HCR was clearly and obviously wrong and clearly and obviously wrong at the time she said it. This piece reads as a bad trope of Dem refusal to acknowledge failure. Do something wrong? Well we had "good intentions". No! Not fucking up is important! Don't give these weird blanket passes to people who mess up because you like them.
If accuracy matters (and it does) Joseph, why does one misstatement (assuming there was one) become a permanent brand and a character trial, while bigger, repeated journalistic failures in mainstream media keep sliding by with a shrug?
This is total whataboutism. "Somebody else is arrogantly wrong so I can be arrogantly wrong too!" is an ideology I categorically reject. There's many journalists I do not trust because they present things inaccurately (I am looking at you Darwin BondGraham) but none of that is a defense of HCR. She clearly and obviously should not have said what she said and even more clearly and obviously should have corrected it and the fact that she didn't suggests that if she makes further errors she will let them stand AS errors. How do you trust someone who has proven they are willing to publish almost certain falsehoods?
You pretty much missed the point here, Micallef. There is no “whataboutism” in the comparison of a speeding ticket to the total destruction of norms that right wing “journalists” enable and promote. Absolutely no comparison - and to assert so is at best ignorant slop. Jfc this line of reasoning kills me. DJT fcking lines his pockets with lies and grift as POTUS while Al Franken gets completely destroyed because of a tasteless comedic prank? Is that “whataboutism”?? gmafb.
Joseph, your perception, apparently, was that HCR “clearly and obviously wrong at the time she said it.” OK, that’s your perception.
My perception was that Charlie Kirk had angered a lot of people across the spectrum. The first reactions that I saw online were that Kirk had been killed by leftists. Several people said violent retribution was justified. At the time, there was no credible evidence of the motivation for the attack. This was just unwarranted visciousness.
Over time, we got a trickle of ambiguous evidence about the possible beliefs and motivations of the attacker. Some evidence seemed to indicate that the attacker had been influenced by Groypers. The Groypers had been razzing Kirk since 2019. It would not have been shocking if an attack on Kirk came from that quarter. Maybe in your community, there was no willingness to consider this possibility, but it seemed like a possibility to a lot of people.
HCR and others presented some evidence for that hypothesis. I don’t think HCR ever presented the hypothesis as proved. I think she said we should consider it as a possibility. Against a backdrop of right wing rage, this was a call to step back, calm down, wait a little bit before revenge violence and consider the possibility that the killer might not have the motivation that seemed obvious to the right wing ragers.
Over time, we learned more about the killer. We never did learn what his actual motivation was. We never did learn what his political leanings were. There were suspicions, on very weak evidence, that his political views had shifted leftward. There was clearer evidence that the killer had very strong negative views of Kirk but lots of people had negative views of Kirk, and, like the Groypers, plenty of them were not of the left.
So, today, we still don’t know whether the initial hypothesis that HCR laid out was correct or incorrect. We do not that after the initial evidence that favoured it came out, we didn’t learn much else later that supported it. So it is probably more likely than not that the hypothesis was incorrect. But given that we have very little understanding of the killer’s actual ideology or of his actual motivation, beyond hating Charlie Kirk, HCR’s hypothesis is not clearly wrong today and it most certainly was not clearly wrong when she said it.
To get a neutral perspective, I asked ChatGPT the following question:
Question: “After charlie kirk was assassinated, there were several theories about the motivation of the killer. Did we ever conclusively learn what his motivation was?”
Answer
No — as of now there is no fully conclusive, publicly verified determination of the killer’s precise motivation in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. What we do know from credible reporting and official sources reflects a combination of investigated clues, statements by authorities, and ongoing court proceedings, but investigators and prosecutors have not declared a single definitive motive that is universally accepted.
2. Law enforcement descriptions of possible ideology
Utah’s governor and local law enforcement suggested Robinson had shifted toward more left-leaning political views before the attack, possibly influenced by internet culture, although they did not produce evidence connecting him to any organized left-wing group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3. FBI comments on motive are descriptive, not definitive
Prosecutors have not filed a definitive “motive” statement as part of the legal charging documents or in court. They have presented evidence suggesting reasons, but no court has found a legally binding motive, and investigative officials have stopped short of declaring one single driving cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Conclusion to date: There is strong investigative interest in political or ideological motives — particularly Robinson’s stated frustrations with Kirk’s influence — but no conclusively adjudicated motive has been publicly established in court or law enforcement findings. The legal process is ongoing, and motive may be further developed as part of trial proceedings or sentencing.
