This is an interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. I like that it stakes out strong positions that give you something to engage with. The author's greatest sin is that he - needlessly, to my...
This is an interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. I like that it stakes out strong positions that give you something to engage with.
The author's greatest sin is that he - needlessly, to my eyes - is taking what I consider an absurdly strong position. The left is always right, never does anything bad, when the left is wrong a different part of the left was right, oh, and if only socialists were in charge war wouldn't happen.
The record [of the left being correct] goes back centuries, and in every case, the pattern is the same.
...
And there didn’t have to be a First World War. It was a pointless bloodbath where everyone lost, except the weapons dealers. If socialists had been in power in the various European capitals, it could have been prevented, and untold millions of lives saved.
...
At this point, a conservative reader might say: aha, but what about the cases where conservatives have been right, like when they said the Soviet Union was full of horrible gulags? Weren’t leftists reluctant to admit the truth then? Well, not exactly. Some of the more hardcore Marxist-Leninists stuck by Stalin long after it was sensible to do so, it’s true. But in this case it’s the anarchist left that was incredibly prescient.
...
Now, why are leftists correct so consistently? It’s not because we have crystal balls tucked away in our cupboards. Just the opposite. It’s because, by and large, socialists and anarchists don’t have the inch-thick layer of bullshit covering our eyes that liberals and conservatives do.
It kind of makes me wonder who the author is actually writing for. "My side is right about everything because we see things clearly and your side is not only stupid and wrong but also immoral, so shut up and do what we say" is not a particularly persuasive argument. You know?
It seems like such an unnecessary own goal to take such a maximalist position.
Definitely an own goal, and all too common among all sides that choose to dig in on their positions. The only thing that surprises me is "the left's" adoption of the same pig-headed, self...
Definitely an own goal, and all too common among all sides that choose to dig in on their positions.
The only thing that surprises me is "the left's" adoption of the same pig-headed, self aggrandizing I've only ever known the religious right to do.
Maybe I'm just paying more attention in my 40s, but it feels different now.
As someone who was studying to go into politics, it's mostly just paying more attention. Political divides are very much like sports teams, and you often find the same people in different jerseys....
As someone who was studying to go into politics, it's mostly just paying more attention.
Political divides are very much like sports teams, and you often find the same people in different jerseys. I wouldn't take a bet on a professional team anywhere in the world having "perfectly smart and normal fans" and yet we somehow believe that a MASSIVE party in an enforced 2 party system is benevolent?
As my non voting, Ken Follet reading relative said "I never paid attention to politics until Donald Trump!" ...despite the outcome of politics being so directly related to all aspects of their...
As my non voting, Ken Follet reading relative said "I never paid attention to politics until Donald Trump!"
...despite the outcome of politics being so directly related to all aspects of their life.
Give them their tv, their frozen meals and their toys and they won't bat an eye
Early 30's myself. It just feels so blatant now compared to what I remember in my teens. Decorum was abandoned so it feels closer to a sports game than policy makers trying to make a real plan....
Maybe I'm just paying more attention in my 40s, but it feels different now.
Early 30's myself. It just feels so blatant now compared to what I remember in my teens. Decorum was abandoned so it feels closer to a sports game than policy makers trying to make a real plan. That was always there, but maybe the advent and polarization of social media shed any demure of notions against that off.
Now we even have the president of the US cursing his mouth off about stuff. "Masks off", so to speak.
Normalizing swearing is one thing. The blatant corruption and disrespect for hardworking Americans is quite another. Many of the Anglosphere's norms come from rules in the British Parliament. The...
Normalizing swearing is one thing. The blatant corruption and disrespect for hardworking Americans is quite another.
Many of the Anglosphere's norms come from rules in the British Parliament. The dirt bag left is often correct that decorum is an excuse to silence lower classes and dismiss criticisms. Of course, there's a difference between respect and decorum.
Yes. I don't think they are directly related, per se. But once upon a time (like, pre-2016) the powers that be knew how to use decorum to hide the corruption disrespect. Their own version of "tone...
