On the Problem of Conservative Pundits’ Catastrophic Hyperbole: #TrumpTapes as a Teaching Moment

[UPDATED: Ironically, Dennis Prager just accused the left of reacting the same way I describe conservative pundits’ reaction below. Update #2: Now Ann Coulter.]

Readers know I advocate that toxic rhetoric from conservative pundits must be brought to heel. For example, in other posts I’ve criticized rabid zealotry as a force repelling Americans (and especially Jews) from conservatism. A second problem dovetails rabid zealotry: catastrophizing, exaggeration, and hyperbolic rhetoric. Contemporary conservative pundits project an image of conservatives as outraged pearl clutchers, making mountains from mole hills, insisting every slope is a slippery one leading straight to Satan. Conservatives, and by association conservatism, are by this behavior deemed by many as out of touch.

The worst examples of this tends to arise from the “chournalist” segment of conservative punditry, i.e. freelance writers tasked with quickly responding to a current event with off-the-cuff pieces with “click-bait” headlines to grab social media clicks before the news cycle moves on. The pieces are poorly thought out, poorly written, and driven more by the author’s knee-jerk initial emotional reaction to an event rather than collected, fact-based analysis upon which conservatives (purportedly) pride themselves. What should have been a 140 character tweet becomes a hurried, disjointed manifesto. I often muse whether conservatives should reject participating in this kind of journalism altogether, as generally nothing good comes from it. Shortly after the news event’s hoopla passes and is viewed through a less reactionary lens, the authors’ work seems foolish and their credibility suffers.

One such pundit is Bethany Mandel, who contributes to several conservative publications and has occasionally appeared on television. To her credit, Mandel has on occasion produced thoughtful, important and well reasoned work. But she’s also produced work that neatly fits the pattern I describe: lazily reasoned “hot takes” laced with catastrophic hyperbole. I previously criticized an article of hers on precisely those grounds, wherein her piece attacked a mother’s having attending a school’s “Donuts with Dads” event, and scolded that such intrusions fatally undermine the institution of fatherhood. I’ve also mentioned her in passing with regards to the furor over antisemitic tweets from the so-called “alt-right” movement. Mandel is at it again with two recently published articles (here, and here) excoriating Trump for his now-infamous 2005 Access Hollywood “hot-mic” taped comments. Taken together, intellectual laziness and catastrophic hyperbole plague the work, and continue to message conservatism as unhinged. I lay out the case below.

Characterizing private “locker room” banter among men as “sexual misconduct” is ridiculous.

Mandel’s Forward.com article takes the stance that Trump’s words, spoken solely in the presence of another enthusiastically encouraging male, wasn’t merely “locker room talk,” but actually rose to the level of sexual misconduct:

I realize that this may come as a surprise to readers who don’t have Trump fans and voters in their social circles. But trust me when I say that the “it’s just locker room talk” line was an acceptable excuse for millions of Americans — yes, the very Americans who supported impeaching Bill Clinton for his sexual and moral failings. … It seems many Republicans’ motto is “Sexual misconduct for me, but not for thee.” What a way to run a campaign, especially as the party that prides itself on morality and family values. (emphasis added)

But Mandel’s own Twitter feed (HT anonymous) provides a good example of how willful ignorance of context can be hijacked into absurdity. Only four years ago, Mandel took to social media with a barrage of lewd, lustful and lascivious cat-calling tweets directed at a married Republican politician:

Even recently in 2015, she ogled conservative author Brad Thor:

And Mandel has, like Trump, commented on women’s looks:

Though some on the Religious Right might disagree, Mandel’s lewd and lascivious tweets do not rise to the level of sexual harassment, nor do they suggest that she’s an immoral woman. She owes neither Paul Ryan, Ryan’s wife, Brad Thor, nor even her own husband any apologies. These flirty tweets don’t disqualify Mandel from someday running for President as a conservative Republican. Frankly, I think they’re funny. Context matters. [Update: an anonymous twitter user advised me that Mandel is also fond of the f-word on Twitter. Click here for a search of her feed (warning: not safe for work!) to see some serious “locker-room talk!”] As an aside, conservative pundits have generally given Rick Wilson, as one of their own, a free pass for this infamous tweet:

And Ben Howe:

Mandel threatens her readers with rampaging hordes of misogynistic boys because of Trump.

