a good example of how the world is getting dumber. the new politico playbook writer didn't know who FDR was until a reader told him about that whole "new deal" thing. this newsletter is read by every important person in DC.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I went to school in the UK. Definitely learned about the Great Depression and the New Deal in history classes. This would not be even slightly obscure knowledge there (especially for an adult with career aspirations in journalism or politics).
Also…he’d at least know who FDR was when he studied WWII, & how hard it was for Churchill to get America into the war during our post-depression recovery.
I think the Brits and us both suffer from Churchill book syndrome - but I would have still expected to this guy to have at least the Wikipedia understanding out of personal curiosity
i mean any politician who, like fdr, can be referred to by their initials is famous enough that you have to know about them if you’re going to write politics. i’m just some guy. i shouldn’t know more than the politics writer
Oh absolutely. Just more evidence that to a lot of folks meritocracy just means “white man” and not “qualified for job” which he clearly is not. Never should have this kind of job when so ignorant of basic history.
"There have also been a number of corrections in Playbook since Blanchard took over, including misstating Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s title and misspelling Billy Ray Cyrus’s name."
Exactly. Been off my reading list for years. I am more likely to read Fox because i know what to expect. Politico is like some zombie version of its former self, just serving up clickbait. It’s happened all across the media landscape but Politico is one of the worst.
iirc one of Bush’s press secretaries didn’t know what the Cuban missile crisis was - during a press conference. I think it was the blonde one on Fox now
Then donate to https://archive.org or something else to preserve knowledge and freedom of inquiry, but Elon et al are targeting Wikipedia and in fact that headline sounds like it was written by a PR hack hired by someone who doesn’t want anyone to donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia is not swimming in money. There's a very cynical disinformation campaign to discredit Wikipedia, shamelessly misrepresents and outright lies, to paint Wikipedia as some sort of grift or scam.
It's not hard to find this out, if you don't swallow garbage articles like this as gospel truth.
To some degree, the Wikimedia Foundation (which does all the fundraising, but does not control Wikipedia) is, in fact, swimming in money. They currently have 270 million USD in the bank, and steadily growing every year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
They need funds to reinforce their infrastructure and make it more secure to attack, as well as to defend themselves legally. We live in capitalism, everything costs.
Yes, but the problem lies in the fact that the man who, for all intents and purposes, effectively *won* capitalism is hellbent on destroying Wikipedia because it serves as a bulwark against his ridiculously conspiracy and ketamine-addled brain.
not that that helps much. destroying Wikipedia is about destroying the organization and the community that make it such a high quality tool for adjudicating fact claims as history continues to unfold. the content of the site as it exists today will be findable online somewhere for a long time
I just did this. I’ll admit I’m not sure it’ll help forever bc I question if today is the day ‘they’ take away internet access every day but at least I can feel like I tried
"The Nazis were a bunch of try hard edgelords who relied heavily on a Purvitin blitz meta. They were ultimately crushed by the allies and it was ggs until 2025 when they were successfully restored to power by our Founder Elon Musk."
No, if it's Elons wikipedia it would be more like "the were a bunch of based memelords who got a bad rap after a bunch of commies wouldn't let them make Europe great again."
Though it works fine if we know how to probe and what to ask. Knowledge from books and experts is primary and AI chatbots can only reflect on that. It can't be the primary source.
Not that it solves this hypothetical, but it’s worth noting and spreading the information that one can download an archive of Wikipedia for relatively little storage.
Thankfully all we have to do is keeping tossing spare change @wikipedia.org's way and they will stay a healthy non-profit! I give monthly, after cancelling WaPo subscription. With enshittification, they are one of the few trustworthy corners of the 'net...
the richest man in the world--who also happens to be shadow president--has a demonstrated hostility towards it. soon treasury will likely be able to strip their nonprofit status. I don't have access to a secret plan but the writing is on the wall. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/hr-9495-bill-threatening-nonprofits-passes-house/
I'm gonna piss myself off by defending this fucknut. It's also an easy explanation: he's British.
If you're surprised that a Brit is unaware of the specifics of FDR's presidency, I hope your expertise on the tenures of Ramsay MacDonald & Stanley Baldwin – Britain's PMs in the '30s – is extensive.
Or maybe it should, considering he's literally one of their most senior editors.