This is a lot of words trying to obfuscate the fact that HCR said, and I quote:
"But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left. The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, is a young white man from a Republican, gun enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far right, disliking Kirk for being insufficiently radical."
How exactly is this hedging? She confidently and categorically declared that he was NOT on the left. I am at a loss at how you can square this with all you said.
Also shout-out for using ChatGPT to make your argument for you :)
You’re right, it’s been a while since I read her words and I didn’t recall the statement “In fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left.” We didn’t actually know that as fact at that time and we don’t know that as fact now. So that one sentence is incorrect. Yup. You got me.
On the other hand, what she said next was that he was “a young white man from a Republican gun enthusiast family”, who at that time did appear to have embraced (or at least paid a lot of attention to) a far right ideology.
So if she had said, “in fact, the alleged shooter might not be someone on the left. What we do know is that Tyler Robinson is a young white man, etc.”, the statement would probably have been just as outrageous to you, but I would continue to hold it up today as a rational description of what we knew at the time.
But you took your argument a bit further. Here’s the bait that I was responding to:
“This piece reads as a bad trope of Dem refusal to acknowledge failure. Do something wrong? Well we had "good intentions". No! Not fucking up is important! Don't give these weird blanket passes to people who mess up because you like them.”
(1) presenting a rational hypothesis on the basis of what is known is not a failure even if it turns out later to be incorrect
(2) Presenting a contrary view in the face of a premature ejaculation of right wing rage is not “doing something wrong”.
(3) I’m glad you like it that I take a bit of time to check what I’m saying, and provide my source material. I just looked at your substack. Let me suggest that your readers might find it useful if you provided source material for them too.
Thank you for this response to Nate Silver’s piece. I was furious when I read it and I’m sad to hear it’s caused her pain. We are all trying to drink news from a firehose, it’s messy to say the least. As for dividing Democrats into warring factions, we have always been a big tent full of contradictions. This is not a weakness, it’s a strength when we can harness it.
Diane, thank you. “Firehose” is exactly the word, and I hate that it’s caused her pain too.
And yep, the big tent has always been full of contradictions. The problem isn’t so much disagreement, it’s when it turns into branding and exile. Appreciate you reading.
This is brilliant! Your characterization of Nate Silver and Ezra Klein as not “empathetic” is spot on, if a bit mild. White-privileged know-it-alls springs to my mind, but what does name-calling accomplish?
There are so many parts of this I want to cite for the clarity and insight.
Thank you so much for this. You are a voice of reason.
Beth, thx. And you’re right to ask what name calling actually does besides scratch the itch. I’m trying to keep the focus on incentives and power, not just vibes.
Also, your comment made me lol because I’m over here compiling the citations I forgot to include, and part of me is like… Nate, if you’re gonna do a hit piece on me, please do it on that so I’ll never make that mistake again. 😅
Nate is an idiot.Ahhhh, you’re right, it does feel got to scratch that itch. There seem so many people focused on what the Democratic party does wrong. They’re fixing a flat tire while the car goes up in flames.(to continue your motoring metaphor). What they lose sight of, but Heather Cox Richardson never does, ist hat We The Prople get to decide what the Democratic Party is.
VERY GRATEFUL you’re on our side. You’re a formidable thinker.
Xplisset, thank you, thank you and thank you even more for your concise and illuminating explanation of the blowback Heather Cox Richardson experienced from a single viewpoint she expressed. I so need to hear your perspective as I might be one of those democratic "elites" that subscribe to Heather's Letters. I say "might be" because I'm not rich nor do I have an Ivy League education.
Obviously, growing up white in America, I missed a lot of horrible things going on in my country. Since some comments mentioned "firehoses" that brought a memory to mind. As a young child, I witnessed on TV police using firehoses to literally "hose people backwards to wash them off the streets." I was so upset and crying and asked my parents, "why were the police doing that?"
I won't repeat what they told me. It was something that only evil people would say to a crying child who saw and understood what injustice is. I am grateful that even though I share their genetic background, I do not share their worldview. Plus, I have generation upon generation of "good people" genes in me.
I really value the work you do and the way your mind works. And thanks for defending Heather, she is another gem that helps preserve my sanity in this insane country right now.
Thanks for staying explicit in describing the shadows and the light today. I also noticed, today, a dubious NYT report of the "glorious" trumpian Commerce Department's brag about 3d quarter growth. When one listens long enough, or reads, it's clear this is due (if accurate) to the affluent class (caste) spending on luxury items and such, while the underdogs suffer. It's harder and harder for me to even keep an eye on the many distortions perpetrated by this regime. It's high time for a "perp-walk"...
