Where do we go from here?

[superrific]

Perhaps in other articles she provides data. In this article it is anecdotal. That’s the presentation here.

See my longer post. It's almost surely ethnographic in approach, which is both anecdotal and highly respected as useful and often illuminating. It's not perfect, and it's hard to replicate. Just as historians delve into an archive and other historians either have to a) spend months or longer in the archives themselves or b) implicitly accept the claim about the historical data and/or its characterization. Thus does history often become a duel of apples and oranges. One historian says, "based on my research of slave journals in Alabama in 1850, it seems like the economy of the south was X Y Z"; another says, "No, based on my research among small landowners in the South Carolina low country, the economy of the south was not Y at all." So too with ethnographies. Nothing is perfect.

I'm not expressing much of an opinion about the specific claims in the article, but I think your well-meaning criticism of the methodology here -- criticism that is valid 90%+ of the time -- doesn't really apply here. That's my sense, at least, from the description of her research as part of a larger research project (probably funded by a donor and involving a collaboration among many researchers).

 

[CarolinaFever]

Seems like politics these days is a lot like sports fandom. I know many people are fans of a team due to some personal connection (you went to that school or you're from the city where the team is based or you moved there, whatever). Unfortunately there are only two teams in this sport and the other side is the most hated rival. This isn't everybody, to be sure, but I think it's a lot more than anybody wants to admit. It's not about policy or messaging or any of that, it's just you live around lots of people that are fans of one of the teams and so you're a fan of that team. I think this applies to Maga more than dems or traditional repubs. They probably won't even care if Trump's policies cause their team to lose, they'll still be a fan of their team, just like sports fans don't stop being fans of their teams every time they lose, the reactions of some fans on message boards every time their team loses notwithstanding...

Some people are just fans of trashy reality TV and see Trump as the same way. I do think education, or lack of, racism, and bigotry is what makes up the majority of MAGA, though.

 

[Paine]

Thought I made it clear that he couldn't hold my attention. When he started to discuss things like oil shortages, spending cuts on this or that without discussing why that happened, he lost me. The idea of politics as theory instead of an exercise in pragmatism is not a path I can follow.

He talks about the explicitly about why those things happened. If you can’t be bothered to pay attention to the article, it’s okay to not respond and move on.

 

[superrific]

The “theory of politics”, as far as left wingers like Sunkara are concerned, is directly tied into base elements of humanity. I really don’t know how you could read that whole article and come away with that he’s just talking about left vs right.

It's abstruse. To people like you and me who are both used to academic writing and are conversant in this discipline, it isn't a difficult piece. But I can see how many of our posters would struggle with it, which isn't a criticism of them at all. Or the author. Finesse and others just aren't really the target audience and that's OK.

 

[Paine]

It's abstruse. To people like you and me who are both used to academic writing and are conversant in this discipline, it isn't a difficult piece. But I can see how many of our posters would struggle with it, which isn't a criticism of them at all. Or the author. Finesse and others just aren't really the target audience and that's OK.

Fair enough, I suppose. One of my major blind spots is not realizing what people do and don’t know. I guess there is a fair amount of requisite knowledge of left-wing thought in order to read the piece the way Sunkara intended.

 

[superrific]

Thought I made it clear that he couldn't hold my attention. When he started to discuss things like oil shortages, spending cuts on this or that without discussing why that happened, he lost me. The idea of politics as theory instead of an exercise in pragmatism is not a path I can follow.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this, except maybe that you're demanding a lot from a magazine piece. People have written whole monographs about oil shortages. Seriously, there was a whole school of thought among historians (this was a while ago; I'm not sure anyone still did it) whose methodology went something like this:

1. Identify historical trend you'd like to write about.
2. Collect weather and climate information for 500 years prior. Sea temperatures where available are good too.
3. Study patterns of commerce as they are affected by and affect the weather and climate. The scope of this sweep should be hundreds of years.
4. Collect as much demographic data as possible, including migration patterns which are often caused by weather/climate.
5. Based on this data, analyze your historical event or trend.

