The wording of this post's title refers to only half of the post's argument, as does this lede, since the argument itself, profanely put, is more than just fucking easy to make; it's unfuckingbelievably easy to make.
That is to say, on the internet, especially, it's fucking sad to see so much poor fucking writing — which somehow gets itself cited by good writers, thus more popularized and even more financially ginned up.
Let us begin with the literate, rational writing of the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, who, in a tertiary way, notes the danger of any Democratic presidential candidate running on a Medicare-for-All platform. Case in point: Elizabeth Warren.
In Quinnipiac's late-October national poll, she led Joe Biden 28 percent to 21 percent. (Sanders, 15; Buttigieg, 10.) Last week's Quinnipiac poll, however, "showed Biden back on top with 24 percent, Buttigieg at 16 percent, Warren at 14 percent." (Sanders, 13.)
What happened to plunge Warren from win to merely show, placing Buttigieg in the middle and putting Biden back in the lead? Medicare for All happened — Warren's at-first tepid, then-clenched embrace of it, followed by journalists' questions about it, followed by her impossible answers about it, finishing with a "pull[ing] back" from it.
"The saga," understates Dionne, "was a lesson in how complicated defending single-payer would be in a general-election campaign." Another, less complicated way to express the "lesson" is that unrestricted Medicare for All would be a Democratic nominee's political death. (It occurs that I should mention, once again, that I favor single-payer; politically, though, it's just too soon.)
How absurd, say many progressive writers, one of whom — indeed the only one of whom — is cited by the NY Times' excellent Mark Leibovich. In a piece titled "The Hater's Guide to Mayor Pete," the "progressive journalist Drew Magary," observes Leibovich, assaults pragmatic Democrats such as Buttigieg for failing to fight for Medicare for All, which, claims Magary, is a "widely approved progressive idea."
His claim is, of course, widely as well as wildly inaccurate. Of course there is strong support for Medicare for All, left at that. Yet once polling respondents are provided its details, its support plummets into Warren's losing proposition.
This counterpoint is essential to any Medicare-for-All debate; nonetheless it is altogether ignored by "progressive journalist" Drew Magary, who once wrote for GQ and now writes for Medium. Still, more bothersome to me is how he so tediously ignores it — i.e., by his almost infinite use of ...
"Fighters … have the fucking courage to disagree with the bad guys"; Buttigieg supporters are "fucking sap[s]"; Buttigieg is a "fucking fraud"; his vanilla personality is "fucking pathetic"; we have "fucking Trump voters"; and Buttigieg is too complacent, so "Fuck that idea. And fuck him."
These somewhat less than elegant descriptions are, on occasion, interspersed with recuperative variety: "bullshit pandering"; "very attractive bullshit pandering"; "bullshit that … garner[s Buttigieg] more attention," although he's a "craven asshole"; "establishment Democrats [are] standing in the goddamn way"; but there's a "shitload" of fighting Democrats, too.
Now let us conclude by grasping the pertinent points here: Magary is fucking right because he's so fucking passionate; those who agree with him are fucking brilliant; those who disagree are fucking idiots; Magary possesses, it seems, a minimal, middle-school vocabulary; Magary's bad writing reminds one of John Gotti's best utterances — and yet, Magary gets prominently cited by the NY Times' John Leibovich, thus yielding the progressive "journalist" an astronomical number of page views.
It's true; I myself sink now and then to Magary's squalid level. But never have I outpaced or even matched it. Not even close. The most pertinent point, however, is that, I guess, I should have. Then I would be cited by the Times, rack up astronomical page views, and hie often to the bank.