Thank you For your comment. Research shows that Social and economic mobility in the United States is being transformed into a caste System from which there is no escape. So many excellent articles on the cost of being poor in the United States of America.
I saw that in an interview with some guy that didn't even seem to be aware what he was doing, giving backhanded compliments that were basically wrong, lol. I have a lot of respect for HCR taking that in stride & staying with what's important. There isn't time to deal with all their insecurities, the work is too important.
Great essay from start to finish. An effective response to Mr. cross-my-palm, but it goes beyond him to the myth and assertion of being the "Center" and the Pragmatism that does not mean effective-in-the-real-world as much as it means easy-for-me-right-now.
Ann, thank you thank you.. “Easy-for-me-right-now” is the whole tell.
That’s what I was trying to name. A lot of the “Center” talk is really comfort dressed up as wisdom, and it always gets sold as realism right when it’s asking the most vulnerable people to pay the price. Appreciate you reading it all the way through. Thx again
Thank you for writing this essay. Everything you said is on point but i especially appreciated this: “People do not subscribe to her for breaking news” and i think this is so important. I’ve been reading HCR’s Letters since 2018…2019 when a friend shared her Letters with me. And I believe she was already doing the Letters for a while back then. A lot of people today think she just popped out of nowhere in 2025 in time for the political turmoil and that she’s a political commentator that can predict the future. She’s a prominent American historian and has been one for decades. She’s not a ‘breaking news’ journalist on legacy media but they treat her like one by writing these traffic tickets. Brilliant essay!
I wasn't there at the very beginning but started reading fairly early on when friends began to repost her Letters. As someone who used to work in a museum house that represented Quaker abolitionist activity in 19th-century North Carolina, I saw in her audience something I saw in many of our visitors: a hunger for real US history instead of fairy tales, a need for context and a better understanding of how we arrived at our own moment in history. She and historian Joanne Freeman together have brought historical perspectives we increasingly need as both grade schools and colleges allow history to slip away from the curriculum. People like Nate Silver look at the world through such a narrow keyhole, they seem to panic when anyone opens the door to a wider view. Quick! Stuff her into a Category Designated by Capital Letters before she can challenge his authority.
Yes! You articulated further what I wanted to say, “People like Nate Silver look at the world through such a narrow keyhole.” They really do. Silver is in the business of “predictions” with his stats, and though HCR always says she can’t and won’t predict the future, she has a much bigger toolbox with all her historical knowledge than he does. And she can give us an understanding that he just can’t, and I think it gets to him.
I tune into HCR and Joanne Freeman every Saturday morning, too! 🥳
“a hunger for real US history instead of fairy tales, a need for context and a better understanding of how we arrived at our own moment in history.” Rebecca, this in a nutshell is why so many of us turn to HCR to begin our day. I know for myself, it’s not the breaking news, but more the historical context of an event playing out in real time which then gives me the background and much needed hope that change will be for the better if we remain informed and loud.
I watch Heather every day. She is an historian who frames current events against historical trends. She has more than earned her recognition. She promotes hope. These ‘conservatives’ doth protest too much.
Strangely enough - I never saw or heard of this "piece". I dont know if I speak for many or any of Dr. Richarson's followers, but her letters have honestly educated me on so much history, and the commonsense way she writes & speaks not only make it interesting - subjects and stories that I either never heard or ignored when I was in high school - but also states the current "news" in ways that I feel makes more sense. I dont get the impression or feeling that she's telling me how to think or understand any particular issue.
This guy, Silver, is just one more blah blah blah (remember Charlie Brown videos?) Social media has become more an individual or group way to feel important - period.
I'm 87, and yes vote as a Democrat, and the older establishment Democratic Party needs and must be re-structured! I dont have an answer for what has become of the Republican "party" these days. I remember when the two parties actually cooperated and compromised.
And if you truthfully listen - LISTEN - to the members of the GOP? Their current "rule" is never compromise with the other party.
So - exactly how is that statement bad-mouthing the GOP? It's not alternative facts - its the truth!
The police metaphor lands hard. Silver's critique of Richardson feels like prioritization failure when CBS is pulling 60 Minutes segments for political reasons. The irony is that FiveThirtyEight's model-driven approach was supposed to depoliticize analysis but Silver's own framing here (Tea Party comparisons, "Richardsonism") shows how even data journalists operate within narrative wars. What's missing is acknowledgment that Richardson's audience isn't consuming her for breaking news forensics, they're consuming for contextual sense-making in information overload, which is a diffrent editorial standard entirely.
