Home | About | Donate

Bad Faith Has Many Brands


Bad Faith Has Many Brands

Todd Gitlin

These days are for resistance to the abomination that has befallen us; as also for decent conduct among our injured humanity of every shape and color; as also for “tears of rage, tears of grief,” in the pained words of our Nobel laureate, who some 50 years ago saw the hard rain falling, as it was then and shall, for some time, continue to do.


Speaking of bad faith, Gitlin conveniently failed to mention those obsessed with identity politics and voted for Clinton in the primaries thus depriving us of the candidate who could demolish Trump.




Mr. Gitlin is doing the same false analysis of the election that the Clintons and the DNC have been engaged in. Facebook did not cost the DNC the election, a terribly flawed and unpopular candidate did, along with those in the DNC that lied and cheated to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. Donna Brazile even leaked the debate questions to Clinton to help her and hurt Sanders. This article is pure tripe. One thing is clear, the technocrats in the DNC (who are Republicans in all but name) will never change. Only a complete purge of the DNC will fix the rot.


Shazam! Bingo! Thank you for that. As a lifelong Democrat, x-er Liberal..Old-school Left that is, not to be confused with the nightmare of hypocrisy that is the New Left....well...I truly appreciate your position. I gave my vote to Jill, not because I thought she could win, and frankly if I thought she could win? Wouldn't have voted for her because she too, sadly, was voicing camouflaged authoritarianism as 'dogooderism', PC etc..and this is really a big problem for the "Left", this serious vicious, fanatical contempt for 'Autonomy'. Example; Jill stated a need for a '100% green economy'. Yup. As an actual environmentalist and country boy watching the rivers die (and it ain't Marijuana, its Development, Wineries, logging that are creating 90% of the waste..especially mass development) I know what 100% green economy meant; it was 'code' for more endless surveillance based control and coercion and essentially extortion in order to allow for endless, opaque and all powerful Bureaucracy. Anyway..I digress as is my wont to do..the author of the article is so full of actual hate..so hypocritical..its literally almost a text book 'delusional state'. His entire premise really perfectly encapsulates the new left problem of 'Denial/Rationalization/Rage Masquerading as Acceptance/Diversity/Peace'. The New Left is just as dangerous, if not as crazy, as Trump. Their now almost total denial of Obama's assault on Privacy, Press freedom, Civil Liberties..Obama's war crimes, the massive militarization of Police (invite em in for a beer...there's a solution) the appointments in week 1, 2008, 1st term, of Monsanto 'fixer' and 30 year man to the fda and Rubin (and this was the peak of the 'banking crisis' remember) head of deeply involved CitiBank to run the economic show..I mean it goes on and on ad naueam, ad infinitum. And now here is the author of the article actually using New Left 'code' to call for...More Censorship and this 'meme' of censoring 'fake news' while simultaneously blaming 'the russians and assange' is truly the most direct evidence yet as to 'what' the New Left is really all about. The author teaches 'Journalism' at Columbia! Wow! And while calling for censorship he never asks the Critical Question: "Who Decides What Is 'Fake News' Vs. 'Real News'?" Oh..why..people 'He Agrees With' of course. This is really vile. Disgusting. The New Left refusing to admit their basically directly responsible for Trump, while calling for MORE "Control" of our lives. What if I "Want" 'fake News'? Guess my freedom as a member of a 'diverse community' doesn't count.


Apparently Gitlin is one of them. Nothing here but false cheer for those somewhere who would not feel equally nauseated if HRC had been the winner. At least with The Donald, people are mobilizing to resist. They would likely be comatose had HRC been the victor.


I agree. The great catastrophe was Clinton winning the nomination, which apparently involved quite a bit of underhandedness and outright cheating. After that, it was certain that the next president would be horrific.


"Be on the lookout for all practitioners of bad faith, those who profess innocence and renounce their own responsibility."

Um, isn't this exactly what Todd Gitlin is doing in this article?

Hillary and her stubborn fans remind me a lot of drug dealers who get caught and blame their jail time on minor errors in a police report or something they wish their public defender had objected to at trial, rather than their own very obvious crime.


I am so sick of these Democrats blaming liberals who fail to vote or who vote for a third party candidate. The Democrats need to take responsibility for their own failures.

