I have given you many opportunities to support any one of your assertions and you haven't had the balls to do so. Run along son.
I have seen the various charges of racism but I have also seen alternate views - some of which I doubt the accusers have considered. I am prepared to discuss these views, but getting the accusers to back up their assertions often proves fruitless. So my contention is that there are two sides to any argument.
To paraphrase the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you are free to agree to disagree and you are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. The facts are that there was a very concerted effort to delegitimize Obama. The only difference I would say is that Obama wasn't impeached which yes is a big difference, but the whole point of Birtherism was specifically to undermine the Constitutional legitimacy of Obama's presidency. That is a fact.. Regarding impeachment will point out that it did cross ideological lines. While there was a Democrat who voted against it, Colin Peterson who is the last of the true Blue Dogs, a very Conservative Republican was forced to leave his party to support impeachment, Justin Amash. In the Senate not only did Mitt Romney vote to remove but Lamar Alexander said that the House Managers had overwhelmingly proved their case and several other Republicans excoriated Trump. I don't think anyone would claim Amash, Romney and Alexander of being Marxists. To the point out again Democrats did work with Trump on some issues which again undercuts the idea that they are out to delegitimize them at all or cost and that the Democrats aren't really a legitimate political party (I see Hazony arguing against delegitimizing even as he is delegitimizing). Now you say "Obama's arrogance made it easy for Republicans to stonewall him and still look good in the process. " that is opinion you can have but that does just show further bias. Consider that Trump is the guy who brags constantly (do you think he is just a humble servant of the people?) yet Pelosi and Schumer were still willing to find common ground. So yes it takes two tango and apparently the Republicans weren't willing to tango. that is hardly the actions of a party looking to legitimately address issues and act in the interests of the country and more of a party that is determined to see the other side fail. Whatever the reason the facts are that Democrats have worked far more with Trump in 4 years than the Republicans did with Obama in 8 years. To reiterate, not the actions of a party that is seeking to delegitimize at all costs. When you say, "And no one worked with the Bush administration to undermine Obama before Obama even took office." I presume you're referring to how the Obama FBI and DOJ had investigated the Trump campaign. While yes that is true that didn't happen under Bush 43 this isn't the complete story. I know it's a trope of the Right that Obama undermined Trump from even before he took office through things like the investigation into the campaign while substantially true but the Obama DOJ was also undermining a possible Hillary Clinton presidency by investigating her too. In fact that investigation was far more damaging given that it was public while the Trump investigation was kept secret until after the election. Also the timing of it including Comey's announcement he was reopening it days before the election greatly benefited the Trump campaign. Far from the Obama DOJ handicapping the Trump campaign they greatly aided it. I apologize for messing with the formatting but trying to make things readable. You wrote: "perhaps, but perhaps this is also your blind spot. There is a difference between a "right-leaning" opinion leader/voice, and an "echo chamber." This is why it bothers me so much to see people here default so easily and so quickly to simply dismissing (typically right-leaning) arguments as "you're just echoing right- or left-wing talking points." That is not considering an argument on its merits: that is dismissing an argument without considering its merits. I happen to believe that some Federalist pieces are in fact VERY well-argued. Same goes for Turley or Ann Althouse. These are VERY smart people who have been very successful at being lawyers, law professors, or whatever--and when I see posters here simply dismissing those perspectives out of hand, that tells me more about those posters than it does about weaknesses in Turley's et al's arguments." I can't speak for others but as you notice I am taking on Hazony here and have taken on Turley, Althouse et al on the substance of their writings. I did say that I felt Hazony was biased based upon his use of language and I was correct on that regard. That doesn't automatically discredit his argument but does color it and I've gone to pains to address it specifically by referring back to the text. Turley is obviously a Constitutional lawyer. The Federalist isn't Brietbart or OAN they certainly have intelligent and extremely literate writers. That said it doesn't mean it isn't an echo chamber. Mother Jones has intelligent and literate writers and I would say they are also part of the Left echo chamber just like Noam Chomsky certainly is biased. This goes though to a point that I brought up earlier. Re quoting Hazony: "But nothing of the sort is going to happen. The Marxists who have seized control of the means of producing and disseminating ideas in America cannot, without betraying their cause, confer legitimacy on any conservative government. And they cannot grant legitimacy to any form of liberalism that is not supine before them. This means that whatever President Trump’s electoral fortunes, the “resistance” is not going to end. It is just beginning." Both you and Hazony are arguing that Right wing ideas and thinkers are being summarily dismissed and that current forces are not granting legitimacy to conservatives or liberalism (the classic variety that emphasized free speech). This is why I brought up George Will and Andrew Sullivan. that wasn't a non-sequitor considering that Hazony specifically cited Sullivan. Those are preeminent Conservative thinkers who have been forced out of the current Conservative movement because of their opposition to Trump. They aren't alone again because things like the Lincoln Project exists of former Republican activists and thought leaders who feel they have been cancelled by the GOP. This isn't my personal grievance. I'm not George Will. I'm showing examples of how this idea of a political extreme seizing control of the means of producing and disseminating ideas ins't just something on the Left. It is very much on the current Right.