It sure sounds like the pecking order has been disrupted by Professor Richardson, and the old guard resents the hell out of the disruptor being a woman. Why am I not the least bit surprised?
I appreciate the contrast between the traffic ticket (penalizing someone for a minor violation) and the national emergency. But it endorses a toxic underlying assumption.
Continuing with the traffic ticket analogy, this is someone telling us that he owns the street, or at least he has the right to post one-way-traffic-signs on it, and that Dr. Richardson is being a bad person because she is driving the "wrong way" on this street.
People sometimes ask me, old white guy to old white guy, what "privilege" means. I try to respond with examples, and this looks like a good one.
What gives Silver the privilege (the societally-recognized right) to post a "My Way" sign on the road and expect the rest of us to treat it as enforceable?
Dismissing Silver's complaint as if he is complaining about a minor traffic violation cedes to him an acknowledgement that he has the privilege to lay out the facts and the rules of the road.
Getting us used to the idea that he has such a privilege (and others do not) is more valuable by far than whether we actually impose consequences on any one person that he could describe as a violator.
Good essay, no surprise. I read Dr. Richardson's characterization of the murderer of Kirk as an opinion based on knowledge available to date. But as a very senior citizen I've learned something, and that is that EVERY f...ing opinion has to be so-labelled, nor matter how obviously an opinion it may be to the writer and most readers. HCR's pieces are to me, as a Canadian trying (and failing) to understand the madness in a country I thought I knew well, invaluable by virtue of providing learned historical context. There is a percentage of any population that over-reacts to anything contrary to their world view, and are are forever poised to pounce atop the molehill while ignoring the mountain. While I have faith in the U.S.A. eventually emerging from Trumpism, and maybe, just maybe, a long overdue restructuring of the GOP to eliminate those members who share the physically odd abnormality of having no spine nor guts. But I have little faith in the ability of the U.S.A. to regain international respect within the lifetime of people now learning how to walk and talk; the country has drifted (always was?) too far rightward.
I recall HCR's read was completely accurate with data at that moment, I didn't feel it was her personal opinion so much as a common understanding of what we were seeing at that particular point. It's gotta be difficult to give context when so many pieces are moving. I don't know that complete answers were even found in that incident & of course, whatever they may have been, they could change in time. HCR & I are the same age & have enormous respect for her, not only for her knowledge, but how she deals with the reality that none of ever know it all. I think it's a real strength of hers that she doesn't hold back for fear of making a mistake. It's the academic process to put forth ideas knowing they will be challenged & changed, learning is a fluid thing. The USA can't expect to be believed & trusted as it was, more or less, in the past. But, I have hope in rebuilding that we eliminate some of the things that have been wrong all along.
HCR was clearly and obviously wrong and clearly and obviously wrong at the time she said it. This piece reads as a bad trope of Dem refusal to acknowledge failure. Do something wrong? Well we had "good intentions". No! Not fucking up is important! Don't give these weird blanket passes to people who mess up because you like them.
If accuracy matters (and it does) Joseph, why does one misstatement (assuming there was one) become a permanent brand and a character trial, while bigger, repeated journalistic failures in mainstream media keep sliding by with a shrug?
This is total whataboutism. "Somebody else is arrogantly wrong so I can be arrogantly wrong too!" is an ideology I categorically reject. There's many journalists I do not trust because they present things inaccurately (I am looking at you Darwin BondGraham) but none of that is a defense of HCR. She clearly and obviously should not have said what she said and even more clearly and obviously should have corrected it and the fact that she didn't suggests that if she makes further errors she will let them stand AS errors. How do you trust someone who has proven they are willing to publish almost certain falsehoods?
You pretty much missed the point here, Micallef. There is no “whataboutism” in the comparison of a speeding ticket to the total destruction of norms that right wing “journalists” enable and promote. Absolutely no comparison - and to assert so is at best ignorant slop. Jfc this line of reasoning kills me. DJT fcking lines his pockets with lies and grift as POTUS while Al Franken gets completely destroyed because of a tasteless comedic prank? Is that “whataboutism”?? gmafb.
Oh look a squirrel!
That’s all that you & nate silver have done, released a scurry of squirrels.
Joseph, your perception, apparently, was that HCR “clearly and obviously wrong at the time she said it.” OK, that’s your perception.