Yes. I don't think they are directly related, per se. But once upon a time (like, pre-2016) the powers that be knew how to use decorum to hide the corruption disrespect. Their own version of "tone policing" to try and shame other on.
I don't think their goals particularly shifted in the last 2 decades, if we're being honest. They just aren't even attempting to sugarcoat it anymore. Perhaps an odd side effect of social media moving even political discourse to shortform tweets. Perhaps an intentional shift to appear relatable to their voter base.
I don't think Republicans are the same party from 20 years ago, but I'd agree that this is the natural result of the direction they were headed. It's easy to forget that arch-conservatives like...
I don't think Republicans are the same party from 20 years ago, but I'd agree that this is the natural result of the direction they were headed. It's easy to forget that arch-conservatives like Reagan and the Koch brothers were pro-immigration.
We do tend to associate more left politics with being forward thinking while right politics tend to be associate with traditional thinking, so it's not too surprising that yesterday's leftist...
We do tend to associate more left politics with being forward thinking while right politics tend to be associate with traditional thinking, so it's not too surprising that yesterday's leftist tends to be more in alignment with modern center than yesterday's rightist (Overton window aside). But this is beyond cherry picking.
The left is far from a monolith and even in the article he's giving one leftist who disagrees with other leftists as proof that the left is always right. Of course if you flip a d100 a million times you'll always end up with at least one 100.
It would be interesting to see an intensive dig into beliefs over time and identify how often a plurality position coincides with eventual consensus vs when it doesn't. I think eugenics would be an interesting case study, it definitely got associated with the far right by the 1900s but from my understanding some fairly "progressive" individuals bought into it in the early days and even now you can find leftists dipping their toes in that fetid water.
POV: I am pretty far left (Bernie Sanders left) I think a more realistic take on the facts in this article is that the Democratic Party machine will only take the morally "correct" (or "right" as...
The left is far from a monolith and even in the article he's giving one leftist who disagrees with other leftists as proof that the left is always right.
POV: I am pretty far left (Bernie Sanders left)
I think a more realistic take on the facts in this article is that the Democratic Party machine will only take the morally "correct" (or "right" as framed in the article title) position when the groundswell of opinion leaves them no other choice but to move left kicking and screaming. That's better than the Republicans who largely avoid facing those truths even when they are staring them in the face, but only better by comparison.
I'm ready for a real progressive left party, but I don't think we'll see it until we can separate and protect politics from the predation of late stage capitalism. TBH I don't know if there is a path to that from our current place. If there is, I'm afraid the damage or loss required to create the groundswell will be tragically high. With Gaza, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, we did not pay that price directly, but with the climate, we all will.
Isn't this just another case of "economists have predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions" + ignoring the failure cases, e.g. chomsky defending the khmer rouge or russia in the ukraine war;...
Isn't this just another case of "economists have predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions" + ignoring the failure cases, e.g. chomsky defending the khmer rouge or russia in the ukraine war; accelerationist leftists in 2016 who voted trump, etc.
Also his point about leftists being right all along about genocide in gaza is dodgy because liberals now still think they were correct in that there was not a genocide immediately after october 7,...
Also his point about leftists being right all along about genocide in gaza is dodgy because liberals now still think they were correct in that there was not a genocide immediately after october 7, they think that israel has only just started being genocidal in the last few months by blocking aid for too long and becoming more indiscriminate in killings, among other things, whereas some leftists believe that israel has been commiting a genocide for years against palestinians.
That's sadly a structure built into a lot of my country's culture. We can't truly litigate until the damage is already done. We will spend billions on reparations but cut costs to preventative...
“Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” - Winston Churchill
That's sadly a structure built into a lot of my country's culture. We can't truly litigate until the damage is already done. We will spend billions on reparations but cut costs to preventative measures. We'll dismiss very clear prophecies right before our eyes as "slippery slope" or "alarmist", then place blame when the very predictable events happen months or even weeks later.
If everyone had just listened to the Left to begin with, and put Biden out to pasture in 2023—which the majority of Democratic voters wanted!—we might not have a President Trump right now.