I mean, it's hard to argue with this approach on a conceptual level. Climate and migration are in fact drivers of historical events. The Middle Ages and Renaissance absolutely were shaped by the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age that followed. The problem is that it's boring as all fuck, and I say that as someone who has at times read German philosophy in my spare time.

 

[superrific]

Fair enough, I suppose. One of my major blind spots is not realizing what people do and don’t know. I guess there is a fair amount of requisite knowledge of left-wing thought in order to read the piece the way Sunkara intended.

1. That's tacit knowledge that can only be learned from experience. When you're in school, nobody talks about tacit knowledge, but it's super important. For instance, I'd say the majority of the skill of most litigators consists of tacit knowledge that is hard to communicate.

Which means elders are useful for something. Great source of tacit knowledge. Now, I'm not volunteering myself on this particular issue. I'm not the guy for that inquiry.

2. Please keep this in mind. You know how people talk about the young activists who come out of college with big progressive ideas and then alienate the regular folks they don't really connect with? I think you've complained about them, IIRC, although it's not important.

Well, that's you, to some degree. And it's not your fault. And it's not necessarily bad. Your issue isn't race/gender so much as class, but the overall dynamic is not that different. And obviously I don't know you in real life, so maybe you have better social skills with your peeps (you grew up rural, right? I thought that's what you said) than many other activists from more privileged backgrounds.

But look at this conversation. Finesse is, I believe, a life-long tradesman. He's exactly the guy we've built coalitions around. He's exactly the type of guy you want to be the center of our coalition. And you're talking to him, and he says he doesn't know or care what you're talking about . . . and there's maybe a lesson there. Again, I'm not criticizing you. As far as I can tell,

3. I've been happy with our discussions recently. We've had some tensions, and as we've both noted, we carry baggage of previous experiences into the conversation. But I do think we've made progress and we're more in agreement than, say, three weeks ago. This is, in some measure, what this message board is for. And it's odd because there are so many types of people here. It skews older, and it skews lawyer, but there are people from lots of backgrounds with different interests and skills. I'm an academic, first by nature and then by trade (until I realized I couldn't teach law any more, not in the age of Trump where nothing seems to matter). You're an academic, or at least close to the academic world. On the flip side, we have different professionals, some non-professionals, and even some types of professions I didn't even know existed. On the old ZZL, there was a poster who I first knew as a military veteran (as that's what he posted about), but who later came out as a medical entomologist. I didn't know "medical" was a branch of that field, and I confess that I've never met an entomologist before.

So I think we get a fairly syncretic view of the world, albeit one that is tinted liberal (which these days might be tantamount to saying that it's based in knowledge and not horror movies). And for those of you who see words like syncretic and your eyes glaze over, that's my point! It takes all types.

I know there are people here who find me off-putting, and that's fine. I'm not really here to make friends, per se. I don't try to be obnoxious or anything, but I've learned that I come across as prickly (though I often don't understand why or how). But we're trying to build a big tent, yes!? I think we need me in the tent. We need Paine in our tent. And finesse. And CFord and lawtig. And pretty much everyone else who wants to be or is even just curious.

 

[Paine]

1. That's tacit knowledge that can only be learned from experience. When you're in school, nobody talks about tacit knowledge, but it's super important. For instance, I'd say the majority of the skill of most litigators consists of tacit knowledge that is hard to communicate.

Which means elders are useful for something. Great source of tacit knowledge. Now, I'm not volunteering myself on this particular issue. I'm not the guy for that inquiry.

2. Please keep this in mind. You know how people talk about the young activists who come out of college with big progressive ideas and then alienate the regular folks they don't really connect with? I think you've complained about them, IIRC, although it's not important.