My perception was that Charlie Kirk had angered a lot of people across the spectrum. The first reactions that I saw online were that Kirk had been killed by leftists. Several people said violent retribution was justified. At the time, there was no credible evidence of the motivation for the attack. This was just unwarranted visciousness.
Over time, we got a trickle of ambiguous evidence about the possible beliefs and motivations of the attacker. Some evidence seemed to indicate that the attacker had been influenced by Groypers. The Groypers had been razzing Kirk since 2019. It would not have been shocking if an attack on Kirk came from that quarter. Maybe in your community, there was no willingness to consider this possibility, but it seemed like a possibility to a lot of people.
HCR and others presented some evidence for that hypothesis. I don’t think HCR ever presented the hypothesis as proved. I think she said we should consider it as a possibility. Against a backdrop of right wing rage, this was a call to step back, calm down, wait a little bit before revenge violence and consider the possibility that the killer might not have the motivation that seemed obvious to the right wing ragers.
Over time, we learned more about the killer. We never did learn what his actual motivation was. We never did learn what his political leanings were. There were suspicions, on very weak evidence, that his political views had shifted leftward. There was clearer evidence that the killer had very strong negative views of Kirk but lots of people had negative views of Kirk, and, like the Groypers, plenty of them were not of the left.
So, today, we still don’t know whether the initial hypothesis that HCR laid out was correct or incorrect. We do not that after the initial evidence that favoured it came out, we didn’t learn much else later that supported it. So it is probably more likely than not that the hypothesis was incorrect. But given that we have very little understanding of the killer’s actual ideology or of his actual motivation, beyond hating Charlie Kirk, HCR’s hypothesis is not clearly wrong today and it most certainly was not clearly wrong when she said it.
To get a neutral perspective, I asked ChatGPT the following question:
Question: “After charlie kirk was assassinated, there were several theories about the motivation of the killer. Did we ever conclusively learn what his motivation was?”
Answer
No — as of now there is no fully conclusive, publicly verified determination of the killer’s precise motivation in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. What we do know from credible reporting and official sources reflects a combination of investigated clues, statements by authorities, and ongoing court proceedings, but investigators and prosecutors have not declared a single definitive motive that is universally accepted.
🔍 What Investigators Have Publicly Reported
1. Suspect’s identity and alleged statements
The man charged with killing Charlie Kirk is 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, arrested and charged with aggravated murder and other offenses in connection with the shooting at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Prosecutors and law enforcement have said Robinson made statements to a roommate that he shot Kirk because he was fed up with what Kirk “spread”, implying hatred or ideological disagreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
A family member told investigators Robinson had become more politically engaged and expressed dislike for Kirk’s viewpoints at a family dinner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
2. Law enforcement descriptions of possible ideology
Utah’s governor and local law enforcement suggested Robinson had shifted toward more left-leaning political views before the attack, possibly influenced by internet culture, although they did not produce evidence connecting him to any organized left-wing group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3. FBI comments on motive are descriptive, not definitive
The FBI’s public commentary has focused on Robinson’s actions and a purported “obsession” with Kirk rather than laying out a legally adjudicated motive. https://abcnews.go.com/US/charlie-kirk-killing-tyler-robinson-obsession-influencer/story?id=125582085&utm_source=chatgpt.com
📌 What Hasn’t Been Established
No conclusive official motive
Prosecutors have not filed a definitive “motive” statement as part of the legal charging documents or in court. They have presented evidence suggesting reasons, but no court has found a legally binding motive, and investigative officials have stopped short of declaring one single driving cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
No verified ties to ideological groups
Despite early speculation, authorities have said there is no evidence Robinson was connected to any organized extremist group on the right or left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Social media and speculation abound
A wide range of conspiracy theories — from foreign involvement to coordinated political plots — have circulated online, but none are supported by verified evidence. https://www.britannica.com/event/Assassination-of-Charlie-Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
📊 Summary: What Motivations Have Been Suggested
Source of InsightSuggested MotivationEvidence LevelStatements to roommateDislike of Kirk’s rhetoricUnverified, anecdotal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.comFamily testimonyPolitical disagreement, ideological shiftCorroborated by investigators, but not decisive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.comLaw enforcement & FBIPossible resentment/“obsession”Suggestive but not formally proven https://abcnews.go.com/US/charlie-kirk-killing-tyler-robinson-obsession-influencer/story?id=125582085&utm_source=chatgpt.comPublic speculation & conspiracy theoriesWide-ranging motivesUnsubstantiated https://www.britannica.com/event/Assassination-of-Charlie-Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
🧠 Final Assessment
Conclusion to date: There is strong investigative interest in political or ideological motives — particularly Robinson’s stated frustrations with Kirk’s influence — but no conclusively adjudicated motive has been publicly established in court or law enforcement findings. The legal process is ongoing, and motive may be further developed as part of trial proceedings or sentencing.
