Friday, August 12, 2016

Ru Paul: "I'm A Realist"


From E. Alex Jung's great Vulture interview with Emmy-nominated RuPaul: 

What do you think about what's going on with Donald Trump and the Republican Party?

When you break it down, this is about mankind moving forward and the people who are resisting that forward movement. When a butterfly makes a metamorphosis from being a caterpillar, there's a violent exchange between caterpillar and butterfly. And what we're witnessing is this violent exchange and a rejection of the movement forward. It's so uncanny, and it's so clear that that's what's happening, even as it relates to what's happening around the world, with these horrible tragedies. There are people who are rejecting the forward motion of mankind. And they don't want to be present for what's happening because they don't want to change, because change would mean they'd actually have to look at themselves and go, "Who am I? What am I? And how do I relate to this world?"

[snip]

What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?

[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you're a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you're not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you're living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side -- women, blacks, gays -- for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she's fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You've got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That's more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn't know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That's really the question.

How would you describe your political ideology?

I'm a realist. Drag says, "This is all bullshit." Drag says, "You're playing a role, and I'm here to remind you: Don't get it twisted. I'm not buying it. I understand what's really real, and what's really hood, and I'm living my life that way." I see politics the same way. Everybody's playing a role. And don't try to make me believe that you are what you say you are. I can see behind that mask.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. -- Oscar Wilde

There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... gender is performatively constituted by the very expresssions that are said to be its results. -- Judith Butler

I believe that telling our stories, first to ourselves and then to one another and the world, is a revolutionary act. It is an act that can be met with hostility, exclusion, and violence. It can also lead to love, understanding, transcendence, and community. I hope that my being real with you will help empower you to step into who you are and encourage you to share yourself with those around you. -- Janet Mock


6 comments:

  1. > What do you think about what's going on with Donald Trump
    > and the Republican Party? . . .


    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-is-making-america-meaner.html
    ----------

    Donald Trump Is Making America Meaner
    Nicholas Kristof
    AUG. 13, 2016

    FOREST GROVE, Ore. — ALL across America, in little towns like this
    one, Donald Trump is mainstreaming hate. . .

    “People now feel that it is O.K. to say things that they might not
    have said a year ago” . . . “Trump played a big role.”

    Donald Trump is rending [the social fabric] with incendiary talk
    about roughing up protesters and about gun owners solving the
    problem of Hillary Clinton making judicial nominations. . .

    We need not be apocalyptic about it. This is not Kristallnacht.
    But Trump’s harsh rhetoric tears away the veneer of civility. . .
    He has unleashed a beast and fed its hunger, and long after
    this campaign is over we will be struggling to corral it again. . .

    The tension reflects deep resentment among some white working-class
    families. They are angry at immigrants who have taken over some
    jobs, at the way communities they cherish are changing demographically
    and linguistically, and at what they perceive as a stifling
    political correctness that leaves whites accused of racism when
    they speak up.

    Many of my old Oregon farm-town friends are strong Trump supporters,
    and they will completely disagree with this column. Their headline
    would be, “Big Media Suffocates Real Americans With Political
    Correctness.”. . .

    I wrote a column recently exploring whether Trump is a racist,
    and a result was anti-Semitic vitriol from Trump followers, one of
    whom suggested I should be sent to the ovens for writing
    “a typical Jewish hit piece.” In fact, I’m Armenian and Christian,
    not Jewish, but the responses underscored that the Trump campaign
    is enveloped by a cloud of racial, ethnic and religious
    animosity -- much of it poorly informed. . .

    So far, Trump has arguably benefited from his fondness for
    over-the-top rhetoric. He gets attention and television time and
    is always at the center of his own hurricane. But in November,
    after the ballots have been counted and the crowds have gone home,
    we will still have a country to share. . .

    Inflammatory talk isn’t entertaining, but dangerous. It’s past time
    for Trump to grow up. . .

    This is a wrenching, divisive, polarizing time in America, and we
    have a major party nominee who is sowing hatred and perhaps violence.
    Let’s not succumb. . .
    ====

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-courts-the-gun-zealots.html
    ------------
    Donald Trump Courts the Gun Zealots
    By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
    AUG. 13, 2016

    The mutual embrace of Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association
    grew tighter last week with Mr. Trump’s incendiary suggestion that
    Second Amendment advocates could “maybe” find a way to deal with
    Hillary Clinton and her gun safety agenda if she reached the
    White House.