Well, that's you, to some degree. And it's not your fault. And it's not necessarily bad. Your issue isn't race/gender so much as class, but the overall dynamic is not that different. And obviously I don't know you in real life, so maybe you have better social skills with your peeps (you grew up rural, right? I thought that's what you said) than many other activists from more privileged backgrounds.

But look at this conversation. Finesse is, I believe, a life-long tradesman. He's exactly the guy we've built coalitions around. He's exactly the type of guy you want to be the center of our coalition. And you're talking to him, and he says he doesn't know or care what you're talking about . . . and there's maybe a lesson there. Again, I'm not criticizing you. As far as I can tell,

3. I've been happy with our discussions recently. We've had some tensions, and as we've both noted, we carry baggage of previous experiences into the conversation. But I do think we've made progress and we're more in agreement than, say, three weeks ago. This is, in some measure, what this message board is for. And it's odd because there are so many types of people here. It skews older, and it skews lawyer, but there are people from lots of backgrounds with different interests and skills. I'm an academic, first by nature and then by trade (until I realized I couldn't teach law any more, not in the age of Trump where nothing seems to matter). You're an academic, or at least close to the academic world. On the flip side, we have different professionals, some non-professionals, and even some types of professions I didn't even know existed. On the old ZZL, there was a poster who I first knew as a military veteran (as that's what he posted about), but who later came out as a medical entomologist. I didn't know "medical" was a branch of that field, and I confess that I've never met an entomologist before.

So I think we get a fairly syncretic view of the world, albeit one that is tinted liberal (which these days might be tantamount to saying that it's based in knowledge and not horror movies). And for those of you who see words like syncretic and your eyes glaze over, that's my point! It takes all types.

I know there are people here who find me off-putting, and that's fine. I'm not really here to make friends, per se. I don't try to be obnoxious or anything, but I've learned that I come across as prickly (though I often don't understand why or how). But we're trying to build a big tent, yes!? I think we need me in the tent. We need Paine in our tent. And finesse. And CFord and lawtig. And pretty much everyone else who wants to be or is even just curious.

Thanks for that and I mostly agree with the sentiment.

Other than: I don’t think people trying to organize a working class political movement should send Jacobin articles like that to folks they’re trying to organize. I wouldn’t even expect some people close to me to *get* that particular article.

Just thought it would be of help to some people here to hear from one of leading thinkers on modern left, at least in terms of media strategy.

My politics are driven by a basic human decency at the end of the day, but the political theory is there to help as a framework of understanding. I came to leftism as a 16 year-old living in rural eastern NC. This was initially driven by these sorts of base instincts about the experiences I had growing up. Learning about political theory and history as I’ve gotten older has just strengthened my belief.

All that to say, we should organize around this basic instinct towards humanity. This is at the core of it, and I think at the core of how our theories of the case can (and have) operate(d) together.

 

[finesse]

I guess because I lack discipline and depth of study I'm stuck with some unconventional viewpoints. When I look at the last 70 years, so much of this is that we might be living in the teething pains of the most transitional period in history. We are fighting the ending of colonialism and imperialism, the rise of technology and the growth of the information age and everybody is scared as hell.

Most of the world's trouble spots are caused by either the abuses of colonialism ,how it ended or both. The way the countries were divided had horrific consequences and the way the colonies were never prepared to govern themselves maybe worse.

The current social unrest seems like the same tactics of the pitting the disadvantaged elements of society against each other in times of great income and power disparities which is kind of a recurring theme. It's riding the back of the civil rights, women's rights, LBGT rights movements. There are real problems for the working class but the one I haven't seen discussed much is that there is a lessening need for them. The jobs that you can make a living in with a high school education alone are rapidly decreasing. You, at least, have to be able to learn how to operate some sort of equipment. The 50s aren't coming back even if women and blacks are excluded from competition again.

