Former Obama speechwriter admits shunning conservative in his family was a mistake
David Litt wrote in The New York Times that he felt "a civic duty" to be rude to his brother-in-law, citing his support for Joe Rogan and disagreements over the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines.
"My frostiness wasn't personal. It was strategic. Being unfriendly to people who turned down the vaccine felt like the right thing to do. How else could we motivate them to mend their ways?" Litt wrote.
However, Litt revealed that he wanted to take up surfing and his brother-in-law, Matt, was the only surfer he knew. So, Litt wrote, he put his unfriendliness towards him aside, and admitted his cold shoulder towards Matt had backfired.
Yale Psychiatrist Calls It 'Essential' For Liberals To Cut Off Trump-voting Loved Ones During Holidays
"Matt and I remain very different, yet we've reached what is, in today's America, a radical conclusion: We don't always approve of each other's choices, but we like each other," Litt conceded.
Read On The Fox News App
Litt said his brother-in-law's generosity while they surfed together made him rethink his behavior, and that his surfing guidance had made Litt more courageous.
"Ostracizing him wouldn't have altered his behavior — and it would have made my own life worse," Litt wrote.
"Our differences are meaningful, but allowing them to mean everything is part of how we ended up here. When we cut off contacts, or let algorithms sort us into warring factions, we forget that not so long ago, we used to have things to talk about that didn't involve politics. Shunning plays into the hands of demagogues, making it easier for them to divide us and even, in some cases, to incite violence," he wrote.
'Sounds Like A Cult': Socialist Leftist Calls To Cut Off Trump Family Members During The Holidays
According to Litt, Matt had told him he would vote for him if he ran for office.
Litt added that he would still decline a surf lesson with Trump aide Stephen Miller, but suggested he wouldn't close the door on a person over a political disagreement.
"In an age when banishment backfires, keeping the door open to unlikely friendship isn't a betrayal of principles — it's an affirmation of them," Litt continued.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
Several liberals have agreed that cutting ties with family members over their support for Trump in 2024 might be necessary, especially around the holidays.
The co-hosts of "The View" agreed with the notion, calling it a "moral issue."Original article source: Former Obama speechwriter admits shunning conservative in his family was a mistake
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
31 minutes ago
- Fox News
Republican leading House Budget Committee looks ahead after passing Big Beautiful Bill
House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, was praised for the role he played in the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill. However, the congressman says this is the beginning, not the end, of spending reforms. "We will never be able to get a balanced budget or even put our country on a path to a balanced budget and a sustainable fiscal trajectory in one reconciliation bill," Arrington told Fox News Digital. "We're too far down the broken road of bad and irresponsible fiscal behavior. We're too deep in the debt hole for one bill to do it." Arrington, whom House Speaker Mike Johnson called the "the lead budget hawk in the House," said he is "obsessed" with tackling deficit spending, which he sees as the biggest threat to America's future. He believes that addressing the nation's situation in an effective way means creating the "conditions for growing the economy." "So, the pro-growth policies, the tax cuts, the work incentives, opening up our energy assets and deregulating the energy economy, all of those pro- growth policies will reignite economic growth. And that is the foundation for our country's fiscal health and just about everything else: our military prowess, our global leadership, our way of life," Arrington said. The Big Beautiful Bill's journey to President Donald Trump's desk was not pretty, as the legislation received criticism from both sides of the aisle and caused tension among Republicans. Elon Musk, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and others argued that it did not take adequate measures to cut government spending. Arrington said he respects Massie and Musk — as well as other critics — but believes that the risk of losing the "good things" in the bill was too high. In the end, the Texas lawmaker sees the tradeoff as "permanent pro-growth tax policy" in exchange for the extra spending in the legislation. "I think there's a big gap in information — and accurate information. Part of it is you've got the Congressional Budget Office putting out these big numbers… two and a half or three trillion dollars in additional deficit that would be added to the national debt over the 10-year budget window as a result of this bill. That is just patently false. It's completely inaccurate," Arrington said, adding that they fail to "consider economic growth and the revenue that will flow back into the treasury when you have pro-growth policies." Trump signed the bill on his self-imposed July 4 deadline, just one day after the House passed the final version of the $3.3 trillion legislation. Before signing the bill, the president said it would "fuel massive economic growth" and "lift up the hard-working citizens who make this country run." So, what's next on the budget chairman's agenda? Just one thing — or three, as he said to Fox News Digital, "spending cuts, spending cuts and spending cuts." "We didn't get into this mess overnight, we won't get out of it overnight, but we'll never get out if we don't start exercising the political will to do what we all say in our campaigns," Arrington told Fox News Digital. "I think we established a great model for restoring fiscal health, and we just have to continue to repeat it and do it in even more dramatic fashion in the future."
