Election 2020

[padraig (u.s.)]

And that would largely be the crux of the arguments made by the reactionary left, namely that social progress is largely tangential to, and perhaps even subterfuge precluding, economic progress.

that tension is - like many things - resolved by an intersectional approach

there are have been plenty of successes in non-economic social justice - the Civil Rights Act didn't yunno end racism, but it was pretty darned effective

I'm equally wary of any left approach that devalues social justice in favor of economic issues

or not equally wary, bc those kinds of ppl have much less power than the Democratic establishment and woke corporate interests

but it's just as incomplete - why are corporations this eager to embrace social justice? I wouldn't say it's entirely cynical subterfuge - surely plenty of people sincerely believe in these things - but it is good business

 

[constant escape]

And that is largely what I, rather optimistically, believe: that the forming orthodoxy will be substantially more egalitarian, socially, than any previous orthodoxy.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

And that is largely what I, rather optimistically, believe: that the forming orthodoxy will be substantially more egalitarian, socially, than any previous orthodoxy

what I'm telling you is it won't be, unless people are ready to actively fight for it (and even then, probably not - the forces arrayed against it are tremendously powerful with almost infinitely deep pockets) - it doesn't just "form"

or, in a less overtly predictive sense, what I'm telling you is that corporate paeans to "social justice" are no indicator that it will be

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

if you want historical perspective, the first chapter of The Best and the Brightest by Halberstam is one place to start

it's specifically about JFK's embrace of the establishment (corporate, financial institutions, foundations and think thanks, etc) in the wake of the 1960 election

that entire book is essentially about the self-delusion of the American establishment in re Vietnam, in the way that any history of 2008 is about the self-delusion of the American financial establishment

and @craner I'd bet could recommend a good history of the Clinton years

and in re neoliberalism I'd recommend Philip Mirowski - Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste for its current iteration and The Road From Mont Pelerin for a brief, more general history

 

[constant escape]

Well I say "form" because I don't believe these things unfold according to the intentions behind the actions that propel them. People cause them, sure, but people's intended consequences are often hardly aligned with their actual consequences, such that the total collective movement can be said to unfold in a largely spontaneous manner.

But for those paean's to be even partially substantial, there need to be appointments of people of hitherto suppressed demographics to higher jobs, even if those jobs command more of a cultural impact than a directly political one. So long as this gets secured, so does substantial economic progress across demographic lines.

That is, it seems like the current developments are pointing not toward neutralizing class divides, but to more evenly distributing demographics among classes. That could largely be the extent of the economic progress, no?

 

[Leo]

that kind of statement elides the actual struggle that produces the "best option available"

Biden/Harris didn't magically become the best option available, the Democratic establishment fought long and hard to make sure it was the only option available

my point was they were the best available option of the November 3 ballot. not ideal, but you play the hand you're dealt.

 

[Leo]

Of course but are you being played

not on November 3. which, at this point, is all that mattered.

 

[...]

if you want historical perspective, the first chapter of The Best and the Brightest by Halberstam is one place to start

it's specifically about JFK's embrace of the establishment (corporate, financial institutions, foundations and think thanks, etc) in the wake of the 1960 election

that entire book is essentially about the self-delusion of the American establishment in re Vietnam, in the way that any history of 2008 is about the self-delusion of the American financial establishment

and @craner I'd bet could recommend a good history of the Clinton years

and in re neoliberalism I'd recommend Philip Mirowski - Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste for its current iteration and The Road From Mont Pelerin for a brief, more general history

War in a Time of Peace by Halberstam is brilliant on the first Clinton administration.

 

[luka]

it's not the lads btw, it's me and john eden (and presumably droid if he was around) so take that for whatever you think it's worth

And yyaldrin. I like yyaldrins politics best.

 

[DannyL]

it's absolutely simultaneously possible to breathe a huge sigh of relief that Trump is (probably) gone and be bitterly disappointed that what's replacing him is uninspired, pro-corporate, anti-American worker "centrism", especially when progressive candidates did well running on progressive issues - the exact thing the Democratic establishment never has the guts to do. and frankly to write that off as lefter-than-thou sourpuss whinging, danny and @blissblogger, is bullshit.

Cheers dude. I was just trying to accentuate how good it is to see some pushback against far right populism, even if it's expressed via a v unworthy figurehead. I know very little about Biden and US politics in general so it's useful to hear some facts about his career. I'm to some degree mapping what I see on the Left here into this where there is a contrarianism at work. You can see it on any social media thread about Kier Starmer, Labour's new leader (you can see it in the thread on him here). Total negativity because he's not the left's Messiah. Fact-based critiques (as Jon normally posts) I've got time for but that's not what it is a lot of the time. I shouldn't blur the two events together but it's easy to do when some of the dynamics are similar.

 

[DannyL]

(I'd add one reason I not gone out of my way to look at the Left in the US this election cycle was not wanting to map over my strong UK-rooted biases and prejudices).