He's been on the job two weeks, and he's being attacked like fucking jackals. This reminds me of MAGA attacking someone they deem insufficiently "loyal" to Trumpkins.
I'm sorry you haven't been successful in your own journalistic pursuits, but if you bothered actually *reading* Blanchard's work – which I have for 15+ years – you'd know he's a damn good journalist being absurdly attacked for not knowing a single tidbit. (A tidbit in no way "basic.")
If you don't know about MacDonald & Baldwin, followed of course by Chamberlain & Churchill, this is a tad hypocritical.
It seems like you're surprised Blanchard was unaware of the New Deal. My read is that he was merely unaware that FDR's Congress passed 77 bills in 100 days, which is quite a few.
MacDonald & Baldwin is like knowing Wilson and Hoover. I don't expect a British person to know about Wilson and Hoover, but I would expect any and all political commentators making comment on US politics to be very familiar with them.
But yes, this was poorly written and edited, and particularly if you're unfamiliar with Blanchard's background, I can see why one would assume a blithering idiot wrote the column.
It is not even a tad hypocritical or easily explained away by nationality when you consider what Politico represents in the US, and more emphatically in DC. Now if a UK publisher wants to byline me to ignorantly discuss their politics with no historical background knowledge, THEN we can compare.
Sorry – it's still a tad hypocritical, particularly given that it's all based on a misread that Politico's managing editor somehow doesn't know about the New Deal.
The suggestion is absurd & bullshit. And OTT.
Did *you* even know FDR's Congress passed 77 bills? (I did, but I was a gov't major.)
I'm asking bc most Americans do not – which makes slamming him over it even sillier.
It was poorly written & edited, but you're slamming someone for an unintended and misinterpreted slight that isn't at all reflective of his history in journalism.
No it’s not. This person is *paid* to write about American politics. If you’re going to make a grand “all presidents” statement, you better know about all presidents. Even if not, FDR is like a top-5 pop-culture knowledge president. There are entire movies about him. Not knowing him is just dense.
No, I only remembered that it was 90-something in total. Which is irrelevant to the point. I also said "no historical" instead of ahistorical intentionally. Because EYE didn't want it to be misread as a typo. Because I am not writing on behalf of a widely distributed influential political outlet.
Now that I think about it, that must be it. I'm sure he's been savaged for the FDR remark, but was that the entire _point_? If he's a Brit entirely new to the US as of last month, he may _need_ to play dumb at times.
Certainly had most of D.C., and the US, chattering all day long about it all.
If I took a job covering British politics, I sure as shit would take a couple evenings to fucking learn. Saying he's unqualified is not really a defense, lol.
We used to learn about the Winds of Change speech in American schools actually, and Brits not knowing about the moment where the entirety of western politics changed and the welfare state was created because everyone copied us is actually very bad.
“When the UK sends its journalists, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing stupidity. They’re bringing Tory bullshit. They’re transphobes. And some, I assume, are good writers.”
This is even worse.
Everyone in Britain of my generation very much knows who FDR was - he was the United States’ own Churchill.
FFS.
Absolutely unacceptable.
Tbf he doesn't say he doesn't know who FDR is. He says he doesn't know about the start of his presidency. Not great, but not as bad as it's being made out 😬
thank you. I’ve just wasted an embarrassing amount of my life reading these comments looking for signs of any critical reading skills. you were one of the few bright spots in a sea of disappointment.
I'm an American and I know about Churchill, Stalin and De Gaulle for crissakes. Any journalist who doesn't know 20th century history at the very least is incompetent.
I'd say it's pretty fucking bad if this is your job and didn't even do the bare minimum of reading a Wikipedia article *before* talking about a subject.
If an American worked for a British publication and was writing about UK politics and didn’t know who Neville Chamberlain was they would be roasted to hell and back.
Not to defend him, but he's British and only recently moved to the U.S., so he didn't learn this in high school like the rest of us. STILL, if you're going to report on a country and its government, know the damned history!
I’m Australian and have never set foot in the US, but I still know who FDR is and the basics of the New Deal. And my job isn’t even to write about politics!
thats down to completely random chance - never ever came up for me or anyone i know. too busy learning about franz ferdinand for the 50th time before i was 18
Other than the cold war and WW2 stuff one of the main things I remember learning about American history was the depression and the new deal. They never even mentioned any of Franz Ferdinand's hits
He likely didn't learn about FDR's first 100 days. Just like I probably could not name one thing Stanley Baldwin did to alleviate the Depression in the UK. Although I also don't write for one of the largest political websites in London.