As the batsh*t crazy Republican party turned hard to the right, the timid democrats always followed them to the right. And, as has been mentioned many times before, the Democratic Party became the Republican-Lite party. Every time a Democrat was elected to the White House, he governed marginally to the left of the batsh*t crazy Republicans. We don't need more of that.

The only solution is, not to vote for the lesser of two evils, but to bring down the entire system. As Thomas Paine stated, "we have it in our power to begin the world over again."


Ultimately is the voters who voted for Trump who are to blame. They have been accepting fake news without questioning it for decades. There is a whole political movement that is based on the big lie. This has been taking place on conservative talk radio for years. There has been fake news many years about the environment (e.g., ozone hole, global warming), African Americans, Hispanics, the Clintons etc. It seems to be obvious that all the lies are considered worth it to obtain their objectives. For people who believe in the importance of seeking the truth this movement on the right is perplexing because the truth has no value to them. Or for some the truth is only based on religious scripture. Once a democracy rejects the importance of truth it is sunk. The clearest example is rejection the science of climate change. That rejection can ultimately lead to total disaster. Truth is critical for human survival.


So, Gitlin is an Academic with a Secure Position, and Lead Inquisitor in deciding who gets Credentialed at Ph.D where he works, and this Ivory Tower Strongman superciliously tells us that our voting our conscience for Jill Stein was fantasy, deserving of a scolding from guys like him.


And Mr. Gitlin's meme?
A tad after the wave (probably perceived as a lesson to be delivered... that in journalism 'timing is everything') but those four fingers are still pointing back from the wiggly extended digit


I'd like to share a story with you, from an acquaintance of mine. Living in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, he went to go vote on one election day. When he got to the polls, he was told that he didn't need to vote, the record showed that he had already voted. Still he insisted, and shortly after some members of the police took him to a small room and interrogated him, asking him what he was trying to do, what his motives were.

He was lucky enough to have a relative in the system and was able to contact him. His relative told him, "It is okay to ask the interrogators what the correct answer is." And so he did, and after that, they were happy to tell him what they were expecting.

So, should I ever find myself in an interrogation room with the police, or the party officials, I will consider asking what the correct answer is. Until then, I will be forced to use my best judgement.

I voted for a third party, and I stand by that decision. It was not a decision I came to lightly, trivially, or without a thorough investigation of relevant information. This election was, perhaps, the single most informed decision I've ever made. Where to go to college, whether or not to sign a binding no-compete agreement at my first job? They don't even come close.

You cannot take a fundamental liberty that people are granted, the right of speech, the right to privacy from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right to avoid self-incrimination; and turn it against them. If someone is serious about fighting fake news, what they need to do is accompany each fake news article with a well researched correction, not censor.

  • Louis Brandeis. Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).


Adding my two cents to the chorus above who's B.S. meters went off after reading this piece.

My question is this, where was brand DNC in this list of bad faith actors?


" Facebook did not cost the DNC the election."
Only an educated idiot could make that claim. Delegates that attended the convention in Philly claimed it was really a CON job.


Working-class black and Hispanic USAns preferred Hillary in the primaries becasue on average, they are in far more precarious situation economically and socially than average white workers and are therefore going to be very risk-averse. They believed that Clinton had the best chance of defeating Trump, while Sanders would have faced withering red-baiting, and "tax-and-spend-liberal"-baiting as happened in the McGovern and Dukakis debacles (think of how "he honeymooned in the Soviet Union" would have gone over in, say Steubenville, OH).

It is certainly likely, in retrospect, that that times have changed, and that such attacks would not have worked this time against Sanders but especially nine months ago, that was hardly clear.

Also, the accusatory use of the term "identity politics" is just racist code-language. What are YOUR "identity politics", white man? Anyone accusing anyone of "identity politics" has no place in organizing on the left. Yesterday, I was at a local ANSWER (3rd Internationalist tendency) chapter planning meeting for a massive action on January 20 in DC in our various discussion has anyone used the word "identity politics" in our discussions they would have been kicked out of the room.