Here's some of what I've seen: Subdivision by-laws that prevent non-whites from purchasing homes. Virtually every subdivision filed before 1970 had this provision. Redlining - Scholars who study housing discrimination point to redlining as one factor behind the gulf in wealth between blacks and whites in the U.S. today. Black families have lost out on at least $212,000 in personal wealth over the last 40 years because their home was redlined, said real estate app Redfin. Job discrimination - Since 1990 white applicants received, on average, 36% more callbacks than black applicants and 24% more callbacks than Latino applicants with identical résumés. Voting rights restriction and gerrymandering - reduce the legislative impact of minority voters by design Racial Profiling by police - ACLU: Racial profiling is a longstanding and deeply troubling national problem despite claims that the United States has entered a “post-racial era.” It occurs every day, in cities and towns across the country, when law enforcement and private security target people of color for humiliating and often frightening detentions, interrogations, and searches without evidence of criminal activity and based on perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. immigration discimination -
To respond to this. I was an academic having been a Research Fellow at the U of MN and am still an occasional guest lecturer in architecture. I understand that politics (not just Democratic /Republican Left /Right) happen a lot in academia. When I was in undergrad a professor called a college wide assembly to accuse another professor of running a thought police. I agree that happens but academia isn't the whole society. I can sympathize that you feel you're being suppressed in your field. I can sympathize that you might feel that your voice and others is getting attacked here on D&D. I mean I've been called all sorts of names and even told to go back to licking the boots of the PRC. Heck yesterday I was called a "Trumper" So what. Some people were mean to me on the Internet.. I do believe there is danger of group think and suppression of dissenting voices. Further I believe that our society is too quick to cancel people. If you recall I vociferously defended Bill Baptist and arguing that he shouldn't lose his job over one post. That doesn't mean that there attitudes and views shouldn't be challenged. Views that overwhelmingly support Judeo-Christianity, male patriarchy, and European civilization are in many cases regressive and not representative of where the world or the US is now and becoming. In many cases they are just wrong. I don't think those that espouse those views should be "cancelled" but the point is understanding what is challenging versus cancel. I think many older academics and others tend to see challenge as being "cancel" or censor.
And the thing is, like the real estate quote, all this has a cumulative effect, since Andrew Johnson bailed on reconstruction. We created an under-society for the economic gain for white people, cheap, dependent, subservient labor.
Donald Trump and the Republican Party of today reek of Fascism. As historian Federico Finchelstein neatly summarizes in his book A Brief History Of Fascist Lies," a principal goal of fascism is "to leave reason behind and return to prejudice." That desire helps to explain Donald Trump and the Republican Party's embrace of the white supremacist treasonous Confederacy and its legacy. By doing so, Trump and other Republicans are not "merely" using white supremacy and racial resentment to win over white voters. They are offering those voters a political dream world based upon "racial patriarchy." In that dream world, white men rule over women and all nonwhite people. Men rule over women, white people rule over Black and brown people, and White men rule over everyone. Other identities such as ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and religion can also be overlaid on such a system. Public opinion and other research have repeatedly showed that one of the defining features of conservatism and authoritarianism is the belief that, both consciously and subconsciously, there is a "natural order of things" to which people should adhere and this explains why authority - especially among law enforcement - is brutally executed in minority communities. Just this year we've seen an unarmed black man executed in cold blood by three white men for jogging in a white neighborhood; an unarmed black man choked to death by a police officer in broad daylight for allegedly passing a $20 bill; and, just this weekend, an unarmed black man was shot 8 times by the police in the back in front of his 3 young children but you'll never hear one word about any of this from Trump and the Republican Party this week. Moreover, in terms of realpolitik where raw power matters more than civic virtue, Donald Trump and the Republican Party are responding to the demands of their voters. Polliing data suggested in 2016 that nearly 20 percent of Trump supporters disagreed with the freeing of enslaved people. Republicans are also far more likely to possess racist values and beliefs than are Democrats which is why Trump and the Republicans so vehemently despise the BLM movement - precisely because it is a social movement by people of color who are standing up and defying their authocratic point of view. The same view goes for ANY form of protest or questioning of the legitimacy of the positions Trump and the Republicans share. Donald Trump won every category of white voters in 2016. He continues to be more popular than Biden among white voters in 2020. This week Donald Trump and his supporters will do everything to maintain that support by airing and re-enforcing the grievances of the (so-called) white working class because they face "economic anxiety." Any effort to address the legitmate grievances black citizens may possess about social issues such as policing, economics or racism will be denounced as a clear and present danger to their "American Way Of Life". Of course, it is inconvenient for that narrative that Black and brown people, who for decades and centuries have been in worse economic pain than white Americans, have never embraced any version of racial chauvinism or "anti-white" behavior in large numbers. But again, why should Trump and the Republican Party let the facts get in the way of their narrative? Especially when it appears to be working so very well for them.