Mandel’s article for Acculturated amps up the hyperbole and states that Trump’s comments “scare[d] me to my core.” Incredibly, Mandel’s fear is not as a conservative Republican, but rather awkwardly “[a]s the mother of a son.” Mandel elaborates on how she hysterically fears a Trump presidency will transform her nice little boy into a misogynistic miscreant:

As the mother of a son, my job is to teach him to respect not just himself, but the women in his life as well. Of the latter challenge, the “boys will be boys” rhetoric makes my job that much more difficult.

Mandel’s hyperbole is typical of the kind of sanctimonious pearl clutching rampant in corrosive wings of the Republican party that in many ways lead to Trump’s rise in the first place. It’s detached from reality, and leads conservatism’s observers to view the movement as filled with reactionary kooks.

Mandel weakly supports her position with personal anecdote: as an inquisitive young girl she asked her mother for details of the then-buzzing Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. But the analogy fails in today’s Internet world. Not only do unsupervised children have far more access to corrupting information and media than in 90's, the zeitgeist now (largely because of Bill Clinton) rejects politicians wholesale as role models, and embraces instead perverse Hollywood actors, pop-music stars, and lately, bizarre Youtube personalities. Pandora’s box has been opened in so many other ways accessible to children that hysterics about hordes of young genital-grabbing boys caused by Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, or even catalyzed by it, is over the top and unfounded.

Hot-take arbitration of what’s typical or acceptable male “locker room” banter is intellectually lazy and reflects poorly on an ideology that claims intellectual rigor.

Twitter and other social media outlets have been nauseatingly inundated with personal anecdotes and rank hearsay about what exactly happens in locker rooms and similar male-only venues. For every anecdote proffered there’s a counter, and watching conservatives bicker about it based solely on personal anecdote approaches the surreal:

It’s an example of extreme intellectual laziness. This is especially true when within the past decade actual documented evidence of barbaric behavior by male fraternities on college campuses and even boy’s high school sports teams has come to light with increasing frequency (hoaxes and false accusations notwithstanding), including documented rapes, sodomy, and all manner of misogynistic behavior. It’s not my intent to smear fraternities or sports. My point is that if groups of American boys and young men organized into quasi-tribes are proven to occasionally act this horrendously, it stands to reason raunchy locker room talk is a real phenomena.

There’s also the (brave?) question of whether such private, fantasy-laden sexual talk among males is necessarily unhealthy or always correlated with misogynistic behavior in real life. That would seem to be a prejudgment driven by religious notions of vulgarity as sin, per se. But one conservative who studies gender behavior differences, Christina Hoff Summers, often writes and speaks about the fact that boys and girls socialize differently, and that among boys obnoxious teasing (as distinct from bullying) is a positive form of bonding. It stands to reason we might ask whether private banter about sexual conquests or the old “ball and chain” spouse jokes could very well be a healthy bonding pattern for adult men, who are otherwise socialized to suppress discussing sexuality, masculinity or relationships publicly. Assuming that men who privately engage in “locker room” banter are misogynists reeks of the same disproved claims that male players of video games portraying violence or scantily clad women deserve such labeling.

Conclusion

Trump’s Hollywood Access fiasco (which seems to have already run it’s course in the news cycle) deserved public comment — it’s not my intent that conservatives shouldn’t opine. But rushing to judgment and scolding him and other men like pearl clutching schoolmarms for cursing on the playground projects a negative image of conservatism. A fantastic opportunity to discuss masculinity, privacy and respect for females from a conservative perspective slipped through the movement’s grasp. And what happened with #Trump Tapes within conservative punditry wasn’t an isolated event either, but rather part of a pattern and habit being adopted by more and more thought leaders on the right. It’s generating social media numbers within the echo-chamber to be sure, but repelling outsiders from listening to genuine conservative thought. And much of it derives from #NeverTrump pundits seemingly consumed with winning a single battle, indifferent to losing a larger war.

What do you think?