I think it's more about fear and insecurity than anything else and how you handle it. We seem to have those that, throughout my life, tried to limit the whole concept of equality of opportunity and influence on our nation in every way possible, with little regard to tradition or means. We have others who think the more we know, the more sources we look at, and the more opinions we get, the better chance we have of doing the right thing. Hell, we might even get to 50/50. I think the type person you are is formed before you are even aware of politics in any real sense.

 

[superrific]

All that to say, we should organize around this basic instinct towards humanity. This is at the core of it, and I think at the core of how our theories of the case can (and have) operate(d) together.

Agree. In my view, this is the essence of liberalism and most other left-of-center perspectives. As I say, we're not liberal because it's easy; we're liberal because we are empathetic, and the politics of empathy are inherently difficult. And this is what we must always remember. I mean, it's not true for Stalinists or Maoists but those are like 0.01% of the population at this point. There are also certain race warriors who I'm skeptical of in this respect, but again, 99% of the white straight liberals are here for the same reason.

And this, by the way, is one reason that I react as I do to the careless tossing around of words like "neoliberal." It's a disparaging term, designed to alienate or marginalize a wing of our coalition. Maybe that wing is too powerful and needs to be taken down. Maybe the policies described (which are usually Pub policies opposed by the so-called "neoliberal" Dems) are not wise.

But we must remember that most of the "neoliberals" on the Dem/liberal side (if it is actually bipartisan) share our same instinct toward humanity. They are good people. They need to be part of our coalition too. I used to work for a lawyer who was fairly close to Bill Clinton. He said that both Clintons were really caring people, who sometimes made themselves appear less good when publicly triangulating. He told me a story from Bill's trip to Africa, which was a HUGE deal. Remember those crowds Obama got in Europe? Bill got bigger ones in Africa.

Anyway, at one event in Uganda I think, Bill took the stage and the crowd surged forward. As happens too often, the people in the very front started to get trampled a little bit. Bill jumped down from his podium down to the front of the stage to help people, and was about to go into the crowd before Secret Service basically tackled him and pulled him away. That's Bill's instinct. At bottom, he wants to help people. That's why he's a Dem. Note that my boss did not address any of the sexual stuff and I didn't ask. It was an acceptable omission given the context, but obviously it does at least qualify the "Bill is a good guy" thesis, though it's never been clear just what % of the accusations were grounded in, well, anything.

 

[superrific]

I guess because I lack discipline and depth of study I'm stuck with some unconventional viewpoints. When I look at the last 70 years, so much of this is that we might be living in the teething pains of the most transitional period in history. We are fighting the ending of colonialism and imperialism, the rise of technology and the growth of the information age and everybody is scared as hell.

Yeah, it's good that you have those unconventional viewpoints, and good that you bring them here. Don't apologize. You are an intelligent, informed person with a lot to offer. You're not an academic. The world doesn't really need more academics. We need more carpenters.

 

[Paine]

I guess because I lack discipline and depth of study I'm stuck with some unconventional viewpoints. When I look at the last 70 years, so much of this is that we might be living in the teething pains of the most transitional period in history. We are fighting the ending of colonialism and imperialism, the rise of technology and the growth of the information age and everybody is scared as hell.

Most of the world's trouble spots are caused by either the abuses of colonialism ,how it ended or both. The way the countries were divided had horrific consequences and the way the colonies were never prepared to govern themselves maybe worse.

The current social unrest seems like the same tactics of the pitting the disadvantaged elements of society against each other in times of great income and power disparities which is kind of a recurring theme. It's riding the back of the civil rights, women's rights, LBGT rights movements. There are real problems for the working class but the one I haven't seen discussed much is that there is a lessening need for them. The jobs that you can make a living in with a high school education alone are rapidly decreasing. You, at least, have to be able to learn how to operate some sort of equipment. The 50s aren't coming back even if women and blacks are excluded from competition again.

I think it's more about fear and insecurity than anything else and how you handle it. We seem to have those that, throughout my life, tried to limit the whole concept of equality of opportunity and influence on our nation in every way possible, with little regard to tradition or means. We have others who think the more we know, the more sources we look at, and the more opinions we get, the better chance we have of doing the right thing. Hell, we might even get to 50/50. I think the type person you are is formed before you are even aware of politics in any real sense.

