the editor each month, just like in the old days.

I can do it. All of it. I was born to do it. As Dennis Edwards said, don’t look any further. You’ve got me. And presumably you’ve got the money. That just leaves the readers. What kind of luck would we have finding men who want to read about that sort of thing, in 2024? My guess: About the same as Lot had in Sodom.