lol. i made the assertion that trump has said and done a bunch of racist stuff then i provided a dozen examples. ive given you many opportunities to refute any of the dozen examples of trump saying or doing racist things are you are unable or unwilling to do so.
Jumping in late. I'd like to re-iterate that "systemic racism" happens when known racists with an agenda stay in power when indifferent people keep those folks in power. If you are indifferent and vote for Trump, that makes you a supporter of racism. Does that make you racist? Another way to think about it. Do you disagree with racism? Or are you 'anti-racist'? If you disagree with racism, that means you typically don't talk about it (much). These are the folks who say "I don't see color". If you raise children and you don't talk about it, that means they will certainly hear about it (and influenced by it) elsewhere. If you are anti-racist, that means you actively discuss racism and how to address it. Again, if you raise children, that means when they encounter situations with covert/overt racism, they are better equipped to come out of that situation with their confidence intact. For example, if you have a child of color it's good to regularly reinforce that their natural hair is beautiful. If other kids subsequently make fun on their hair, your kid isn't broadsided by it and left feeling less than.
One of the assignments I do with students is to make them do a synopsis or a précis of an essay or book chapter. One benefit of such an assignment is that it forces students to identify what the actual argument is and zero in on it. In a thirty page essay there may only be 2 to 3 pages that constitute the actual "argument," whereas the rest may be warmup, windup, or follow through. I think you are focusing on the warmup, windup, and follow through. Your statement below ("I don't think anyone would claim Amash, Romney and Alexander of being Marxists") is the clearest single indicator of your missing the point. To spare us both some time and energy I would plead with you to listen to the podcast--he can explain his main argument far more effectively than I can in a forum post. Nowhere in a nearly 40 minute interview does he touch upon any of the things that you are focusing on. Just do me that favor, and perhaps we can make a bit of progress in communicating with each other. I don't take birtherism seriously nor do I know anyone of significance who took birtherism seriously. With that said, however, I'll simply concede your point, but mainly because not much turns on the point. again, I'll concede this point. Not much turns on it. here again, all this may be true, but very difficult to see how this relates materially to Hazony's main argument. but I'll concede the point again, I just don't think it has a whole lot of relevance to Hazony's main argument. I'm going to try and gently steer this back toward some of what Hazony also says--and this relates to the point above about Romney. Hazony uses "Marxism" as a placeholder or a signifier for a whole bunch of different but related groups/entities: Anti-Marxist liberals have labored under numerous disadvantages in the recent struggles to maintain control of liberal organizations. One is that they are often not confident they can use the term “Marxist” in good faith to describe those seeking to overthrow them. This is because their tormentors do not follow the precedent of the Communist Party, the Nazis, and various other political movements that branded themselves using a particular party name and issued an explicit manifesto to define it. Instead, they disorient their opponents by referring to their beliefs with a shifting vocabulary of terms, including “the Left,” “Progressivism,” “Social Justice,” “Anti-Racism,” “Anti-Fascism,” “Black Lives Matter,” “Critical Race Theory,” “Identity Politics,” “Political Correctness,” “Wokeness,” and more. When liberals try to use these terms they often find themselves deplored for not using them correctly, and this itself becomes a weapon in the hands of those who wish to humiliate and ultimately destroy them. The best way to escape this trap is to recognize the movement presently seeking to overthrow liberalism for what it is: an updated version of Marxism. I do not say this to disparage anyone. I say this because it is true. And because recognizing this truth will help us understand what we are facing. This seems to me to be the first premise of Hazony's argument: that liberals themselves do not realize the extent to which they are being hoist by their own petard. Traditional or classical liberals still maintain a respect for conservativism, for example, out of Enlightenment notions of fair play, reason, and cooperative democratic deliberation. The groups Hazony is lumping together under the placeholder of "Marxism" believe in or understand only one thing: power relations. They seek not to reason with their opponents but instead simply to "triumph" over their opponents--by force (intellectual or otherwise) if necessary. This is why all the stuff you are discussing about Trump, Obama, birtherism, Tea Party, etc etc etc (even if related) is rather beside the point. Hazony is not ultimately most interested in the minutia of American party politics of the last four, eight, or twelve years. He is interested in interpreting what he sees as UNIQUE changes that have occurred THIS year, that is, in 2020. In his podcast interview, he makes this extremely clear. He sees more significance I think in Princeton University's jettisoning of Woodrow Wilson's name from everything Princeton than he does in the political events of the past twelve years between Democrats and Republicans. He is interested in the apparent overthrowing of Reason capital "R" by Power capital "P." This is the real End of Liberalism (apologies to Lowi).