Man, you sound like a leftist to me lol.

 

[Paine]

Agree. In my view, this is the essence of liberalism and most other left-of-center perspectives. As I say, we're not liberal because it's easy; we're liberal because we are empathetic, and the politics of empathy are inherently difficult. And this is what we must always remember. I mean, it's not true for Stalinists or Maoists but those are like 0.01% of the population at this point. There are also certain race warriors who I'm skeptical of in this respect, but again, 99% of the white straight liberals are here for the same reason.

And this, by the way, is one reason that I react as I do to the careless tossing around of words like "neoliberal." It's a disparaging term, designed to alienate or marginalize a wing of our coalition. Maybe that wing is too powerful and needs to be taken down. Maybe the policies described (which are usually Pub policies opposed by the so-called "neoliberal" Dems) are not wise.

But we must remember that most of the "neoliberals" on the Dem/liberal side (if it is actually bipartisan) share our same instinct toward humanity. They are good people. They need to be part of our coalition too. I used to work for a lawyer who was fairly close to Bill Clinton. He said that both Clintons were really caring people, who sometimes made themselves appear less good when publicly triangulating. He told me a story from Bill's trip to Africa, which was a HUGE deal. Remember those crowds Obama got in Europe? Bill got bigger ones in Africa.

Anyway, at one event in Uganda I think, Bill took the stage and the crowd surged forward. As happens too often, the people in the very front started to get trampled a little bit. Bill jumped down from his podium down to the front of the stage to help people, and was about to go into the crowd before Secret Service basically tackled him and pulled him away. That's Bill's instinct. At bottom, he wants to help people. That's why he's a Dem. Note that my boss did not address any of the sexual stuff and I didn't ask. It was an acceptable omission given the context, but obviously it does at least qualify the "Bill is a good guy" thesis, though it's never been clear just what % of the accusations were grounded in, well, anything.

Yeah, I get that. I think Bill’s electoral success was much more about his roots and vibe than his triangulation, which is what really frustrates me about him.

I know we (leftists) toss neoliberal around a lot, but that’s because it is a useful stand in for a certain kind of politics that has, in our eyes, been throughly discredited abroad and at home. Some people are overly broad with their accusations though.

There a class of Democrats who looked at Clinton and said: he triangulated and won, so that’s what we must do. It worked for some and not others at the time. It worked for Bill because of other reasons like I stated above.

This also fuels my anxiety about the exact same group of people taking away the wrong lessons from Harris’ loss. Some of them are actually the exact same people, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

 

[finesse]

Man, you sound like a leftist to me lol.

I probably am but, trust me, it's purely by instinct. I had a subscription to the Nation for a couple of years in the 90s. It was insightful and informative because they were covering the intertwinement of the media at the time but it was just tedious to read.

 

[superrific]

Yeah, I get that. I think Bill’s electoral success was much more about his roots and vibe than his triangulation, which is what really frustrates me about him.

I know we (leftists) toss neoliberal around a lot, but that’s because it is a useful stand in for a certain kind of politics that has, in our eyes, been throughly discredited abroad and at home. Some people are overly broad with their accusations though.

There a class of Democrats who looked at Clinton and said: he triangulated and won, so that’s what we must do. It worked for some and not others at the time. It worked for Bill because of other reasons like I stated above.

This also fuels my anxiety about the exact same group of people taking away the wrong lessons from Harris’ loss. Some of them are actually the exact same people, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

I think the problem with neoliberal theory is that it ends up pinning blame on Dems for things they opposed. Like, we often hear about what neoliberalism did to America from 1980-2000. That makes no sense. Reagan/Bush administrations were in control for most of that period; they did a whole bunch of stuff that liberals hated at the time, still hate, and have always opposed. Then Clinton came in and undid a lot of that, opposed even more, and then did a few things that were sort of similar. That doesn't make him a continuation of Reagan!

