Which One is the Real World?

And whose minds should we be trying to change?

Yesterday, I went to a book party for David Zweig, who has just released An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions. Thanks to Meghan Daum’s Unspeakeasy, where I met Leslie Bienen—author of dozens of op-eds and pieces about Covid science—I had already learned that most of the liberal talking points about the virus weren’t rooted in solid data. Masking, school closures—we didn’t have the science to promote policies around them, or insist that they be followed by everyone.

But listening to Zweig tell the story behind the “flatten the curve” model that justified the shutting down of society—at least for those of us privileged enough to not have to continue to work in food service or factories or hospitals—blew my friggin’ mind. Read the book for the details, but the shorthand: that model wasn’t rooted in reality, and the supposed data that led to school closures—I think it’s okay to call it bullshit.

It seems to me that some liberals, and the media we consume, have been willing to reckon with what went wrong, admitting that the havoc wrought by school closures and masking toddlers outside probably went too far. I don’t think that’s happened with gender medicine, but others I chatted with at the event last night disagreed. They thought that those of us who’d pushed back against the dominant narrative had been vindicated.

I explained that in my liberal blue bubble, the majority of people still don’t know that the science of gender-affirming care is paper-thin. They assume that kids are born trans and that gender identity is a fact, not a belief. New York Times readers still don’t have the full story.

Their response: Who cares about the Times? And: Your bubble is not the real world.

Now, look, I was talking to the macho Substackers with robust subscribership—those who’d done far better, financially and influence-wise, on their own than they did when they were still allowed to grace the pages of liberal media. Maybe I’d poo-poo the Times, too, if I made more than my rent at this. (I promise to write more, and have more original reporting, when I’m finally done with my book draft…sooooon.) Maybe they feel so listened to—affirmed—by their tens of thousands of paying readers that they think other outlets, with a multiplicity of voices, are irrelevant.

I don’t think so. The Times has ten times the readership of the most popular Substack— though it’s true that, for many of us, we need to consult individual journalists whom we trust, because so many of them are deeply biased, and we can’t be sure they’re able to even search for the truth, let alone relay it. But I think those folks felt vindicated because they’re not in regular contact with the people who still disagree or don’t understand.

As for their other point—is New York City the real world? Are the educated elites around me average Americans? On the one hand, no. This is not where the red meat of NFL-watching, non-organic food-eating America resides. But this is where a lot of the people who make things for regular America reside. It’s where writers and filmmakers live, C-suite types, people behind the scenes, tastemakers. It’s where the people who pass the information on to red meat America live. Don’t we need to reach them? Aren’t they the ones who need their minds changed—or at least opened?

If they don’t…why am I doing this? If they do, and we haven’t convinced them yet…how will we?

Meanwhile, as I’ve pointed out, the woke right is just as intractable as the woke left, fighting illiberalism and censorship with illiberalism and censorship. I can understand why these super successful Substackers want no part of either side, and why they insist on their independence. But we need institutions as part of a functioning democracy, including reliable journalism sources. We still need whatever bubbles we live in to pop.

EDITED TO ADD: The liberal elites in blue states are the ones making gender policies—like sanctuary state laws!