This passage does reveal the other weakness of the modern Left though; the "establishment dems" and the common working class dem are more divided than ever. You can even argue they are facilitating right talking points as if nonpartisanship has mattered for the last 20 years. Trying to appeal to the right at the cost of the left, because the left won't just tow the line when told to.
So we have this clash when the establishment puts up a candiate they like and the energy from the actual core voterbase is sucked out of the room. It may not be the "right" thing to do, but when people run out of morale they will not take rational actions. We're only beginning to see that morale recover as we have actions like Newsom finally taking a hard stance to fight back, and Mumdami showing that the will of the voters is actual fighters, and not "strongly worded letters" in these current times.
I had a similar conclusion to the author, but as I see more of this unfolding I am not confident that an early bowing out wouldn't have had the same result. Kamala was not going the be the candidates the voting base wanted , even if she had a full campaign period to execute.
Up until her humiliating defeat in the last election, the liberal press was fully in the tank for her.
this does feel like a catch 22, though. The candidate was picked and already lost some 6 months of campaigning. Would changing candidates again in September really work? There was sadly a huge uptick of searches of "did Biden dropout" the day of the election. Would it have even worked to add more chaos to that asking "did Kamala drop out"?
I definitely don't have the answers on how to address this. The author mentioned 200+ years of trends but people fall into the same trap. If there's no solidarity, we can't use our only advantage (our numbers) to push back on the few hundred rich people who have their own agenda. I can only see bottom up methods that will take generations, and I'm not sure how many of those we have left at this rate.
This is an interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. I like that it stakes out strong positions that give you something to engage with.
The author's greatest sin is that he - needlessly, to my eyes - is taking what I consider an absurdly strong position. The left is always right, never does anything bad, when the left is wrong a different part of the left was right, oh, and if only socialists were in charge war wouldn't happen.
It kind of makes me wonder who the author is actually writing for. "My side is right about everything because we see things clearly and your side is not only stupid and wrong but also immoral, so shut up and do what we say" is not a particularly persuasive argument. You know?
It seems like such an unnecessary own goal to take such a maximalist position.
Definitely an own goal, and all too common among all sides that choose to dig in on their positions.
The only thing that surprises me is "the left's" adoption of the same pig-headed, self aggrandizing I've only ever known the religious right to do.
Maybe I'm just paying more attention in my 40s, but it feels different now.
As someone who was studying to go into politics, it's mostly just paying more attention.
Political divides are very much like sports teams, and you often find the same people in different jerseys. I wouldn't take a bet on a professional team anywhere in the world having "perfectly smart and normal fans" and yet we somehow believe that a MASSIVE party in an enforced 2 party system is benevolent?
As my non voting, Ken Follet reading relative said "I never paid attention to politics until Donald Trump!"
...despite the outcome of politics being so directly related to all aspects of their life.
Give them their tv, their frozen meals and their toys and they won't bat an eye
Early 30's myself. It just feels so blatant now compared to what I remember in my teens. Decorum was abandoned so it feels closer to a sports game than policy makers trying to make a real plan. That was always there, but maybe the advent and polarization of social media shed any demure of notions against that off.
Now we even have the president of the US cursing his mouth off about stuff. "Masks off", so to speak.
Normalizing swearing is one thing. The blatant corruption and disrespect for hardworking Americans is quite another.
Many of the Anglosphere's norms come from rules in the British Parliament. The dirt bag left is often correct that decorum is an excuse to silence lower classes and dismiss criticisms. Of course, there's a difference between respect and decorum.
Yes. I don't think they are directly related, per se. But once upon a time (like, pre-2016) the powers that be knew how to use decorum to hide the corruption disrespect. Their own version of "tone policing" to try and shame other on.
I don't think their goals particularly shifted in the last 2 decades, if we're being honest. They just aren't even attempting to sugarcoat it anymore. Perhaps an odd side effect of social media moving even political discourse to shortform tweets. Perhaps an intentional shift to appear relatable to their voter base.