I am British and learned about the first 100 days and the New Deal at school but also crucially, if you are a political editor, the bar should be higher than “he didn’t study this at school”
Agree. But I fear this is getting out of hand. The poor fellow is belong tarred and feathered. Raise your hand if you have NEVER screwed up royally at work in a very public way.
Editor should protect their companies and the public from stupid errors like that. Reporters should get the can after more than one of those. Ffs I did better research on papers in hs. Who runs their mouth like that on a subject that they know they know little to nothing about?
Exactly. I don't fault him for not knowing the record of every President. But FDR was, love him or hate him, monumental. And he was President through some of the biggest events in US history.
How do you understand and interpret politics, as your job, without historical context?
Beyond his name, probably not, no. GCSE history syllabus is usually made up of Tudors, WW1 and Weimar/rise of Hitler/Nazis pre WW2. Might get some industrial revolution thrown in there too.
I just have to stress that he is not some guy Politico interviewed on the street, but is employed by Politico to provide a knowledgeable and informed perspective on US politics
It's not even "do some due diligence to be better at your job", it's that he should be embarrassed that he is this unqualified for the job that he has, to the point of being so ignorant that he didn't even know that he should know this stuff
It's not like he was asked a passing question and rattled off an answer he's a journalist who was writing about which president had the most influential start of their term.
Nobody forced him to write on a topic he was utterly unqualified to speak on and nobody forced him not to do any research.
I don't think this means he hadn't heard of FDR or knew what he'd done. It sounds like he just didn't know how quickly FDR set about realising his policies.
I don’t read this newsletter so I don’t have the context here, but it kinda feels like THIS is a dumbing down of its own. Distilling “guy basically saying ‘admittedly, I didn’t realize FDR did so much in his first 100 days’” into “this guy didn’t even know who FDR was!” seems kinda silly, no?
Because the position is one that is expected to be something of an authority and when it comes to discussing the current political orbit FDR is especially salient and given his significance in history just a massive thing for a political commentator to have zero knowledge of.
Why should anybody take your thoughts on American politics seriously if you don't know basic facts about US presidents? FDR isn't some obscure dude who didn't do anything of note.
I am struggling to think how far I would have to go, age-wise, to get to "I don't know who FDR is". Early high school is maybe an absolute minimum. And I'm Canadian, so none of this he's-British stuff.
FFS. This is what happens when you pin funding to testing and graduation rates rather than knowledge acquisition.
It also proves my point about AI being a great way to learn @mcuban.bsky.social .
Forever ago I got to do one single interview with Benazir Bhutto and I spent months learning everything I could about Pakistani political history for it. How do you become head of the Washington Playbook without knowing who tf FDR is??? I don’t understand this. It’s making my brain blue screen
Well, he's a white guy who probably went to impeccable schools, and I'm sure someone in his family plays some kind of rich white sport like golf or polo with important people.
My god! I was told not to pursue political journalism by my professor because it was highly competitive for little pay. I guess they scared everyone interested and now we just have morons in journalism.
This guy ran politico’s Brexit coverage and they’re like ‘that went so well, and America and England totally have the exact same everything, because English is the same language in both places- so it is totally fine”
Sounds LIKE A TRUMP agenda! Now don't pay him the required salary! it doesn't meet Musk-Trump agenda! TRUMP LIKES TO MEDIATE GOLF CRISIS today! HE COST AMERICAN TAXPAYER 151 million plus to play golf at home and other places in his first term! MONEY SAVING?
The world isn’t getting dumber it’s just all the power in the world has been consolidated down to a small group of wealthy people who are dumb and they keep hiring their friends who are also dumb.
For the millionth time: it's not the number of EOs, it's the substance of specific EOs. The EOs that authorize continuing resolutions to clean national monuments is routine and there can be many, the EO authorizing torture is completely different.
Ok so this bloke is from the UK, how on earth could he not know, has he heard of Churchill? This defcon level 1 ignorance. Did he even google it? All this free AI laying around. Absolutely insane
Not to mention that “impactful” shouldn’t be a value-neutral measure of a president. A president who nuked Europe in his first 30 days would certainly be among the most impactful, but do we want to give them credit for huge changes to how America and the world now exist and just leave it at that?
it's easy to forget the white house would consider Eugene Daniels a DEI hire - black and gay, with quite a kaftan collection. so Politico is trying to get back in the door with a new Playbook columnist which is probably AI or assisted. it's that bad now.