The Verge
35 minutes ago
- The Verge
The MAGA backlash over Epstein isn't dying down
On July 12th, the political world experienced an unprecedented phenomenon: President Donald Trump got ratioed on his own social media platform, and it was on a post about Jeffrey Epstein — someone who, according to Trump, 'nobody cares about.' Clearly, his followers on Truth Social disagreed. As of today, this post has 43.2k likes, 13.7k ReTruths, and 48K comments, nearly all of which express fury about the information — or lack thereof — that the Trump administration has provided about the well-connected billionaire, who died in prison shortly after being arrested for alleged sex trafficking of minors. Last week, after months of promises to release more information about the Epstein investigation, the Department of Justice and FBI released a joint memo, stating that there was no list of high-powered 'clients' who joined Epstein in his activities, no evidence that Epstein blackmailed anybody, and that Epstein did actually die by suicide. Even though Trump's Truth Social post was trying to address the attacks on Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was partly responsible for publishing the Epstein memo (and, according to conspiracy theorists, the reason why the supposed client list isn't being made public), his followers didn't care. 'We want the ELITE PEDOS exposed! You promised us that,' one user responded, in a post with 19.6K likes. 'Pam promised us that. Kash [Patel, FBI Director] promised us that. Now it's OUR fault bc we want that promise fulfilled and call Pam out every time she lies? What else has she lied to us about?' The like-to-comment ratio shows how thoroughly the Epstein files have jeopardized the MAGA base's relationship with Trump. Over the past several months, the administration has had mixed success in keeping the populist base in its corner, due to things like Trump's tariffs and the 'big, beautiful bill,' to the point that the possibility of a 'MAGA civil war' keeps emerging in the news cycle. Most times, those brewing fights get extinguished before they go further. But the backlash to the Epstein files is unusually fierce and may not be extinguished as easily, if at all. The source of the conflagration: the world of MAGA influencers, whose audiences implicitly trust them to carry out the 'America First' agenda. Their status and functions vary wildly: media moguls like Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, and Steve Bannon; solo talents like Laura Loomer, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes; political organizers like Charlie Kirk; content creators like Cattturd; and hundreds of others who've established lucrative careers by attacking the globalist elite online. They're normally pro-Trump, and many of them now have access to the White House. Some of them even brag about having Trump's cell phone number. But now they won't stop talking about how angry they are about the flimsiness of the Epstein files, which means their followers won't let go of it either. 'The real question is not 'was Jeffrey Epstein a weirdo who was abusing girls?' The real question is why was he doing this, on whose behalf, and where did the money come from,' Carlson said during a keynote speech at a Turning Point USA summit on July 11th. He then insinuated that Epstein was running a blackmail operation on behalf of a foreign government — possibly Israel, though he caveated with 'there's nothing antisemitic about saying that' and that 'every single person in Washington, DC,' suspected that Epstein was a Mossad asset. Bannon agreed with him at the same conference, while Loomer, who once got three members of the National Security Council fired, called for Bondi to be fired, accusing her of 'harming Trump's administration [and] embarrassing all of his staff and advisors.' Even the influencers that wield direct government power are starting to revolt. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene demanded that the administration reveal the truth about Epstein 'and the rich powerful elites in his circle.' And last week, several mainstream outlets reported that Dan Bongino, a right-wing podcaster who was appointed to serve as deputy director of the FBI, had threatened to resign unless Bondi was fired. According to Axios, Bongino was so upset about the rollout of the Epstein evidence — including a video taken of Epstein's cell phone on the day of his death, which had a full minute missing from it, fueling even more conspiracy theories — that he screamed at her in front of Trump and his senior advisors, and then took a day off from work. Trump's 10-year relationship with the MAGA base has been an endless cycle of breaking and making up: Trump does something that infuriates the base, they revolt, Trump smooths things over, and the base goes back to loving the president. In every case, he's always assisted by a network of online MAGA influencers who are effectively his proxies — enforcing message discipline when interacting with their audiences, amplifying his talking points, defending him from his haters, and making sure the base sticks with him no matter what. But the strength of an influencer, especially a MAGA influencer, is that they don't have to rely on elite-controlled media — cable and broadcast news, print journalism, etc. — to build their massive followings. In fact, they could use their internet platforms to hold those powerful elites accountable, touting themselves as 'independent' content creators, which works exceedingly well when they can present themselves as outsiders deliberately shut out of the system and therefore need subscribers to pay a monthly fee to support their mission. Unfortunately, they now have unprecedented access to the president, which makes them insiders with power — and their followers sure would love for them to use it to get to the bottom of things. It doesn't help that there's no 'deep state' to hide behind this time, and it may be the reason why QAnon — another powerful conspiracy theory that involved pedophile elites in Washington — hasn't revived itself. Trump could easily attack the career agents at the FBI and DOJ for investigating him during his first term, but upon his reelection, he purged those agencies and immediately chose MAGA influencer loyalists to run them. (Prior to becoming FBI director, Patel had a podcast, wrote a children's book about 'King Donald,' and opened his own merch store.) The Epstein files have scrambled MAGA influencers, who now have to decide what is more important to them: access and loyalty to Trump or maintaining their brand It's no wonder why the Epstein files have scrambled MAGA influencers, who now have to decide what is more important to them: access and loyalty to Trump or maintaining their brand. If they want to stay loyal to their followers and their brand reputation, they should be trying to get to the truth of Epstein's death. But if they were trying to do that — or at least, convincing their insatiable audience that they were working on it — it would jeopardize their relationship with the Trump administration, or worse, Trump himself. The cullings are already underway, if Alex Jones is to be believed. On July 13th, he alleged that Trumpworld surrogates had started reaching out to 'talk show hosts and journalists and influencers,' threatening to cut off their access if they kept going on about Epstein. 'You'll never be invited to a Trump event again. You'll never be invited to the White House. You'll never be any other stuff. You're not getting any conservative sponsorship, no campaign contribution, ads running next cycle if you do this. That's been going on,' Jones claimed. 'That, A, is not very moral, that's how the Democrats try to censor and control, and then B, it's gonna create a mega-Streisand effect, as I said seven, eight days ago. And that is exactly what all of this has done.' A few of the influencers, however, are circling the wagons again. 'Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm going to trust my friends in the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done,' Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said on his podcast yesterday, reiterating that he would support whatever the Trump administration concluded on the matter. Kirk, a key player in Trump's political machine, also distanced himself from Carlson's Epstein conspiracies, which were made at his youth group's conference. 'I think that there was plenty of, let's say, speeches that were directed towards this topic this last weekend. So we don't need to spend our valuable time on this program relitigating it,' Kirk said. Around that time, other influencers began attempting to deflect the Epstein flack Around that time, other influencers began attempting to deflect the Epstein flack: promising that the government was about to start a real investigation soon (Benny Johnson), attacking Carlson as 'not trustworthy' and 'obsessed [with] making everything about Jews' (Loomer), suggesting that maybe 'demons' were at work and not the government (Mike Cernovich), or hyping up a new discovery about Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA (Rep. Anna Paulina Luna). But a growing faction of influencers are going the other way with Carlson, Greene, and Jones: Candace Owens, who's attacking the former Israeli prime minster about the Mossad; Matt Walsh, who wants the 'evildoers [to] be dragged in front of us, weeping and begging for mercy'; white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who accused TPUSA world of 'appeasing' a base that wanted 'authentic opposition to organized Jewish influence'; and Tim Pool, who pointed out the strange new messaging coming out of the White House influencer pool, 'After speaking with my friends in government and also private island equity holdings I have decided that no one cares about Epstein anyway. I mean, like who? Lol who's Epstein amirite?'