I don't think Republicans are the same party from 20 years ago, but I'd agree that this is the natural result of the direction they were headed. It's easy to forget that arch-conservatives like Reagan and the Koch brothers were pro-immigration.
Totally. We in Canada still hold to rules for the most part, but the society is fraying at the edges and people are starting to do crazy stuff.
We do tend to associate more left politics with being forward thinking while right politics tend to be associate with traditional thinking, so it's not too surprising that yesterday's leftist tends to be more in alignment with modern center than yesterday's rightist (Overton window aside). But this is beyond cherry picking.
The left is far from a monolith and even in the article he's giving one leftist who disagrees with other leftists as proof that the left is always right. Of course if you flip a d100 a million times you'll always end up with at least one 100.
It would be interesting to see an intensive dig into beliefs over time and identify how often a plurality position coincides with eventual consensus vs when it doesn't. I think eugenics would be an interesting case study, it definitely got associated with the far right by the 1900s but from my understanding some fairly "progressive" individuals bought into it in the early days and even now you can find leftists dipping their toes in that fetid water.
POV: I am pretty far left (Bernie Sanders left)
I think a more realistic take on the facts in this article is that the Democratic Party machine will only take the morally "correct" (or "right" as framed in the article title) position when the groundswell of opinion leaves them no other choice but to move left kicking and screaming. That's better than the Republicans who largely avoid facing those truths even when they are staring them in the face, but only better by comparison.
I'm ready for a real progressive left party, but I don't think we'll see it until we can separate and protect politics from the predation of late stage capitalism. TBH I don't know if there is a path to that from our current place. If there is, I'm afraid the damage or loss required to create the groundswell will be tragically high. With Gaza, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, we did not pay that price directly, but with the climate, we all will.
Isn't this just another case of "economists have predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions" + ignoring the failure cases, e.g. chomsky defending the khmer rouge or russia in the ukraine war; accelerationist leftists in 2016 who voted trump, etc.
Also just remembered the leftie anti-vaxxers https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/what-do-lefty-anti-vaxxers-do-now/620092/
Also his point about leftists being right all along about genocide in gaza is dodgy because liberals now still think they were correct in that there was not a genocide immediately after october 7, they think that israel has only just started being genocidal in the last few months by blocking aid for too long and becoming more indiscriminate in killings, among other things, whereas some leftists believe that israel has been commiting a genocide for years against palestinians.
That's sadly a structure built into a lot of my country's culture. We can't truly litigate until the damage is already done. We will spend billions on reparations but cut costs to preventative measures. We'll dismiss very clear prophecies right before our eyes as "slippery slope" or "alarmist", then place blame when the very predictable events happen months or even weeks later.
This passage does reveal the other weakness of the modern Left though; the "establishment dems" and the common working class dem are more divided than ever. You can even argue they are facilitating right talking points as if nonpartisanship has mattered for the last 20 years. Trying to appeal to the right at the cost of the left, because the left won't just tow the line when told to.
So we have this clash when the establishment puts up a candiate they like and the energy from the actual core voterbase is sucked out of the room. It may not be the "right" thing to do, but when people run out of morale they will not take rational actions. We're only beginning to see that morale recover as we have actions like Newsom finally taking a hard stance to fight back, and Mumdami showing that the will of the voters is actual fighters, and not "strongly worded letters" in these current times.
I had a similar conclusion to the author, but as I see more of this unfolding I am not confident that an early bowing out wouldn't have had the same result. Kamala was not going the be the candidates the voting base wanted , even if she had a full campaign period to execute.
this does feel like a catch 22, though. The candidate was picked and already lost some 6 months of campaigning. Would changing candidates again in September really work? There was sadly a huge uptick of searches of "did Biden dropout" the day of the election. Would it have even worked to add more chaos to that asking "did Kamala drop out"?
I definitely don't have the answers on how to address this. The author mentioned 200+ years of trends but people fall into the same trap. If there's no solidarity, we can't use our only advantage (our numbers) to push back on the few hundred rich people who have their own agenda. I can only see bottom up methods that will take generations, and I'm not sure how many of those we have left at this rate.