📌 References
Wikipedia: Assassination of Charlie Kirk — accused, early investigative statements on motive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Reuters: reporting on reactions and context around Kirk’s death. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/charlie-kirks-widow-consoles-nicki-minaj-after-assassin-gaffe-2025-12-21/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The Guardian: related social media backlash post-assassination. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/18/tennessee-charlie-kirk-meme-arrest-lawsuit?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Wikipedia: Charlie Kirk biography and shooting context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk?utm_source=chatgpt.com
ABC News: FBI description of suspect’s alleged “obsession.” https://abcnews.go.com/US/charlie-kirk-killing-tyler-robinson-obsession-influencer/story?id=125582085&utm_source=chatgpt.com
This is a lot of words trying to obfuscate the fact that HCR said, and I quote:
"But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left. The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, is a young white man from a Republican, gun enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far right, disliking Kirk for being insufficiently radical."
How exactly is this hedging? She confidently and categorically declared that he was NOT on the left. I am at a loss at how you can square this with all you said.
Also shout-out for using ChatGPT to make your argument for you :)
You’re right, it’s been a while since I read her words and I didn’t recall the statement “In fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left.” We didn’t actually know that as fact at that time and we don’t know that as fact now. So that one sentence is incorrect. Yup. You got me.
On the other hand, what she said next was that he was “a young white man from a Republican gun enthusiast family”, who at that time did appear to have embraced (or at least paid a lot of attention to) a far right ideology.
So if she had said, “in fact, the alleged shooter might not be someone on the left. What we do know is that Tyler Robinson is a young white man, etc.”, the statement would probably have been just as outrageous to you, but I would continue to hold it up today as a rational description of what we knew at the time.
But you took your argument a bit further. Here’s the bait that I was responding to:
“This piece reads as a bad trope of Dem refusal to acknowledge failure. Do something wrong? Well we had "good intentions". No! Not fucking up is important! Don't give these weird blanket passes to people who mess up because you like them.”
(1) presenting a rational hypothesis on the basis of what is known is not a failure even if it turns out later to be incorrect
(2) Presenting a contrary view in the face of a premature ejaculation of right wing rage is not “doing something wrong”.
(3) I’m glad you like it that I take a bit of time to check what I’m saying, and provide my source material. I just looked at your substack. Let me suggest that your readers might find it useful if you provided source material for them too.
Cheers.
Thank you for this response to Nate Silver’s piece. I was furious when I read it and I’m sad to hear it’s caused her pain. We are all trying to drink news from a firehose, it’s messy to say the least. As for dividing Democrats into warring factions, we have always been a big tent full of contradictions. This is not a weakness, it’s a strength when we can harness it.
Diane, thank you. “Firehose” is exactly the word, and I hate that it’s caused her pain too.
And yep, the big tent has always been full of contradictions. The problem isn’t so much disagreement, it’s when it turns into branding and exile. Appreciate you reading.
This is brilliant! Your characterization of Nate Silver and Ezra Klein as not “empathetic” is spot on, if a bit mild. White-privileged know-it-alls springs to my mind, but what does name-calling accomplish?
There are so many parts of this I want to cite for the clarity and insight.
Thank you so much for this. You are a voice of reason.
Beth, thx. And you’re right to ask what name calling actually does besides scratch the itch. I’m trying to keep the focus on incentives and power, not just vibes.
Also, your comment made me lol because I’m over here compiling the citations I forgot to include, and part of me is like… Nate, if you’re gonna do a hit piece on me, please do it on that so I’ll never make that mistake again. 😅
Nate is an idiot.Ahhhh, you’re right, it does feel got to scratch that itch. There seem so many people focused on what the Democratic party does wrong. They’re fixing a flat tire while the car goes up in flames.(to continue your motoring metaphor). What they lose sight of, but Heather Cox Richardson never does, ist hat We The Prople get to decide what the Democratic Party is.
VERY GRATEFUL you’re on our side. You’re a formidable thinker.
I'm with you on the "White privileged know it alls"! AKA "Bros".
As an activist, I have no time for either of them.
Xplisset, thank you, thank you and thank you even more for your concise and illuminating explanation of the blowback Heather Cox Richardson experienced from a single viewpoint she expressed. I so need to hear your perspective as I might be one of those democratic "elites" that subscribe to Heather's Letters. I say "might be" because I'm not rich nor do I have an Ivy League education.