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'm to some degree mapping what I see on the Left here into this where there is a contrarianism at work.

hey dan. yeah no worries. the actual left here doesn't have a long electoral history here like it does in England - it did before WWII but then there's a 70-year gap with virtually nothing, during which the general Overton window of American politics in re economic and related issues shifted hugely right (largely through the application of oceans of right-wing billionaire $). so now we're in a situation where the left is trying not just to communicate its policies to voters but to establish its very electoral legitimacy while under unrelenting assault from both the actual opposition and the establishment of its own party, with the latter arguably more vicious which is pretty astounding when you consider the kinds of ppl the opposition includes. so there's a real need to proactively defend the left and part of that is pushing back against what is shaping up to be a fiercely pro-corporate, anti-labor administration (even if the Democrats do miraculously get the Senate). if you don't keep up the pressure it's back to the DNC etc establishment smugly congratulating themselves for not sucking as much as the Republicans. that things have gone as well as they have is a testament to the huge popularity of most actual progressive policies if you can cut through all the red-baiting.

as john has intimated, I'm pretty sure those same kinds of issues also exist in England, the difference is that even tho Corbyn was anomalous in the late 2010s you could still view him as a throwback to Tony Benn or whoever (I think I'm making the right kind of comparison there?) whereas for us the gap is so large that it killed the entire tradition of a left in serious electoral politics and we're basically starting over from scratch. idk much about Keir Starmer - I haven't paid attention to British politics since the last UK general election and yunno all our own problems over here.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also let me add my thx for consciously trying not to view the U.S. thru yr UK lens

as noted one of my personal irritants in life is Europeans who authoritatively chime in on America and esp its politics from a place of ignorance

dissensus is mostly pretty good abt not doing that besides in bantz, or people who actually do understand American politics v well (i.e. craner)

edit aside: in re not viewing another place's politics ignorantly, let me issue a mea culpa for, iirc, wading into the Corbyn/anti-semitism thing from a less informed place than I probably should have. def not trying to reignite that debate (or how Corbyn's ppl handled it), just in the interest of avoiding open hypocrisy.

 

[DannyL]

t even tho Corbyn was anomalous in the late 2010s you could still view him as a throwback to Tony Benn or whoever (I think I'm making the right kind of comparison there?) whereas for us the gap is so large that it killed the entire tradition of a left in serious electoral politics and we're basically starting over from scratch. idk much about Keir Starmer - I haven't paid attention to British politics since the last UK general election and yunno all our own problems over here.

Yeah, we totally have these problems. Difference is, i guess, that the actual far left was actually in charge of the Opposition for a minute. With fairly disastrous consequences (80 seat Tory majority, EHRC investigation and nonstop civil war). Corbyn is absolutely a throwback to Benn and took a lot of his positions directly from him, most problematically for me his Brexit stance. This position was actually against something like 80% of the membership, who were pro-Remain - that this didn't sink him outright is testament to how much faith people placed in him, how much appetite there was in the (mostly new?) membership for something different. That was one of the weirdest things about the whole episode to me - people would overlook his stated positions on the biggest issue of the day 'cos they thought he was such a "good guy".

Starmer is to me an interesting figure - has an activist background, did pro-Bono work in a high profile anti-McDonalds case here, lots of successful work in opposing the death penalty globally, was at Wapping with the printworkers when they went against the Murdoch Press - but has since become a scion of the establishment, being in charge of the DPP (Department of Public Prosecutions. To me, that speaks of public service and competence but everyone else here seems to hate him. He kinda embodies that principle vs sellout dynamic we were discussing upthread.

 

[DannyL]

edit aside: in re not viewing another place's politics ignorantly, let me issue a mea culpa for, iirc, wading into the Corbyn/anti-semitism thing from a less informed place than I probably should have. def not trying to reignite that debate (or how Corbyn's ppl handled it), just in the interest of avoiding open hypocrisy.

Totally with you on not wanting to fight yesterday's war but I think your instincts here were pretty sound.

You know Corbyn has been suspended from the Party since the EHRC report dropped? For making a public statement disagreeing with it. I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of this, just saying it's a hellvua soap opera.

 

[john eden]

Look at this holier than thou leftist saying that all Presidents are the same:

 

[IdleRich]

Just cos I said some on the left say it doesn't mean I think that only lefties say it.
Look I think we broadly agree that the leader doesn't matter that much but within the parameters that it does matter, Biden is somewhat better than Trump.
Given our positions are so similar I see very little value in arguing about how large 'somewhat' is.

 

[Leo]

this whole "biden is no different from trump" argument is such horseshit. I think innocent immigrant children in cages who might now be reunited with their parents, or dreamers who will now be allowed to remain in the country where they were born, or the millions of people with pre-existing conditions who now won't lose their healthcare coverage see a pretty fucking huge difference between the two. get real.

 

[constant escape]

Look at this holier than thou leftist saying that all Presidents are the same:

View attachment 5020

I've probably mentioned this before, but Yanis Varoufakis has mentioned multiple times that, during one meeting of finance ministers, Wolfgang Schauble told him that democratic elections cannot be allowed to alter economic policies, presumably beyond some benign margin.

I'm certainly not yet familiar with this stuff to make my own assertions here, but Varoufakis has emphasized this in at least two of his talks, and presumably goes into deeper detail in his books.

Is it really that absurd to argue that democracy is, itself, contained within some parameters determined by forces that transcend and indirectly administer democracy?

 

[constant escape]

That isn't to say that democratically determinations are inconsequential, just that these consequences are, to some extent, limited to some blast chamber that many of the major players are protected from, viewing from behind some glass.