Fast Company
36 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What is ‘Crypto Week'—and how will it affect Bitcoin, XRP, and other cryptocurrency prices?
Welcome to Crypto Week: No, contrary to what it sounds like, that's not a period coined by some crypto bro investor. Instead, it's the name members of the U.S. House of Representatives have given to the week that kicked off yesterday, on July 14. Here's what you need to know about Crypto Week and how its events could change the future of the cryptocurrency industry. What is 'Crypto Week'? Crypto Week is the term given to the week of July 14, 2025. The term was coined by the U.S. House of Representatives' House Leadership, as well as the House Committee on Financial Services Chairman French Hill, and the House Committee on Agriculture Chairman GT Thompson. Crypto Week is so designated because during this week, the House will vote on three bills that could significantly impact the future of cryptocurrencies in the United States. The bills, according to the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, feature heavily in 'Congress' efforts to make America the crypto capital of the world.' The House Committee on Financial Services originally announced Crypto Week at the beginning of this month. 'We are taking historic steps to ensure the United States remains the world's leader in innovation and I look forward to 'Crypto Week' in the House,' Chairman French Hill said. 'After years of dedicated work in Congress on digital assets, we are advancing landmark legislation to establish a clear regulatory framework for digital assets that safeguards consumers and investors, provides rules for the issuance and operation of dollar-backed payment stablecoins, and permanently blocks the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) to safeguard Americans' financial privacy.' The legislation Hill referenced includes three different bills coming before the House this week: The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act The GENIUS Act of 2025 Here's a rundown of what each bill entails. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 As noted by CNBC, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as the CLARITY Act, looks to regulate cryptocurrencies by establishing roles for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to do so. As noted by the bill's summary, the CLARITY Act 'establishes a regulatory framework for digital commodities,' which the bill defines as 'digital assets that rely upon a blockchain for their value'—in other words, cryptocurrency. Generally, industries don't like regulation. However, as Coinbase notes, the passage of the CLARITY Act, which would give regulators more oversight over digital tokens, is viewed as beneficial for the crypto industry as a whole, as it would further legitimize the industry in the eyes of investors. The increased legitimacy of cryptocurrencies, along with enhanced regulatory protections, could lead to more investors opting to invest in crypto, thereby boosting its value. The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital dollar. As stated by the bill's summary, the act would prohibit 'a Federal Reserve bank from offering products or services directly to an individual, maintaining an account on behalf of an individual, or issuing a central bank digital currency (i.e., a digital dollar).' While many nations are exploring the issuance of their own digital currency, there are serious privacy concerns about such tokens. Privacy proponents fear that a state-backed digital currency could easily allow a government to track every transaction a person makes. Privacy proponents also worry that if a digital dollar becomes the primary store of value, the government could retaliate against individuals or groups by cutting off their access to the currency, leaving them unable to spend their money. The GENIUS Act of 2025 The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins of 2025, or GENIUS Act, would regulate stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged to a stable asset, such as the U.S. dollar. Stablecoins pegged to the dollar are generally much less volatile than those that are not, which helps mitigate some investment risk. Popular stablecoins include Tether and USDC. The GENIUS Act would introduce regulation to the stablecoin market, requiring institutions that offer stablecoins to maintain liquid reserves that back up the value of their stablecoins. In addition, the bill would establish other regulatory frameworks, including ensuring stablecoin holders have priority over other claimants in the case that a stablecoin issuer files for bankruptcy. How will Crypto Week affect cryptocurrency prices? It's impossible to tell how Crypto Week will impact cryptocurrency prices of coins like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP. Crypto king Bitcoin recently hit all-time highs, and any legislation that is passed that makes Bitcoin a more appealing investment option could cause the digital token to rise even further. The stock prices of companies involved in cryptocurrencies could also be impacted this week, depending on the outcome of voting on the above bills. Those companies include Coinbase Global, Inc. (Nasdaq: COIN) and Robinhood Markets, Inc. (Nasdaq: HOOD).