What he also seems to miss is that this regime/crew isn't passing any laws, they're doing it all by executive fiat & subterfuge.
Even without consulting the Wiki, that seems like a big difference.
I kind of feel there are many young reporters who would kill for this gig who could also rattle off what FDR had for breakfast the morning of Pearl Harbor
WHAT. Why the hell does a journalist think that wikipedia is a source? Wtfff. Does nobody actually learn stuff like critical thinking in college anymore???
No professor ever let us get away with using wikipedia, specifically listing all the reasons why. Shocking if this has become allowed. It’s crowdsourced knowledge with crowdsource idiocy, trolls and manipulation mixed in. Good for lazy browsing, bad for actual learning.
I allowed it under certain circumstances: e.g. for a definition of a current thing that was too new to be included in proper dictionaries. Wouldn't rely on it with controversial topics, but it indicates sources, so you could read up on your own.
Is it unclear about whether or not FDR busied himself renaming an oceanic basin? Do historians disagree?
Blimey, I think the managing editor of Politico might be an eejit.
Shameful nothing burger, this issue. The writer knew fdr, can be presumed to know about the new deal, did not know that measured in eo and bills fdr was the most active early in the administration . And was honest enough to admit it
The new generation of journalists believes the world began after the subprime crisis. Before that, it was all fumes over the gyrating ball of clay we call Earth.
Good example of how the internet has cooked our brains.
We commit nothing to memory because we assume we can reference it again later. Trouble is, when it's not committed to memory, we can't use it as a reference when thinking about future events.
That writer should be fired; clearly not qualified for the job. @politico.com should consider hiring that reader instead.
And yes, FDR helped build up the govt to mitigate the Great Depression, while Trump is tearing down any safeguards we have. Trump is the WORST Pres there is.
that little tag at the end, my fucking god. "FDR passed a bunch of laws that his opponents didn't like, Trump is repeatedly breaking the law through unilateral executive action, these are the same to me, a person whose opinion on policy you should listen to."
1. Maybe if he read more than the Wikipedia page, he'd understand the difference of why FDR got a bunch of calls of overstepping his authority (a bunch of racist white Southerns) and why it was different to Donnie ACTUALLY overstepping his authority. (Cause he's ignoring Congress.)
I'm so confused as to how he has his job. I'm Canadian and know about FDR and his impact /the New Deal because of references to it in popular culture and media.
It’s not a source, but a way to find links to sources that you then have read to confirm. I hate it when people shit on Wikipedia. It’s a great way to get sources of info.
It's long past time to stop insulting wikipedia. It is not a "source", but only in the same sense that a hardbound encyclopedia is not a source. It is a highly useful "point of entry" and overview for nearly every topic on the planet, and most of it is kept up to date by volunteers doing great work.
Point of entry, yes. However, there are several other reliable sources that can and should be used.
A true scholar would be using those sources. The fact that this person truly had no clue about FDR is sad and laughable.
I use wiki all the time but I find the points in this video worth considering: https://youtu.be/-vmSFO1Zfo8?si=r0IzqOD9zxc0tNds
Eg it might be a good point of entry but how often is it also the only thing a person looks at? (Caveat: a commenter says the creator is just annoyed BC he couldn't make a page about himself lol)
He’s British from what I see? Nevertheless if you were US-born you presumably would familiarize yourself with the PMs before posting on British politics in the modern era. Lazy?
I’m British, and roughly the same age. I know who FDR is… he’s the guy named after a road in New York. I jest… even though US history isn’t taught over here, anyone working in this environment would know who FDR was. Massive dereliction of duty.
In the year 2025, I feel like if you're writing about US politics - whether based here or not - understanding FDR and his efforts should in theory be pretty important.
Nothing makes sense anymore, it feels like. The most incurious sadists run it
In my opinion, this is more of an example of ignorance than stupidity. At least he was receptive to new information, educated himself, and posted a correction. This is more than most people do. Seems that the issue is the level of historical knowledge that is needed for that position should be highe
I get it. But I’ll tell you i forwarded this to a close friend who is a newspaper editor and she was all: WTF? Journalists can do better and we need them to now more than ever
Right, which means his qualifications for that position are the question. And whoever put him in that position is the one who should be getting the lionshare of the ire. My main point is that we should be able to recognize people who follow the process and work with them. Or he could just be an ass.