Not surprising that the Green Party/Stein gets named as a culprit. That is a crock of shit, of course. I supported Stein in a state where Trump got 41%. And, in a region where he never really campained after the primary. Neither did Clinton. They only came for donations ( bribes ). The problems in this country was middle-class whites reverting to their historical stance. Which, coupled with economic decline brought on by UniParty Elites, has picked the 1%ers to run the country. Sure, racism and white privilege was on display, here. Voting is a national joke in America today, as well. Brought to us by UniParty Establishment Elites content with dirty business, as usual. And, the MSM is ( including Facebook ) a corporate megaphone for elites. Who run advertising/public relations organizations more than anything else. It is always about the money, as elites will do or say almost anything to accumulate more of it. Unfortunately, for about 75% of Americans, the elites will continue to drain them dry. And, neither Trump or Clinton would change this disastrous trajectory.


I guess this should be expected from the right-wing Gitlin, but among the factors he listed, the biggest one, the refusal of the Democratic leaders to see the unpopularity and vulnerability of Hillary Clinton - even as it was staring them in the face, is totally absent from his piece.


On Blame: Sometimes blame is good and sometimes it's not so good, depending upon how it is
presented and, among other things, how it is received.
For instance, I had really gotten tired of people blaming Senator Sanders for the Trump win. All
that I seemed to hear was that "If Sanders would have run with the Green Party like Jill Stein
asked him to, he probably would have won." (Was that to assume Trump would have lost?).
Therefore, this very unreasonable assumption gave me pause to think and research, because
I knew the Senator to be an extremely intelligent gentleman and there had to be a reason, perhaps
more than one, that Sen. Sanders did not run on the Green Party ticket.

In short, the offer was shouted out to a crowd of people, outside the Convention Center, by Jill
Stein, with Senator Sanders not at all even being present ... and long gone from the premises.
Was it ever formally proposed prior to or after the Convention? I have no proof of that. However,
when Jill Stein was interviewed by The Young Turks and the subject was again re-visited, Mrs. Stein
gave a very murky, watered-down answer saying something to the effect that "they" .. meaning the
Green Party or Stein ?? .. would have to talk it over and perhaps Bernie could run as the V.P.
candidate. Oh my, Bernie was just demoted from a Presidential run to a V.P. ?? Was that what
she meant?... a follow up question would have been a good idea, to get it clear.

Those of you who know Bernie, I do believe would surmise the answer that any intelligent person
would give IF there was a question allegedly asked and in that manner. Therefore whose fault was
it, that Trump won? Oh, that's right, many people said it was Bernie's because he didn't run at the
top of the ticket with Jill Stein and Green Party. How easy it is to find non-credible blame!
At some point we do blame others and I do not hold myself exempt.

My second point is very clear, and perhaps you might call it blame, I will leave that up to you, and I
use blame for lack of a better word at the moment. Voters, many that I spoke with, did not know
that during this past September, roughly end of Sept., the Green Party appeared on only approx. 45
states out of our 50. Since I had no intention of voting Green, I had no idea about this and to be
fair, I just found out recently. There were many voters who did not know this; it being a very important
thing to know. It's kind of like having five football players from a major football team sitting on the sidelines
instead of playing the game at a playoff, let's say for the Trophy, and you bet on them. The electorate
should have known this. I think it very unfair that the Green Party, if in fact, they had not achieved this most
important goal, to be all-inclusive, should have made it known, even though they may have tried their best
to get on the ballot. I believe the same report was found out by me closer to election day, only because
I made it a point to find out to be informed... and Green Party still did not have 50, but I believe 46 states
where people were able to vote for their ticket.
Should all Parties be held responsible to tell their party members, or is it the responsibility of the electorate
to find out? Or, should there be a law? This certainly impacted the election, and although I feel it partially the responsibility of the Party to notify their members, and in fact may help to get their members out to vote,
should it essentially be a law that all parties should have a mandatory law to be on the ballot in all 50 states
in order to make it an even playing field? Gary Johnson, Libertarian, did manage to get on ballot in all 50 states.

I feel this to be an excellent ballot question. Your thoughts if you have time.


I remember a radio talk show host once observe that whenever a caller started his pitch with the statement that "...everybody seems to be missing the point...", that whatever followed was usually horseshit.