The problem with your second sentence is that we can't see counterfactuals. You say that his electoral success was more about vibes and roots, which might be true -- but we don't know if he would have messed that up or lost those advantages without triangulating. Right? We can't see what history doesn't make visible, but that doesn't mean it never existed.

 

[finesse]

Yeah, it's good that you have those unconventional viewpoints, and good that you bring them here. Don't apologize. You are an intelligent, informed person with a lot to offer. You're not an academic. The world doesn't really need more academics. We need more carpenters.

I wasn't apologizing. Just acknowledging certain limitations. I am not now or ever going to be shy about giving an opinion. I just as soon it be clear, though that any expertise is in regards to carpentry and, maybe, bridge.

 

[superrific]

I wasn't apologizing. Just acknowledging certain limitations. I am not now or ever going to be shy about giving an opinion. I just as soon it be clear, though that any expertise is in regards to carpentry and, maybe, bridge.

I am 100% on board with that. We all have limitations and we should respect them, and also respect people who are working within good faith within their limitations. There are lots of types of limitations; most of us have some; and solidarity is all about coming together despite our limitations and trying to create a better world.

 

[Paine]

I think the problem with neoliberal theory is that it ends up pinning blame on Dems for things they opposed. Like, we often hear about what neoliberalism did to America from 1980-2000. That makes no sense. Reagan/Bush administrations were in control for most of that period; they did a whole bunch of stuff that liberals hated at the time, still hate, and have always opposed. Then Clinton came in and undid a lot of that, opposed even more, and then did a few things that were sort of similar. That doesn't make him a continuation of Reagan!

The problem with your second sentence is that we can't see counterfactuals. You say that his electoral success was more about vibes and roots, which might be true -- but we don't know if he would have messed that up or lost those advantages without triangulating. Right? We can't see what history doesn't make visible, but that doesn't mean it never existed.

A lot of leftists would also call Bush and Reagan neoliberals though. I think we’ve talked about this before. Americans love to bastardize political terms, and American leftists are no less guilty. I think Reagan, Bush, Carter, and Clinton all share the neoliberal moniker. Not equally, of course.

Neoliberal has come to be more associated with Democrats in American parlance, mostly because there are still a lot of Democrats who cling to this ideology and are currently elected officials. The Republican Party has moved away from it, mostly.

 

[superrific]

A lot of leftists would also call Bush and Reagan neoliberals though. I think we’ve talked about this before. Americans love to bastardize political terms, and American leftists are no less guilty. I think Reagan, Bush, Carter, and Clinton all share the neoliberal moniker. Not equally, of course.

Right. That's the problem with neoliberalism as a term. If you're putting those different administrations under the same rubric, one has to question how helpful the rubric is. I get that there can be different characterizations at different level of generality and those are sometimes useful; for instance, I think it's correct to call Stalin and Hitler totalitarians even though their ideologies were opposites in many ways. In that case, the general terminology reveals a truth that can get lost in details. But the danger -- and the one realized with neoliberal, I think -- is that important distinctions can be glossed over, and a relentless focus on similarity can obscure the differences that are far more impactful.

But you're right that we don't need to talk about this any further on this thread.

 

[wmheel1287]

A lot of leftists would also call Bush and Reagan neoliberals though. I think we’ve talked about this before. Americans love to bastardize political terms, and American leftists are no less guilty. I think Reagan, Bush, Carter, and Clinton all share the neoliberal moniker. Not equally, of course.

Neoliberal has come to be more associated with Democrats in American parlance, mostly because there are still a lot of Democrats who cling to this ideology and are currently elected officials. The Republican Party has moved away from it, mostly.

Anyone who terms those administrations as varying levels of being the same anything is dipshit dumb in their approach. I don't know how to say that any less bluntly.