"did you guys know about this civil war thing? Seems like it was a pretty big deal, according to Wikipedia!"
-senior political advisor at a prestigious think tank
@politico is digital toilet paper & it’s ineffective even at that task. It has helped bring us to our knees and the precipice of cultural, economic, moral & political ruin & I hope it dies. I don’t care how.
This reminds me of when my next-door neighbor brought a new boyfriend home to meet her folks. She was a high-school teacher, and he taught history at her school. Her dad, a WW II vet, wrote off the new beau when he couldn’t name the date of the Normandy Invasion.
"President Roosevelt was also notable for introducing National Parks and for being an avid hunter. Of all the presidents, he may have been the most active sportsman."
Clueless Brit: He has a bachelor's degree in history from University College London... He studied American history at university, he said, and has “followed American politics incredibly closely from afar my whole adult life.”
JFC, I could understand if we were talking about some obscure US President. But FDR? Easily in the top 3. Who BTW, had a big positive influence on the world and not just the US.
Notice the big difference between FDR and the current administration. FDR called Congress into session and Congress passed bills as per their Constitutional authority. This Congress is giving up all authority.
Privilege and entitlement can get a British guy with a 3rd grade knowledge of US government and politics, a major voice in US politics for a leading outlet. It's the American way.
99% of what is happening now is about how the New Deal forced the wealthy and powerful in our country to account for the mistakes that allowed for the Great Depression. They resented FDR for betraying them as a wealthy person himself. They still resent the American People for reelecting him 3 times
It doesn't surprise me if he's a right-winger. A lot of kids (those with right wing parents) in the past decade have not been taught about FDR, or have been taught he was bad, if they went to a private right wing or religious school.
Me my 2nd day writing Playbook UK: so I got some reader feedback. Turns out you folks were right — Churchill did accomplish quite a bit. After reading his wiki, I realized he’s that guy from the early seasons of The Crown. Copied from an Entertainment Weekly recap of season 1 (The Fog):
FDR was also not implementing fascism. Trump is "impactful" in the way Hitler was impactful. The comparison to FDR is disingenuous at best. This kind of "commentary" plays right into Trump's ego and pushes a false (and dangerous) narrative.
Agree, especially the last bit “oh they both were accused of overstepping their bounds, they have that in common!” Err I think the circumstances and actions and goals were as different as chalk and cheese.
Thank you Jack Blanchard and Politico for making it so clear that you have no respect for your readers, or even for yourselves. You might just as well rename the column, "We Don't Care, Why Do You?"
It's fine if the average American doesn't know the contours of FDR's presidency or origin story of the New Deal. I wish they did, but it's not critical.
But if you are a writer working for an influential politics magazine YOU MUST HAVE A STRONG UNDERSTANDING OF FDR & THE NEW DEAL FULL STOP.
This is the closest thing to an almost reasonable comment in the sea of vapid responses, most of which seem to claim that not being able to rattle off all the executive orders issued 90+ years ago means you should have your American citizenship revoked.
upon reflection, I’d delete the “almost” from my reply.😆 what irks me is that the excerpt didn’t suggest the author didn’t know FDR or about TND. he posited a claim about DT, invited people to counter. that’s just not a sign of not knowing about FDR. It’s astounding to see people allege otherwise.
No it is not fine. It is another example of the failure of the Democratic Party to carry its history forward and speak to values and inspire new generations.
Blaming the Democratic Party for not teaching British transplants in high level journalism jobs about their history is a new level of Dem bashing I didn’t even know existed.
FDR did do the New Deal, and the GI Bill but the first was defacto and the second was de jure limited to white people. He also authorized the detention of Japanese Americans while their assets were sold off for pennies on the dollar. Otherwise good on WW2 Tho,
No, it isn't fine. The average American should know about FDR & the New Deal. If more did, I firmly believe that more would be on board with similar programs today. He literally saved the US.