Obviously, growing up white in America, I missed a lot of horrible things going on in my country. Since some comments mentioned "firehoses" that brought a memory to mind. As a young child, I witnessed on TV police using firehoses to literally "hose people backwards to wash them off the streets." I was so upset and crying and asked my parents, "why were the police doing that?"
I won't repeat what they told me. It was something that only evil people would say to a crying child who saw and understood what injustice is. I am grateful that even though I share their genetic background, I do not share their worldview. Plus, I have generation upon generation of "good people" genes in me.
I really value the work you do and the way your mind works. And thanks for defending Heather, she is another gem that helps preserve my sanity in this insane country right now.
I actually teared up a lil reading this one thx.
Thanks for staying explicit in describing the shadows and the light today. I also noticed, today, a dubious NYT report of the "glorious" trumpian Commerce Department's brag about 3d quarter growth. When one listens long enough, or reads, it's clear this is due (if accurate) to the affluent class (caste) spending on luxury items and such, while the underdogs suffer. It's harder and harder for me to even keep an eye on the many distortions perpetrated by this regime. It's high time for a "perp-walk"...
Thank you For your comment. Research shows that Social and economic mobility in the United States is being transformed into a caste System from which there is no escape. So many excellent articles on the cost of being poor in the United States of America.
Nate Silver’s murderous envy for HCR is in plain sight.
I saw that in an interview with some guy that didn't even seem to be aware what he was doing, giving backhanded compliments that were basically wrong, lol. I have a lot of respect for HCR taking that in stride & staying with what's important. There isn't time to deal with all their insecurities, the work is too important.
EXACTLY.
Great essay from start to finish. An effective response to Mr. cross-my-palm, but it goes beyond him to the myth and assertion of being the "Center" and the Pragmatism that does not mean effective-in-the-real-world as much as it means easy-for-me-right-now.
Ann, thank you thank you.. “Easy-for-me-right-now” is the whole tell.
That’s what I was trying to name. A lot of the “Center” talk is really comfort dressed up as wisdom, and it always gets sold as realism right when it’s asking the most vulnerable people to pay the price. Appreciate you reading it all the way through. Thx again
Thank you for writing this essay. Everything you said is on point but i especially appreciated this: “People do not subscribe to her for breaking news” and i think this is so important. I’ve been reading HCR’s Letters since 2018…2019 when a friend shared her Letters with me. And I believe she was already doing the Letters for a while back then. A lot of people today think she just popped out of nowhere in 2025 in time for the political turmoil and that she’s a political commentator that can predict the future. She’s a prominent American historian and has been one for decades. She’s not a ‘breaking news’ journalist on legacy media but they treat her like one by writing these traffic tickets. Brilliant essay!
I wasn't there at the very beginning but started reading fairly early on when friends began to repost her Letters. As someone who used to work in a museum house that represented Quaker abolitionist activity in 19th-century North Carolina, I saw in her audience something I saw in many of our visitors: a hunger for real US history instead of fairy tales, a need for context and a better understanding of how we arrived at our own moment in history. She and historian Joanne Freeman together have brought historical perspectives we increasingly need as both grade schools and colleges allow history to slip away from the curriculum. People like Nate Silver look at the world through such a narrow keyhole, they seem to panic when anyone opens the door to a wider view. Quick! Stuff her into a Category Designated by Capital Letters before she can challenge his authority.
Yes! You articulated further what I wanted to say, “People like Nate Silver look at the world through such a narrow keyhole.” They really do. Silver is in the business of “predictions” with his stats, and though HCR always says she can’t and won’t predict the future, she has a much bigger toolbox with all her historical knowledge than he does. And she can give us an understanding that he just can’t, and I think it gets to him.
I tune into HCR and Joanne Freeman every Saturday morning, too! 🥳
“a hunger for real US history instead of fairy tales, a need for context and a better understanding of how we arrived at our own moment in history.” Rebecca, this in a nutshell is why so many of us turn to HCR to begin our day. I know for myself, it’s not the breaking news, but more the historical context of an event playing out in real time which then gives me the background and much needed hope that change will be for the better if we remain informed and loud.
I watch Heather every day. She is an historian who frames current events against historical trends. She has more than earned her recognition. She promotes hope. These ‘conservatives’ doth protest too much.