Practice what you preach, how about you do the same when anybody ask you to explain why you posted something. What would you do as a teacher if a student consistently emailed you things claiming that they were relevant to the topic you discussed but they were not and then refused to tell you why they thought it was relevant to the topic? This is the 1st time you have actually tried to zero in on an argument and it has little to do with what RJ is actually talking about.
You are certainly complicit with it. So yeah, in some ways, it is true, you vote for Trump you are a racist... DD
Lol. None of which you are able to add one iota of truth to otherwise you would have done so. Quit telling falsehoods.
I don't know what subject you teach but I think you have very different idea of what we are doing here. I'm not here to give a book report on Hazony or defend him. I haven't heard the podcast but I read the whole article. What he write isn't a philosophical rumination but it is a polemic. I am here having a debate regarding that polemic and not a book club or a Rabbi Hazony Society. What you seem to be asking for is a meta-textual understanding. You seem to be asking for, "ignore the parts that aren't helpful to what I think it means" That's fine for an opinion but that isn't a basis for really a debate or even a discussion. You presented a text and I'm referencing that text to argue against polemic presented in that text. Why you feel we're not making progress is that you're asking me to take on Hazony on the terms you seem him rather than the terms in the the text he actually wrote. In other words we should just engage in a meta textual debate. We could but then that is no basis for progress. Hazony is writing a polemic. As such how he constructs the polemic in text matters. That is your opinion of Birtherism but to quote George Berkeley again "few men think but all have opinions." or maybe more fitting for Clutchfans "Opinions are like @ssholes, everyone's got one." That you didn't take Birtherism seriously doesn't mean that there weren't a lot of others who did. Donald Trump's vault to political prominence largely came because of Birtherism. That response was to what you brought up in defense of Hazony. You wrote: I will agree Hazony didn't bring that up but you did. If you're now saying it's not relevant why did you bring it up? Cont.
Cont. Yes he hammers that argument home. In fact the title "The Challenge of Marxism" pretty much tells you what to expect. Now in regard to the argument that Hazony makes my counter argument is it itself is an oversimplification and frankly somewhat lazy characterization of what he sees as a threat to liberalism (in the tradition sense). As he says himself the label poorly fits yet he keeps on using it. The way he uses it almost seems like a variation of Godwin's Law, lets just call the group(s) I disagree with Nazis. Now he does bring up some good points that in attempting to reconcile Liberalism with reason could lead to Marxism as an ahistorical movement that is focused on materialist rationality that is certainly a possibility. The problem though is claiming that Marxism and Liberalism are in opposition. Marxism by the definition he uses is really a subset of Liberalism. His argument focuses a lot on Engels but ignores some of the Enlightenment basis for Liberalism. He paints an inevitability of Marx yet doesn't consider Locke and Rousseau regarding issues of rights and social contracts as a check. Instead he boils it down to that revolution based upon the idea of increasing equality is Marxist. What he calls "Liberalism" he says is tempered by what he calls "traditional concepts" Hazony writes: That ignores though that under the liberal views of Locke and others it's not traditional concepts but what were at the time very radical and revolutionary concepts that balanced the role of individual with state and private property. Further his very loose definition of Marxism regarding that it is just about class structure and struggle could apply back to himself. He's clearly stating he's part of a class struggle where there are clear oppressors and the oppressed. He writes "Liberals will have to choose between two alternatives: either they will submit to the Marxists, and help them bring democracy in America to an end. Or they will assemble a pro-democracy alliance with conservatives. There aren’t any other choices." In other words by his own definition of Marxists as people clumping together into a class struggle to overthrow an oppressor and not addressing what specific classes, he is a Marxist. Again he himself says. He's the one who brought up Trump and specifically ties Trump's presidency as the battlefield that he sees this conflict fought out on. Now what you're saying is that we should ignore that as that isn't that important. Again what is the point of why Hazony wrote that specifically? If you want to get meta-textual it sounds to me like Hazony is a Trump supporter and recognizes that Trump and his movement is profoundly anti-intellectual so he is rationalizing his support for Trump as part of a greater intellectual struggle.