Holy crap. If you're going to write a "playbook", maybe you should know the rules. Being British is no excuse for not doing your job's homework. Plus FDR is definitely one they should know about (wwii). 🤦🏻♀️
This is big part of the problem. Douglas Brinkley was on WNYC talking about past presidents and their executive orders. Few who currently inhabit the Oval Office would have an understanding of the historical implications. Some wouldn’t care, and others wouldn’t have the aptitude.
Except that’s not what that says. He indicated he didn’t know that the New Deal was passed early in FDRs term with a blitz similar to today’s president. That’s very different from not knowing what the New Deal was at all.
It's still embarrassing af. If you're writing a piece about Trump being "the most impactful president," and you don't do your basic due diligence as a journalist to examine *every* president's term for said piece, that is definitely a bonehead move, and you probably shouldn't be a journalist.
But he also didn’t explicitly say that, he asked a question, and suggesting that the New Deal was *definitely* more impactful is comparing apples to oranges anyway.
IMO, the worst part is the "though it's unclear whether FDR busied himself with..." part. He could've literally just read FDR's EOs (or a summary of them) to see if that was the case instead of having to hedge here. The incuriosity combined with the smug tone is simply awful.
I agree with this. I went to journalism school and in my program we got some history in mass media methods and communication law but only as it related to our chosen profession.
Right. Except that’s the whole reason reporters talk about the First 100 Days of an administration. Because FDR set the standard of hitting the ground running for a Presidency.
2. Cont. Some state laws allow any teacher to teach 1 or 2 classes of subject that they are unqualified to teach. SS is thought easiest to teach. Just look at college admission, require only 2 yrs of history/govt as opposed to 4 yrs math, english, science. World history requirements are rare.
This is partially a result of the US school system focusing on test scores and STEM. History, government, social studies have and continue to be devalued at all levels of education. In middle schools it is very common to have math/science teachers instructing history lessons. Cont.
It's pretty much sacrilegious to say that the social sciences and humanities are as important as STEM. But I'll go one further and say they are more important than STEM. You can be a productive member of civic society without ever taking calculus. Good luck doing that without understanding history.
👆This is how we find ourselves where we are. Far too many of these tech bros failed to take a single humanities class. BC they could program, had their parents money, or both, they failed up into the money machine room. Since the rest of the money folks only care about the line going up here we are
I don’t think they failed to take a humanities class. I think they were forced to, and they rebelled against it to the point that they learned the opposite lessons instead.
Software engineer here - humanities are a required part of all undergraduate CS curricula in all degree granting institutions in the U.S. Don’t blame the curriculum - most of these guys are just inherent sociopaths
Agreed, but most humanities credits for undergrads a woefully thin on ethics, civics, and history and can usually be subbed with intro to art or music or something like. Whole history schools are being purged from Universities this past year. See WVU. Most of this is no longer being taught in HS.
TMM, I hope that the form of the text doesn't come off snarky or argumentative. I hold three advanced degrees in the humanities and work in IT. I have been concerned about what I see in leadership in tech/business. Usually the folks I work with are doing the work for the folks I am talking about. 1/
I'd say that STEM are important for technological progress including in the medical field. Social sciences are important for us not to loose the social progress we already made.
They are both critically important. I want the next Covid vaccine and technological breakthroughs on green energy. The problem is that the STEM or bust mentality is doing us no favors. We need *everyone* to understand our history.
100% But a college graduate being unfamiliar with FDR, or in another post I saw Jim Crow laws, highlights the need for prioritizing history classes at the k-12 and college level. Imagine a college grad not knowing anything about DNA or photosynthesis. That's where we are with history.
I'm a Brit (like the journaliat in question), and in my mid-40s (like the journalist in question), with a wholly sciences education. I know who FDR is. Is bet good money all my colleagues (scientists) know who FDR is, as would all my (sciences) University class mates.
This isn’t about being a productive member of civic society. It is about being qualified for your job. Interpreting politics in the context of history requires being qualified and knowledgeable in history and politics. Designing a new vaccine or safe elevator requires STEM. Society needs both.
Of course it does. I want those vaccines and medical advancements and safe bridges and million other things ASAP. My point is that we all don't need to know how to make vaccines. But we do all need a solid understanding of history.
How can people not know their own history? All you have to do is listen in school, read books, and watch most documentaries on American history. This is basic historical knowledge. Why are people so damn ignorant?
You're not wrong and you've got a handful of people fighting the good fight but it's very dark times and dismantling education to create a largely ignorant populace is probably the aim.