Strangely enough - I never saw or heard of this "piece". I dont know if I speak for many or any of Dr. Richarson's followers, but her letters have honestly educated me on so much history, and the commonsense way she writes & speaks not only make it interesting - subjects and stories that I either never heard or ignored when I was in high school - but also states the current "news" in ways that I feel makes more sense. I dont get the impression or feeling that she's telling me how to think or understand any particular issue.
This guy, Silver, is just one more blah blah blah (remember Charlie Brown videos?) Social media has become more an individual or group way to feel important - period.
I'm 87, and yes vote as a Democrat, and the older establishment Democratic Party needs and must be re-structured! I dont have an answer for what has become of the Republican "party" these days. I remember when the two parties actually cooperated and compromised.
And if you truthfully listen - LISTEN - to the members of the GOP? Their current "rule" is never compromise with the other party.
So - exactly how is that statement bad-mouthing the GOP? It's not alternative facts - its the truth!
Thank you so much, X
really good post!
Maggie
Agree. I never saw Silvers post and I think of him as irrelevant.
HCR is a daily refreshing read for me.
I share that frustration Maggie. Trump and the maga GOP deserve all the criticism they get. That's not "moral purity", it's truth.
The police metaphor lands hard. Silver's critique of Richardson feels like prioritization failure when CBS is pulling 60 Minutes segments for political reasons. The irony is that FiveThirtyEight's model-driven approach was supposed to depoliticize analysis but Silver's own framing here (Tea Party comparisons, "Richardsonism") shows how even data journalists operate within narrative wars. What's missing is acknowledgment that Richardson's audience isn't consuming her for breaking news forensics, they're consuming for contextual sense-making in information overload, which is a diffrent editorial standard entirely.
It sure sounds like the pecking order has been disrupted by Professor Richardson, and the old guard resents the hell out of the disruptor being a woman. Why am I not the least bit surprised?
Thanks for your analysis.
Nate Silver does not matter.
I appreciate the contrast between the traffic ticket (penalizing someone for a minor violation) and the national emergency. But it endorses a toxic underlying assumption.
Continuing with the traffic ticket analogy, this is someone telling us that he owns the street, or at least he has the right to post one-way-traffic-signs on it, and that Dr. Richardson is being a bad person because she is driving the "wrong way" on this street.
People sometimes ask me, old white guy to old white guy, what "privilege" means. I try to respond with examples, and this looks like a good one.
What gives Silver the privilege (the societally-recognized right) to post a "My Way" sign on the road and expect the rest of us to treat it as enforceable?
Dismissing Silver's complaint as if he is complaining about a minor traffic violation cedes to him an acknowledgement that he has the privilege to lay out the facts and the rules of the road.
Getting us used to the idea that he has such a privilege (and others do not) is more valuable by far than whether we actually impose consequences on any one person that he could describe as a violator.
Very very good point Cem.
Well said. One side can lie about a stolen election while perfection is demanded from the other
And too often Democrats fall into bothside-ism…We need to start telling maga-ites to STFU.
Good essay, no surprise. I read Dr. Richardson's characterization of the murderer of Kirk as an opinion based on knowledge available to date. But as a very senior citizen I've learned something, and that is that EVERY f...ing opinion has to be so-labelled, nor matter how obviously an opinion it may be to the writer and most readers. HCR's pieces are to me, as a Canadian trying (and failing) to understand the madness in a country I thought I knew well, invaluable by virtue of providing learned historical context. There is a percentage of any population that over-reacts to anything contrary to their world view, and are are forever poised to pounce atop the molehill while ignoring the mountain. While I have faith in the U.S.A. eventually emerging from Trumpism, and maybe, just maybe, a long overdue restructuring of the GOP to eliminate those members who share the physically odd abnormality of having no spine nor guts. But I have little faith in the ability of the U.S.A. to regain international respect within the lifetime of people now learning how to walk and talk; the country has drifted (always was?) too far rightward.
I recall HCR's read was completely accurate with data at that moment, I didn't feel it was her personal opinion so much as a common understanding of what we were seeing at that particular point. It's gotta be difficult to give context when so many pieces are moving. I don't know that complete answers were even found in that incident & of course, whatever they may have been, they could change in time. HCR & I are the same age & have enormous respect for her, not only for her knowledge, but how she deals with the reality that none of ever know it all. I think it's a real strength of hers that she doesn't hold back for fear of making a mistake. It's the academic process to put forth ideas knowing they will be challenged & changed, learning is a fluid thing. The USA can't expect to be believed & trusted as it was, more or less, in the past. But, I have hope in rebuilding that we eliminate some of the things that have been wrong all along.