    Whether calculated or clumsy, Mr. Trump’s ugly pronouncement left
    a whiff of lethal intimidation in the air.

    The N.R.A. stands almost alone now with Mr. Trump, as one of
    his few remaining stalwarts in the Republican coalition. Mr. Trump
    cynically cast aside his earlier pro-gun-control position and
    successfully pandered this year for the group’s endorsement
    during the primaries. And while Mr. Trump denies any intent to
    cue up gun-packing psychopaths, his new best friends in the
    N.R.A. have begun a $3 million TV attack campaign against
    Mrs. Clinton. . .
    ====


    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/a-playboy-for-president.html
    ------------
    A Playboy for President
    Ross Douthat
    AUG. 13, 2016

    . . .

    [I]t’s Trump rather than Clinton who has confirmed the full
    triumph of the sexual revolutions. . .

    Trump and Hillary are both children of the ’60s — but of its
    opposite ends, the Brat Pack era in Trump’s case and the
    flowering of boomer liberalism in Hillary’s.

    Much of what seems strange and reactionary about Trump is tied
    to what was normal to a certain kind of Sinatra and Mad Men-era man --
    the casual sexism, the odd mix of sleaziness and formality,
    even the insult-comic style. . .

    The men’s sexual revolution, in which freedom meant freedom to
    take your pleasure while women took the pill, is still a potent
    force, and not only in the halls of Fox News. From Hollywood
    and college campuses to rock concert backstages and Bill Clinton’s
    political operation, it has persisted as a pervasive but
    unspoken philosophy in precincts officially committed to
    cultural liberalism and sexual equality. . .

    [A]mong men who were promised pliant centerfolds and ended up
    single with only high-speed internet to comfort them, the men’s
    sexual revolution has curdled into a toxic subculture, resentful
    of female empowerment in all its forms.

    This is where you find Trump’s strongest (and, yes, strangest) fans.
    He’s become the Daddy Alpha for every alpha-aspiring beta male,
    whose mix of moral liberation and misogyny keeps the
    Ring-a-Ding-Ding dream alive.

    There aren’t nearly enough of these fans to win him the election.
    Steinem’s revolution (Clintonian complications and all) should
    easily beat Hef’s at the ballot box this year.

    But the cultural conflict between these two post-revolutionary
    styles -- between frat guys and feminist bluestockings,
    Gamergaters and the diversity police, alt-right provocateurs and
    “woke” dudebros, the mouthbreathers who poured hate on the all-female
    “Ghostbusters” and the tastemakers who pretended it was good --
    is likely here to stay. . .
    ====

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-decline-of-unions-and-the-rise-of-trump.html
    ----------------
    The Decline of Unions and the Rise of Trump
    By NEIL GROSS
    AUG. 12, 2016

    THE white working-class men who are planning to vote for
    Donald J. Trump this November have been called many things:
    xenophobic, racist, misogynist, dangerously naïve. . .
    [But] they might have been out front in the fight against Mr. Trump --
    if only the American labor movement weren’t a shell of its former self.

    When we think about unions, what typically come to mind are
    interest groups concerned with wages, benefits and working conditions. . .
    [But u]nions are also political organizations that. . . can powerfully
    channel the working-class vote.

    [S]ociologist Seymour Martin Lipset[, i]n a 1959 paper, . . .
    demonstrated that while the working class in most countries favors
    economic liberalism, it also displays an authoritarian streak.
    Using evidence from surveys, Mr. Lipset found blue-collar workers
    to be less committed to democratic norms like tolerance for
    political opponents, preference for rational argumentation over
    charismatic appeals and support for the rights of ethnic and
    racial minorities.

    These tendencies, he claimed, were a function of lower levels
    of education and the isolation of many workers (for example, coal miners)
    from people who were different from them. Authoritarian attitudes
    also owed something to the work itself. Controversially, he suggested
    that manual work was at odds with the abstract thinking required
    to appreciate complex, pluralistic solutions to political problems.

    Yet in Mr. Lipset’s view unions had the potential to counter such
    tendencies. . .

    In Europe, as in the United States, working-class men are a key
    constituency for the far-right political parties that are now ascendant.
    Yet. . . a study published last month. . . found that union membership
    helps inoculate workers against the far right’s message. . .
    (It is not an accident of history that Hitler abolished German trade
    unions as part of his consolidation of power, or that farmers and
    small business owners were more sympathetic to the Nazi cause than
    were industrial workers reared on unionism.) . . .

    unions have been profoundly weakened. . . by decades of
    assaults against them by the Republican Party.