1) Once they leave school and aren't forced to, many Americans simply don't read books anymore. 2) Many students simply never reading the required books while they're in school. 3) Around 30% of American adults read below the 6th grade level.
#3 is key to understanding the country. The thing that separates middle school reading levels from elementary school reading levels is the requirement of abstract thought to interpret the text. It's around middle school age when people even develop the capacity for abstract thought.
Nearly a 3rd of American adults are functionally incapable of abstract thinking & can't interpret things that require abstract thought. It's a "can't" not "won't" situation. W/o abstract reasoning, you can't form a theory of mind for people very different from you.
Anyone different from you by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference, or socio-economic background cannot be understood. You can't imagine yourself in their place. You can't anticipate their wants, needs, or desires. There is no empathy possible.
To quote the master, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
3/10ths of Americans can't understand an even slightly abstract solution to a problem. Concepts like herd immunity or lead abatement to lower crime rates sound absurd to them. Chauvinism seems natural.
I think about that time that the business insider politics editor didn’t know that the House of Representatives runs for re-election every two years a lot.
You can see why billionaires like Politico owner Mathias Döpfner think they can easily replace writers and editors like clueless UK's Jack Blanchard with AI slop.
This is why I stopped reading the newspapers few years back. It’s pointless. Most of the journalists just copy paste some opinions using their own words. Like students in college who were assigned essay. Bring historians and experts instead of “BREAKING” headlines.
Well AI is stupid and biased and can’t distinguish important information if web is filled wrong information. There are literally millions of teachers and professors who know their topic and know history to the point of personal quirks and tastes of past leaders, politicians etc. Yet….
Yet we read articles from 30 something journalists majors who know nothing. They just skim through wiki, ask chatGPT and spill something so they can sell contextual advertising on web traffic from misleading headlines. These people are not interested or know about that topic enough.
There is no such thing as a specialization in American history at UCL where Blanchard got his BA ~20yrs ago. Maybe he took 1-2 courses in Am.history over his 3-year degree, but he is fibbing when he claims it was his field.Or maybe he studied it at the Daily Mirror (ha!)--what an illustrious career!
Comments
But it is this guy’s JOB to know about American politics.
"There have also been a number of corrections in Playbook since Blanchard took over, including misstating Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s title and misspelling Billy Ray Cyrus’s name."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/can-jack-blanchard-become-the-face-of-politico.html
Ten bucks says the majority of Americans read no further than that epistemologically risky AI response
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
And sure, just spreading the word.
It's not hard to find this out, if you don't swallow garbage articles like this as gospel truth.
May have been more helpful for you to provide, but I imagine there’s endorphins that come with a being a scold.
It doesn't always have facts
Think of the revisionism:
"The Nazis were a bunch of try hard edgelords who relied heavily on a Purvitin blitz meta. They were ultimately crushed by the allies and it was ggs until 2025 when they were successfully restored to power by our Founder Elon Musk."
Much like Elon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
That can't work if there's an independent body out there storing information counter to the fascists' messages
We can hem & haw about Muscow but it should be very clear what their goals are now
If you're surprised that a Brit is unaware of the specifics of FDR's presidency, I hope your expertise on the tenures of Ramsay MacDonald & Stanley Baldwin – Britain's PMs in the '30s – is extensive.
He's been on the job two weeks, and he's being attacked like fucking jackals. This reminds me of MAGA attacking someone they deem insufficiently "loyal" to Trumpkins.
I think it's safe to say he didn't realize just how rapidly he'd be attacked for a poor turn of phrase, but he is LITERALLY brand new.
Yes, it'd be fucking ridiculous to fire him over a single paragraph.
It seems like you're surprised Blanchard was unaware of the New Deal. My read is that he was merely unaware that FDR's Congress passed 77 bills in 100 days, which is quite a few.
He's not an idiot. He's just British.
The suggestion is absurd & bullshit. And OTT.
Did *you* even know FDR's Congress passed 77 bills? (I did, but I was a gov't major.)
It was poorly written & edited, but you're slamming someone for an unintended and misinterpreted slight that isn't at all reflective of his history in journalism.
1. Having one's job be confirming details yet acting like FDR, who's as well known as Winston Churchill, is obscure cause it's the colonies.
2. Point 1 being an attempt at self-deprecating humor, taking the piss out of oneself, but being misread as arrogance.
Certainly had most of D.C., and the US, chattering all day long about it all.
But to be fair, assuming the worst about someone's words when we don't like them is a trait Americans and British share.
Jack Blanchard used to do the London Playbook.
Everyone in Britain of my generation very much knows who FDR was - he was the United States’ own Churchill.
FFS.
Absolutely unacceptable.
I’m not saying, I’m just saying.
I'm English and I learned about FDR, at school in the 1970s, as the most significant US President from our perspective.
And not just stuff about WW2 and Lendlease.
That's it.
That's my whole response.
How do you understand and interpret politics, as your job, without historical context?
Nobody forced him to write on a topic he was utterly unqualified to speak on and nobody forced him not to do any research.
But none of that adds up to saying the writer “didn't know who FDR was until a reader told him about that whole "new deal" thing.”
That’s just more dumbing down, while complaining about dumbing down.
It also proves my point about AI being a great way to learn @mcuban.bsky.social .
Now, should Politico have given a Brit twit the job of helming an American political newsletter is the question we oughta be asking.
These political writers are some of the most petty and pathetic losers imaginable.
"Suggests" "may"
Come the fuck on
That's what I'm calling every ⚪ guy who isn't competent for the job
(and answering.)
https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/politico-announces-jack-blanchard-as-managing-editor-and-author-of-flagship-washington-playbook,253739
lmao
We should be expanding on the New Deal and the Great Society now, instead of having fascists gut our federal government.
Makes sense that lack of FDR knowledge makes Social Sec. an easy target.
Even without consulting the Wiki, that seems like a big difference.
I don't see much of that going on currently.
Blimey, I think the managing editor of Politico might be an eejit.
We commit nothing to memory because we assume we can reference it again later. Trouble is, when it's not committed to memory, we can't use it as a reference when thinking about future events.
And Idiocracy inches closer.
And yes, FDR helped build up the govt to mitigate the Great Depression, while Trump is tearing down any safeguards we have. Trump is the WORST Pres there is.
The use of "unclear" as a euphemism for "I can't be arsed to look at the list executive orders FDR signed" is funny and depressing in equal parts.
It's the best source online
A true scholar would be using those sources. The fact that this person truly had no clue about FDR is sad and laughable.
And yes, that individual has no business being a professional politics reporter in the US.
Why do people have such a difficult time sticking to the point?
Eg it might be a good point of entry but how often is it also the only thing a person looks at? (Caveat: a commenter says the creator is just annoyed BC he couldn't make a page about himself lol)
That is not a fully rational individual.
Of course lazy people will copy other people's work, but I'd rather have them copy Wikipedia than a random blogger or podcaster.
Not mocking you, Claire, I just really don't understand why he wouldn't know. Seems very on brand for Politico
Nothing makes sense anymore, it feels like. The most incurious sadists run it
-senior political advisor at a prestigious think tank
New beau was soon himself history.
In other things, they don't even know that they don't know about them. So they don't know enough to mind not knowing.
They think they are doing pretty well when it comes to knowing things.
I now support immigration restrictions, but only on British journalists. They’re not sending us their best.
USA/Italy/Germany/Soviet Union between the wars is a common course.
I mean how do you even get hired for McDonald's without even a cursory knowledge of American history?
I'm serious. What a fucking joke. I would suggest never reading their rag again.
My dog could say the same thing.
Critiquing an uninformed political journalist - awesome (not sarcasm).
Comments criticizing him for poor US education (he’s a Brit) and as an ex of poor US journalism (he’s been here a month). Oops
But if you are a writer working for an influential politics magazine YOU MUST HAVE A STRONG UNDERSTANDING OF FDR & THE NEW DEAL FULL STOP.
(I'm Canadian and I know this.)
https://bsky.app/profile/leftistlawyer.com/post/3lihs4sned222
That's a #journalist 's job; always check your sources, and make sure what you write is accurate and up to date. FFS.
Willful ignorance is contemptible.
Not knowing about the New Deal is disqualifying.
https://www.politico.com/staff/jack-blanchard
3/10ths of Americans can't understand an even slightly abstract solution to a problem. Concepts like herd immunity or lead abatement to lower crime rates sound absurd to them. Chauvinism seems natural.
https://bsky.app/profile/keptsimple.bsky.social/post/3lihmanwghc2i