 |
1. “Democracies End When They Are Too Democratic,” reads the headline of Andrew Sullivan’s cover story on the threat of an overripe republic (May 2–15). “And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.” The story, published days before Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, received a massive response — and a wave of strong opinions on Sullivan’s central argument. The Week’s Damon Linker wrote that it was time for our country to “start thinking deeply about just how much danger [we’re now] facing … Sullivan makes a cogent case for considering Trump a potential tyrant whose election could constitute an ‘extinction-level event’ for the American republic.” Linker himself, though, doesn’t think that a President Trump would be quite that catastrophic. “Trump isn’t Hitler or Mussolini. But he could easily be as bad as Berlusconi — and quite possibly push beyond him, to make an outright play for Putinism. That might not bring American democracy to the verge of extinction. But it would leave it battered and bloody, and ripe for something even worse.” Salon’s Jim Sleeper disagreed with Sullivan’s characterization of Bernie Sanders as a “demagogue” and felt that the story should have placed the blame on “the kind of elitism that drives ‘the people’ toward a mobocracy and then turns up its nose at them while pretending to keep its hands clean.” Sleeper argued, “Beyond just defeating Trump, strengthening the American republic against his successors will depend on correcting Sullivan’s misrepresentations about the role of money in elections and the role of Sanders in this one … Trump is the terrifying consequence of what both party establishments have done to this country.” Slate’s Jamelle Bouie thought Sullivan’s assertion that the polls didn’t pick up on the breadth of Trump’s support didn’t ring true. “The polls weren’t wrong about Trump last year, pundits just didn’t believe them. I include myself in that! I just didn’t believe Republican elites would all but let Trump win. And so I discounted the polls. But look at Trump’s polling from last summer to the present, and it has been dead-on about his support in the Republican party.” Many thought the story a clear-eyed assessment. “An incredible, profoundly disturbing piece from Andrew Sullivan,” tweeted Wired’s Scott Dadich. “Read immediately.” Politico’s Playbook agreed, calling it “one of the best pieces yet for understanding Trump.” And many were just delighted to find Sullivan writing on politics again. “Scattered, breathless, broadly insightful: Andrew Sullivan is back,” tweeted @jawillick. “Andrew Sullivan returns to the fray,” tweeted @RkCreekWerewolf. “At his renewed best: beautiful & terrifying prose.”�
2. �“Another day was dawning,” wrote Mark Jacobson, “and Charlamagne, co-host of ‘The Breakfast Club,’ the hotshot urban contemporary wake-up call, was doing what he does best, which is run his mouth” (“Tha God of Radio,” May 2–15). For many, Jacobson’s profile of the acclaimed morning-radio host affirmed their confidence in Charlamagne’s unique talent. “I enjoy him on The Breakfast Club,” wrote commenter bananarama. “I’m hoping that I can go to my grave having seen him interview literally everyone from Beyoncé to Adele to Rihanna and Sir Paul McCartney. He’s a stellar interviewer. Not sure if that’s only by our post-post-modern barometer of journalism by shock and awe, but still — he’s brilliant at his job.” @JoshJohnOBrien1 agreed, tweeting: “He’s made hip-hop topics I was never interested in before seem cool — he continues to be the best at his craft.” Danny Funt from the Columbia Journalism Review felt that the story overlooked one major misstep in Charlamagne’s interviews: “When 35 women appeared on the cover of New York magazine last summer, it symbolized a breakthrough in documenting the litany of rape allegations against Bill Cosby over four decades,” he wrote. “The Cosby date rape revelation was among the biggest stories of last year, and too often, Charlamagne more or less made a joke of it … Maybe Charlamagne has an evolved view of how he handled the Cosby story, or a justification of how he can be a journalist and cultural critic while also being so flippant on serious subjects. That would’ve been interesting to broach in the New York profile.” Charlamagne himself did in fact address his thinking on Cosby in an interview with the Huffington Post around the time of New York’s story on the Cosby women: “I was one of those people that was like, ‘Nah, Dr. Huxtable wouldn’t do that. Nah, those girls are just trying to get money,’ ” he told Marc Lamont Hill. “And when you read the deposition, I’m like, if he did that to one girl, he probably did that to 40.”
 |
3. Benjamin Wallace tackled the history and future of SeaWorld in the wake of the company’s decision to stop breeding orcas (“SeaWorld, Breached,” May 2–15). Commenter Getoveryourselfplease thought that the decision still wasn’t enough: “For 50 years, SeaWorld has made hundreds of millions off manipulating the emotions of children to lead them to believe that orcas enjoy performing tricks in a cage more than their own freedom … The moral thing for SeaWorld to do would be to take some of the millions these hardworking Orcas have made for them and build them proper retirement sea pens.” Pacific Standard’s Nicholas Jackson felt that the media played a positive role in forcing SeaWorld’s hand. “This rapid evolution really shows how strong reporting and storytelling can change the world,” he tweeted.