    In the post-World War II era, one in three American workers belonged
    to a union; now it’s down to one in 10. In terms of representing the
    traditional working class, the number is even smaller, since a large
    and growing share of union members consists of public sector employees
    with college degrees (like teachers).

    Union decline has left the working class politically and economically
    vulnerable, and it’s this vulnerability Mr. Trump has been able to exploit. . .
    If unions had anything like their former influence, how many workers
    would buy the empty economic promises Mr. Trump is making -- a man whose
    recently announced economic advisory team is made up largely of
    fellow billionaires, and who has said that hourly wages are too high? . . .

    American unions have a checkered history and are far from perfect.
    But as an institution, unions are an essential bulwark for democracy.
    We’ve allowed them to wither at our peril.

    ---

    Neil Gross, a professor of sociology at Colby College, is the
    author of “Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?”
    ====

    ReplyDelete
  4. > THE white working-class men who are planning to vote for
    > Donald J. Trump this November

    But what about the white upper-middle-class men who are planning
    to vote for Donald J. Trump this November?


    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/fashion/marriage-politics-donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
    ----------------
    He Likes Trump. She Doesn’t. Can This Marriage Be Saved?
    By SRIDHAR PAPPU
    AUG. 13, 2016

    In early May, when Dr. Thomas Stossel told his wife, Dr. Kerry Maguire,
    of his plan to vote for Donald J. Trump in the general election,
    she hit him with an ultimatum.

    “If you vote for Trump, I will divorce you and move to Canada,”
    she recalled telling him. He tried to laugh it off.

    “I’m serious,” Dr. Maguire told him.

    Before this spat, through nearly 20 years of marriage, politics
    had never caused much friction between Dr. Maguire, a dentist
    who is the director of the children’s outreach program at the
    Forsyth Institute in Cambridge, Mass., and Dr. Stossel, a]
    hematologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. . .

    [I]n an interview on July 28, Dr. Stossel restated his support
    for the Republican nominee.

    “I’m reasonably convinced that Hillary is handcuffed to the
    economic progressive populism that has totally taken over the
    Democratic Party, a.k.a., socialism,” said Dr. Stossel, a
    visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
    “I think that if she gets power and the party gets power,
    there is a good likelihood that the agendas of that movement
    will be enacted. To me, that counters what I consider to be
    what brings us prosperity, which is entrepreneurship.”. . .

    Soon after learning that her husband was not backing away from
    his decision to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Maguire picked him up at work. . .
    In the car she asked him how he could actually vote for
    Mr. Trump after everything that has happened. . .

    Dr. Stossel replied that checks and balances were in place that
    would keep a President Trump from putting the country in any real danger. . .
    ====

    ReplyDelete
  5. > What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
    >
    > "I'm A Realist"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html
    ---------------
    The Perfect G.O.P. Nominee
    Maureen Dowd
    AUG. 13, 2016

    SPEAKING of crazy. . .

    All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can’t rally
    behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the
    gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes
    and exit strategies, is getting old.

    They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in
    the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street,
    boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds,
    secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek
    guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up -- unleashing
    hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

    The Republicans have their candidate: It’s Hillary.

    They can’t go with Donald Trump. He’s too volatile and unhinged.

    The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be
    counted on to do the normal political things, not the abnormal
    haywire things. Trump’s propounding could drag us into war,
    plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand
    tiny bits.

    Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an
    establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and
    he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act
    and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. . .

    Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king,
    who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before
    he jumped the turnstile.

    Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. . .

    Unlike Trump, she hasn’t been trashing leading Republicans.
    You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly
    rooting for her. . .

    Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast,
    “Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss.”. . .

    Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see
    if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer
    of Saddam’s apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.

    Hillary has written that Kissinger is an “idealistic” friend whose
    counsel she valued as secretary of state, drawing a rebuke from
    Bernie Sanders during the primaries: “I’m proud to say Henry Kissinger
    is not my friend.”

    [T]he specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the
    Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that
    “the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is
    again taking progressives for granted.”. . .

    Hillary. . . understands her way around political language and
    Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors.
    And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country,
    like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder
    in U.S. history, don’t shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts
    from a microphone. . .

    As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, “the candidate
    in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a
    foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the
    Republican nominee.”

    And that’s how Republicans prefer their crazy — not like Trump,
    but like Cheney.
    ====


    Ouch! ;->

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do wonder if online communication has made me meaner.

    ReplyDelete