Last updated on April 25, 2020
LIVE BLOG below
5:30* PM EDT *(rarely starts on time)
Trump may try to double down today, perhaps with some attempt at “sarcasm” in a specific attack on reporters. He may simply cut his losses and even let Pence do most of the presser, fleeing after the prepared remarks. Then again he might not have a sense of the better part of valor.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 24, 2020
Today one can bowl (alone) in Georgia.
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community is a 2000 nonfiction book by Robert D. Putnam. It was developed from his 1995 essay entitled “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital“. Putnam surveys the decline of social capital in the United States since 1950. He has described the reduction in all the forms of in-person social intercourse upon which Americans used to found, educate, and enrich the fabric of their social lives. He argues that this undermines the active civil engagement which a strong democracy requires from its citizens.
Everett Carll Ladd claimed that Putnam completely ignored existing field studies, most notably the landmark sociological Middletown studies, which during the 1920s raised the same concerns he does today, except the technology being attacked as promoting isolation was radio, instead of television and video games.
Other critics questioned Putnam's major finding—that civic participation has been declining. Journalist Nicholas Lemann proposed that rather than declining, civic activity in the US had assumed different forms. While bowling leagues and many other organizations had declined, others like youth soccer leagues had grown. He also points out that the thesis of Bowling Alone contradicts an implicit assumption of Putnam's previous book Making Democracy Work – that a tradition of civic engagement is incredibly durable over time.
In 2017, Thomas E. Mann, Norm Ornstein and E. J. Dionne wrote that the decline of social and civic groups that Putnam documented partly explained the election of Donald Trump, as “many rallied to him out of a yearning for forms of community and solidarity that they sense have been lost.”
— Axios (@axios) April 24, 2020
Now, this might cause one to question whether Trump knows the definition of sarcasm which, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain”.
Trump, after all, was the one who compared coronavirus to the seasonal flu, and then two weeks later, suggested that it was other people who were confused: “I’ve had many friends … People with great actually common sense, actually, have said ride it out, don’t do anything and think of it as the flu. But it is not the flu. It is vicious.”
And then there were the six weeks where he downplayed the virus, only to turn around at the end of it and say he spotted the pandemic coming before anyone else did.
This week alone, Trump backtracked after a report showed an anti-malaria drug he had touted as a “game-changer” could lead to a higher death rate.
Maybe he was just being sarcastic. Or maybe, just maybe, he should finally listen to experts for once.
This aged well….
— Tony Oltmann (@handplanepastor) April 24, 2020
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 24, 2020
Some of those globalists must do their part to save the Belgian economy, because Freedom.
— James Crisp (@JamesCrisp6) April 24, 2020
— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 24, 2020
The Politicus is a collaborative political community that facilitates content creation directly on the site. Our goal is to make the political conversation accessible to everyone.Any donations we receive will go into writer outreach. That could be advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit or person-to-person outreach on College campuses. Please help if you can: