International Populist Authoritarianism > Likes and Comments
For earlier comments on this subject, see posts 43-55, 60-75, 79-94, and 97-98 in the International Law and Politics topic. For specific discussions about the movement associated with Donald Trump, type his name in the search box on the upper right, and click "search."
A December 21, 2016 article on Politico entitled "Germany's Far Right Rises Again" provides information about another example of contemporary right-wing populism.
The recent book Strangers in Their Own Land Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Hochschild came out just in time to help explain our local far right excursion. Dr. Hochschild is an emeritus sociology professor from UC Berkeley who spent 5 years periodically stopping in to chat with tea party supporters in Louisiana. This link to her book has links to several reviews.
Randal wrote: "The recent book Strangers in Their Own Land Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Hochschild came out just in time to help explain our local far right excursion. Dr. Hochschild is an ..."This is exactly what we need—a kind of anthropological study (I speak only partly tongue-in-cheek) for those of us who don't understand "Red America." I've now put it on my "To Read" list. I recently saw an interview with J. D. Vance, the author of a similar book entitled Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis . Vance's main credential is that he grew up in Appalachia and knows whereof he speaks.
An article in today's New York Times explores how the bases of both the Democratic and Republican parties have changed from their earlier iterations. From this perspective, the triumph of Trump in the recent election is no accident. This article reminds me of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal: What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2016), which I read a few months ago.
By the way, I have always thought ironic that the Republicans adopted red as their official color. When I grew up, "red" meant "Communist." Somehow I missed the transition of the color red from Communist to Republican. Does anyone know how that happened?
Alan wrote: when I grew up, "red" meant "Communist." Somehow I missed the transition of the color red from Communist to Republican. Does anyone know how that happened? Yes, in the UK and other countries, red tends to denote the left leaning party. I believe republicans have used different colours in the past but now use red as it begins with the same letter as republican - R!
Sunil wrote: "Yes, in the UK and other countries, red tends to denote the left leaning party. I believe republicans have used different colours in the past but now use red as it begins with the same letter as republican - R!"Or perhaps the entire Republican Party is a "false flag" operation secretly controlled by Communists and for which the only clue is the color they adopted. See the old film The Manchurian Candidate. I do find it astonishing that, after decades of being identified with anti-Communism, the Republicans had such historical amnesia that they adopted the very color of their purported ideological enemies.
strategic confusing of the symbolism, the syntax, and the facts
The preliminary results of today's first-round presidential election in France are discussed here. Emmanuel Macron, a centrist, and Marine Le Pen, the French Trump, will square off in the May 7 runoff election. We shall see whether France follows Britain and the United States in succumbing to nationalistic conservative populism. If it does, the EU is, for all practical purposes, finished.In making the foregoing commonplace observations, I am not saying that Trump, Le Pen, and the Brexiters are entirely wrong. It may be that the EU has gone further than what is possible or desirable in chipping away at national sovereignty in Europe. It is also doubtless the case that corporate elites designed such international trade agreements as NAFTA , TPP, and TIPP for their own profits regardless of the effects on large quantities of workers, the environment, national sovereignty, and so on. For example, the legal power of corporations to sue sovereign governments under such agreements is breathtakingly radical. But is the "cure" worse than the disease? Stay tuned.
This New York Times article contains a good summary of the current state of international conservative populism. Much will depend, of course, on the May 7, 2017 runoff election in France and the September 24, 2017 German elections.
As you know, nearly every weekend I get another earful of this kind of stuff. On this occasion, this website was recommended to me as an 'authoritative source for statistics on immigration'www.numbersusa.com
Sigh. Really? When its founder receives funding from eugenics / Hitlerian hate-groups?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nu...
Alan wrote: "We shall see whether France follows Britain and the United States in succumbing to nationalistic conservative populism...."I had heard this had been going on for a while. Triggered by foreign immigration, is what I heard. Influxes of Arabs and Africans into France, Germany, Scandinavia...all this was said (last time I checked) to invoke conservative governments into power.
Same old story.
I don't follow these issues closely, so I feel at a loss to make any astute comment here in this thread. I take a selfish, dismissive, rock-bottom attitude.
Here it is: of all the issues in the world today, immigration is the most perplexing for the bizarre proportion of difficulties it presents--in comparison to its circumstances.
If immigration poses so many problems, I say, just cut it off. Why let it disrupt the society? Let would-be immigrants stay where they are and work hard at making their own homelands stable and successful, instead of causing a problem for established nations (which already have enough problems of their own).
A handful of modern nations are not responsible for housing, feeding, and caring for the rest of the planet's population.
And obviously--at the same time--let the first world stop making economic policies which makes life so much harder for residents of the third world. That might help stop this bizarre, "reverse-colonialism".
Feliks wrote: "I don't follow these issues closely, so I feel at a loss to make any astute comment here in this thread. I take a selfish, dismissive, rock-bottom attitude."Here it is: of all the issues in the world today, immigration is the most perplexing for the bizarre proportion of difficulties it presents--in comparison to its circumstances.
"If immigration poses so many problems, I say, just cut it off. Why let it disrupt the society? Let would-be immigrants stay where they are and work hard at making their own homelands stable and successful, instead of causing a problem for established nations (which already have enough problems of their own)."
Feliks, if you had been reading or watching the news the last few years, you would realize that most immigrants have been leaving their home countries because they are being killed, raped, persecuted, etc. by tyrannical governments or nongovernmental actors over which they have no control. If they stay where they are, they will be dead. The vast majority of them would prefer to stay where they are, but this is not an option when they are being terrorized. For example, when Assad of Syria uses chemical weapons against his own people, how can they "work hard at making their own homelands stable and successful," as you put it? Additionally, Assad, with the help of Russia, has been bombing civilian populations, especially targeting hospitals, for years. Switch the persecutor, and you have the same problem, e.g., the genocide being committed against the Rohinga in Myanmar (Burma). There are many, many other examples, but I don’t have time to detail them right now.
This brings me to a more general issue. I have noticed, for several decades, that many intellectuals have, in Leo Strauss's words, "a peculiar estrangement from the life and death questions" (quoting from memory, which may be inexact, and I don't recall where he wrote it). Although I do not wish to make this forum a locus of screaming partisans on hot-button issues of the day (for which there are plenty of other opportunities on the internet), I am unable to divorce the ethical and political problems faced by human beings in our time and in other times from the pursuit of knowledge. Plato, one of the greatest philosophers, also could not ignore such issues. This is why the present Goodreads group is called "Political Philosophy and Ethics." To mix metaphors, I don't like to waste time speculating about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin when Rome is burning. And Rome has been burning for most of my long lifetime in one way or another.
I was hooked on the study of political philosophy the first time I read, more than fifty years ago, the first paragraph of Leo Strauss's The City and Man:
"It is not self-forgetting and pain-loving antiquarianism nor self-forgetting and intoxicating romanticism which induces us to turn with passionate interest, with unqualified willingness to learn, toward the political thought of classical antiquity. We are impelled to do so by the crisis of our time, the crisis of the West." The City and Man (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964), 1.
Although I have learned (and continue to learn) a great deal from Strauss, I am probably not a "Straussian" (whatever that is): I disagree with some of what Strauss wrote, if I understand it correctly. But Strauss often asked the right questions, regardless of whether one agrees with his apparent answers or, more remotely, the answers of some of his followers during the last many decades.
Alan wrote: "By the way, I have always thought ironic that the Republicans adopted red as their official color. When I grew up, "red" meant "Communist." Somehow I missed the transition of the color red from Communist to Republican. Does anyone know how that happened? ."Alan, I wish I could provide some sources for this knowledge, but it is not entirely a coincidence that Republican states are now 'red.'
I believe it was in 1992 that all the networks started posting electoral college maps on election night. They wanted clearly visible primary colors, and when it came down to red and blue, they made a conscious decision not to 'red-bait' the Dems by making them red and Republicans blue.
(actually, looking it up, the 'tradition' goes back only to 2000)
https://www.baruch.cuny.edu/library/a...
PS- the article I linked to links to an interesting NYT article on the origins of "red state blue state":'It's beginning to look like a suburban swimming pool,'' the television anchor David Brinkley noted on election night 1980, as hundreds of Republican-blue light bulbs illuminated NBC's studio map, signaling a landslide victory for Ronald Regan over the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. Other staffers, Time magazine wrote, called it ''Lake Reagan.''
Mr. Carter's bulbs were red.
Five years later, in her book ''My Story,'' Geraldine A. Ferraro recalled watching her 1984 vice presidential bid founder on the television screen. Mr. Reagan's victory this time around was rendered in both flavors. ''One network map of the United States was entirely blue for the Republicans,'' she wrote. ''On another network, the color motif was a blanket of red.''
By the 1990's, the color scheme was becoming a bit more formalized -- at least on network and cable television. But other news outlets continued to vary.
Time magazine had favored Democratic red and Republican white in the 1976 election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, then reversed those colors for Reagan and Carter in 1980. By 1988, the magazine was using Republican blue and Democratic red, and it stayed with that motif even through the 2000 election, which has colorized the nation's political language in precisely the opposite way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/wee...
Christopher wrote: "PS- the article I linked to links to an interesting NYT article on the origins of "red state blue state":'It's beginning to look like a suburban swimming pool,'' the television anchor David Brink..."
Thanks for the info, Christopher. It looks like the big, bad, liberal Mainstream Media (haha) came up with this color scheme. But the Republicans swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. And to think it was not all that long ago when Republicans were saying, "Better Dead Than Red," and peacenik left-wingers were saying, "Better Red Than Dead." Having lived through the entirety of the Cold War, from beginning to end, I remember it well. Perhaps this is an example of Republican historical amnesia. On the other hand, I have always thought that the Republicans preferred red because their women (from Nancy Reagan on down) were/are(?) wont to wear red dresses. The "Devil in a Blue Dress" would, of course, be the Democrats. (For the information of those group members who are not familiar with twentieth-century American pop culture, "Devil in a Blue Dress" was a popular American song, totally without political implications, some time ago.)
I think this is more a case of "Only Nixon could go to China."Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVbr3...
But I thought of
Thanks for the links. I see the song goes back to 1966; it was a favorite of my son, about twenty years later, when he was about ten years old (he is now over 40). I didn't know about the book.
Alan wrote: "Feliks wrote: "I don't follow these issues closely, so I feel at a loss to make any astute comment here in this thread. I take a selfish, dismissive, rock-bottom attitude."Here it is: of all the ..."
Alan, while you and I may differ vociferously in matters of methodological approach - you're a political theorist who trained under Strauss, and I trained in moral and political philosophy in the analytical tradition - I think that, when it comes down to brass tacks, you and I have probably a great deal on a practical, policy level. You're a compassionate, humane individual who's attuned to the realities of the world, and you're not one of the Straussian NeoCons.
Are you familiar with the Rawlsian theory of overlapping consensus? Different, more comprehensive worldviews can converge on practical agreement, and we ought to welcome this. These views can be academic/intellectual approaches, metaphyiscal/religious approaches, but if they converge on a reasonable consensus, then great, let them all be and flower!
Thank you, Mark, for your comment. I must admit that I am not knowledgeable about analytic philosophy. Every time I try to read something in that tradition, I become mystified. It's like calculus to me. (As you can probably guess, I didn't get very far in higher mathematics either.) And at my age (past seventy), considering the hundreds of "must read" books on my list of yet unread books, it is unlikely that I will ever obtain much competence in that field.Although I have not yet read Rawls, I own two of his books and intend to read him sometime in the not-too-distant future.
This group does not require philosophical or intellectual conformity. People of all different perspectives are welcome, as long as they communicate in a rational manner and do not advocate violence.
As I've indicated, I don't know whether I fit the definition of a "Straussian," whatever that is. I do know that I much prefer to read Strauss's writings as distinguished from those of his many followers, though the translations of the latter are often excellent. I certainly do not fall within either the neoconservative or conservative political camps, whether Straussian or not. See my comments at posts 1 and 2 of the Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and the Straussians topic of this group.
Alan, while I'm not generally sympathetic to Straussian work, I was always a cross-disciplinary person who was interested in the work of many political scientists/theorists - to name a few, Judith Shklar, Russell Hardin, Jon Elster, Ian Shapiro, Michael Walzer, Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson; Michael Sandel is a philosopher who works as a political scientist, and Jerry Gaus is a political scientist working as a philosopher. I just found that philosophy departments were more congenial to the way I wanted to study and learn.
Mark wrote: "Alan, while I'm not generally sympathetic to Straussian work, I was always a cross-disciplinary person who was interested in the work of many political scientists/theorists - to name a few, Judith ..."I have heard of some of those names but have not read them. I do hope to read at least Walzer at some point. My interactions with both political science and philosophy departments were mixed. One of the reasons I decided against an academic career was that I couldn't imagine myself fitting in comfortably with either type of department, or with a history department, which would have been the alternative. I am perhaps too independent and stubborn a thinker to fit into any academic compartment. I now have the ideal situation--retired from employment as a lawyer (which gave me a thorough grounding in constitutional and general law as well as real-life experience) and now having time to follow my philosophical muse wherever it might lead (which usually is not too far removed from human life on the ground).
I don't know if this book has come up in discussion before:The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies
Maybe it is the flip side of the coin. The tendency of 'liberal elites' to become totalitarian and anti-democratic.
I have only started to read it. I believe the English translation is also an abridgment.
Christopher wrote: "I don't know if this book has come up in discussion before:The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies
Maybe it is the flip side of the coin. The tendency ..."
Let us know what you think of it. The book description reminds me of the countless books, from Ayn Rand on down, of people from Communist societies who equate progressive/liberal political views with Communism. There was a time when Communists taking orders from Stalin tried to infiltrate American political parities and institutions--Hubert Humphrey kicked them out of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor (DFL) party after World War II--but those days are long gone. Today, the danger is from an entirely opposite quarter: would-be authoritarians like Trump flirting with right-wing nationalist authoritarians like Putin, Erdogan, and Duterte. And it is the Erastian nationalist Putin, not some Communist bogeyman, who is using subversive methods to influence American and European elections in favor of quasi-fascist leaders.
It strikes me that such people as the author are tilting at imaginary windmills and nonexistent straw people. I have never met or heard of any American supporting absolute economic equality, including but not limited to the likes of Bernie Sanders. That is a straw person cooked up by the American right.
Alan wrote: "Mark wrote: "Alan, while I'm not generally sympathetic to Straussian work, I was always a cross-disciplinary person who was interested in the work of many political scientists/theorists - to name a..."I found it hard to see myself doing anything other than academia, until my body fell apart during grad school - 5 major surgeries in less than 4 years, one of them with a complication of MRSA infection. It was a nightmare. I realize now that academia would've likely required a number of difficult compromises, like living in places that would've been difficult for me, as I don't drive. My work as a technical writer isn't particularly exciting, but I get to live in the DC area.
Mark wrote: "Alan wrote: "Mark wrote: "Alan, while I'm not generally sympathetic to Straussian work, I was always a cross-disciplinary person who was interested in the work of many political scientists/theorist..."Sorry to hear about your medical challenges. It happens that I have a few of my own, which is not unexpected at my age. I am scheduled to have what I hope will be my last medical procedure on a recurring problem late next week. I may be incommunicado for a few days during that period. All signs look good. In the event of my untimely demise or incapacitation, my wife, Mimi, will communicate relevant information on this site.
My advice to those (the vast majority of us) who were not born with silver spoons in our mouths: start planning as early on as possible for retirement, putting money in appropriate savings vehicles to the extent possible. I could have retired perhaps ten years earlier if I had played my cards right. This advice may not apply, however, to those who thoroughly enjoy their careers and have no wish to retire from them. Rather, it is for those whose main interests lie outside of their employment situations. Only in retirement have I been able to do what I have always wanted to do.
Mishe berach, Alan.There's a decent chance I'm looking at surgery for a torn meniscus in my left knee.
Mark wrote: "Mishe berach, Alan.There's a decent chance I'm looking at surgery for a torn meniscus in my left knee."
I had to look that one up. Thank you.
Your injury sounds painful. I hope your medical professionals can resolve it soon.
Whenever I visit a medical facility, I'm impressed by the rationality of medical technology and practice. However, I then learn something like what occurred this morning. The online automated system for my facility inexplicably canceled my procedure. I called the applicable nurse to find out what had happened. She responded that it was a mistake, attributable to the fact that the "charge nurse" was "high strung." She corrected it about an hour later. I have realized from this and similar experiences that people are people. All employment situations seem to have these types of issues. Well, I'm getting way off topic here, unless this is somehow related to ethics. It's time for me to get back to writing my Electoral College book.
Alan wrote: " This New York Times article contains a good summary of the current state of international conservative populism. Much will depend, of course, on the May 7, 2017 runoff election in France and the S..."Sigh. You can almost always guarantee that far right nationalist groups will murder common sense language. What pray tell is a "pro-social" party. It sounds like a thing, and it even sounds like a possibly good thing, yet it means no-thing.
Are there anti-social parties as such? I mean sure we might designate fascists or communists as such but to their own followers they were pro-social for them.
With regards to the bugbear of immigration that annoys right wing groups so much, I just don't get it. We are ALL immigrants. Not even native american indians or Australian indigenese came from there respective homelands.
Ethnocentrism is so historically blind it's a form of brute ignorance.
For pities sake most of us have traces of Neanderthal DNA because having followed uncle Ne-Andy out of Africa as immigrants we interbred with them before pushing them to the side and taking over. I bet the last Neanderthal survivors are currently sitting in a cave somewhere talking about the "bloody immigrants, taking all our deer and our women!"
On the analytic tradition Alan, I too found the analytic tradition a bit like an acrostic with no clues when I first transitioned across from the continental tradition but like all movements if you keep reading general themes start to appear and you eventually get the hang of the recondite language.
Good teachers help, I'm not sure I could have done it without my uni lecturers as I did with the continental tradition where I taught myself at home. Coming across P=P IFF P=P doesn't lend itself to resolution by simply reading it over again as issues in the continental tradition might.
Gerard wrote: "Alan wrote: " This New York Times article contains a good summary of the current state of international conservative populism. Much will depend, of course, on the May 7, 2017 runoff election in Fra..."Good points regarding immigration.
Regarding analytic philosophy, I doubt that I will ever find time, in the relatively few years remaining to me, to master it. Too many other reading priorities!
Gerard wrote: "I bet the last Neanderthal survivors are currently sitting in a cave somewhere talking about the "bloody immigrants, taking all our deer and our women!..."Actually, they are sitting in the White House in Washington, D.C.
And their intellectual mentors are ascendant, as a result. There is a good article on the rise of the Claremont Institute apologists for Der PumpkinFuhrer in the latest edition of the New York Review of Books. Most articles from the NYRB are behind the paywall, but this one is free.
Cheers,
Randal
Randal wrote: "There is a good article on the rise of the Claremont Institute apologists for Der PumpkinFuhrer in the latest edition of the New York Review of Books. Most articles from the NYRB are behind the paywall, but this one is free."Thank you, Randal, for drawing our attention to this article.
I became aware sometime last year that the "West Coast Straussians" were supporting Trump. This was, and is, inexplicable to me. Trump is the exact antithesis of Plato's ideal political leader (see, for example, Plato's Republic and Seventh Letter). Such American Founders as George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Wilson, and John Jay, as well as Abraham Lincoln, would have considered Trump to be nothing but an evil demagogue, designed to destroy the American experiment. How the West Coast Straussians could have come to a different conclusion shows the corruption that inevitably sets in with the epigones of a great thinker. Leo Strauss himself would very probably have equated Trump more with Hitler than with Churchill. Strauss certainly would never have supported Trump.
My following statement yesterday in a comment in another topic (post 21) is on point:
"As I've indicated, I don't know whether I fit the definition of a 'Straussian,' whatever that is. I do know that I much prefer to read Strauss's writings as distinguished from those of his many followers, though the translations of the latter are often excellent. I certainly do not fall within either the neoconservative or conservative political camps, whether Straussian or not. See my comments at posts 1 and 2 of the Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and the Straussians topic of this group." As explained in my second comment in that thread, Paul Wolfowitz was not—contrary to popular belief—a Straussian, nor did he claim to be. My concluding statement in that post is also apt:
"I separate Strauss himself from his many professed followers. What is important regarding Strauss is his contribution to the history of political philosophy. He was concerned with overall philosophical and historical developments, not with the day-to-day minutiae of political conflict. His memory is best honored by what he deemed most important—the study of the wisest philosophers of the past. As he once wrote, life is too short to read any but the greatest books. Although I do not always literally follow this dictum, there is wisdom in it."
My last graduate course at the University of Chicago was in the spring of 1970. Since that time I have had little contact with the Straussians, though I did occasionally correspond with Professor Joseph Cropsey over the decades. As the NYRB article indicates, the battles among the Straussian factions emerged after Strauss's death in 1973. I was not aware of them when I was at Chicago or, indeed, for many years thereafter. Additionally, I never met, let alone took a course from, Allan Bloom. His tenure at Chicago predated and postdated my presence there.
Alan wrote: "It strikes me that such people as the author are tilting at imaginary windmills and nonexistent straw people...."
Alan, I would guess items like this don't come your way much:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/...
eta: Headline: Movie director flirts with the idea of a military coup ‘to defend democracy here at home’ from the GOP
(Admittedly 'authoritarian,' not 'totalitarian,' in this case.)
Christopher wrote: "Alan wrote: "It strikes me that such people as the author are tilting at imaginary windmills and nonexistent straw people...."
Alan, I would guess items like this don't come your way much:
http..."
Let's see. We are to take an off-the-cuff tweet by an English filmmaker, the son of David Bowie, as representative of the American progressive movement. Then we can attack it from the right.
This is nuts: these right-wing people have it exactly backwards. Show me a credible American progressive leader with the view expressed by Duncan Jones, and I will reconsider.
As you well know, serious political discourse is not conducted on Twitter, the current US president to the contrary notwithstanding. In fact, Bernie Sanders, who is a recognized American progressive leader, has written:
"And let me make the radical statement that I don’t believe that you can say something profound in the 140 characters that make up a tweet."
Bernie Sanders, Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2016), 98.
That goes for Duncan Jones, as well as for the president.
The Right has abandoned logic, reason, critical thinking, and evidence and has instead adopted the postmodernist Left's view that all truth is relative. Thus, we have the present administration basing major policy decisions on "alternative facts" that they make up on a daily, sometimes an hourly, basis. Somewhere George Orwell is turning over in his grave.
Alan wrote: "The Right has abandoned logic, reason, critical thinking , and evidence and has instead adopted the postmodernist Left's view that all truth is relative. ..."You make some good points, Alan. I will keep an eye out for examples "closer to the bone."
Getting back to The Demon in Democracy, based on what I've read so far, I think I may side with the reviewers who sympathize with the case he's trying to make, while underwhelmed by the style of the book itself.
Alan wrote: "The Right has abandoned logic, reason, critical thinking , and evidence and has instead adopted the postmodernist Left's view that all truth is relative. ..."On the subject of relative truths (or the relativity of subjective truths), I just today came across this passage in Headlong Hall, from c. 1818. I think the author (Thomas Love Peacock) is putting a view in the mouth of a character (Mr. Jenkinson) which he himself is satirizing, but it is obviously much older than postmodernism:
... Do we not every day see men supporting the most enormous evils, which they know to be so with respect to others, and which in reality are so with respect to themselves, though an erroneous view of their own miserable self-interest induces them to think otherwise?
Mr Jenkison. Good and evil exist only as they are perceived. I cannot therefore understand, how that which a man perceives to be good can be in reality an evil to him: indeed, the word reality only signifies strong belief.
Mr Escot. The views of such a man I contend are false. If he could be made to see the truth——
Mr Jenkison. He sees his own truth. Truth is that which a man troweth. Where there is no man there is no truth. Thus the truth of one is not the truth of another.
Mr Foster. I am aware of the etymology; but I contend that there is an universal and immutable truth, deducible from the nature of things.
Mr Jenkison. By whom deducible? Philosophers have investigated the nature of things for centuries, yet no two of them will agree in trowing the same conclusion.
Mr Foster. The progress of philosophical investigation, and the rapidly increasing accuracy of human knowledge, approximate by degrees the diversities of opinion; so that, in process of time, moral science will be susceptible of mathematical demonstration; and, clear and indisputable principles being universally recognised, the coincidence of deduction will necessarily follow.
Christopher wrote: "On the subject of relative truths (or the relativity of subjective truths), I just today came across this passage in Headlong Hall, from c. 1818. I think the author (Thomas Love Peacock) is putting a view in the mouth of a character (Mr. Jenkinson) which he himself is satirizing, but it is obviously much older than postmodernism:"Interesting. Relativism and positivism (last paragraph) all in one passage, proving once again that there is nothing new under the sun. But relativism, at least, goes back to the ancients. See, for example, Plato's Theaetetus (discussion of Protagoras).
Christopher, what is the basis for your statement that "the right has abandoned.....? Trump's tweets? I don't think Trump represents the intellectual right. I don't think you know what the Right is thinking. I would posit that the left is no better, so my view is an indictment of both is appropriate. How else would you explain Jerry Brown signing a bill that removes transmission of AIDs without telling a partner from felony status on the grounds that transmission of other diseases are not felonies. Another example is the sanctuary cities issue.
Michael wrote: "Christopher, what is the basis for your statement that "the right has abandoned.....? Trump's tweets? I don't think Trump represents the intellectual right. I don't think you know what the Right is..."Michael, I was quoting Alan.
The thread is about populist conservatism, and I was trying to flip that over to liberal elitism.. two sides of one coin.
As one link above pointed out, the right, or American conservatives are divided right now, because, as you say, Trump doesn't really represent them.
OTOH, neither do congressional Republicans.
Michael,I don't know if Alan will appreciate me hijacking this thread (or even this forum) for discussing Republican party politics, but my head is bursting on this subject.
Alabama was a bit of a microcosm of the issue. Remember, it was a three-way split, not a two-way split, for the nomination. Luther Strange, Roy Moore, and Mo Brooks, and Mitch McConnell thought torpedoing Mo Brooks took priority over 'the threat' of Roy Moore. Essentially the same thing happened in 2016 nationally. When the GOP establishment saw (if they saw) that the only way to stop Trump was to side with Cruz, they passed. Cruz was a bigger threat to their 'way of life' than either Trump or Clinton.
Now, the popularity of 'principled conservatism' over 'conservative populism' is another factor.. maybe small government is not very popular.
This is a subject about which I could go on at length, only my thoughts would way outrace my ability to express them.
Michael wrote: "Christopher, what is the basis for your statement that "the right has abandoned.....? Trump's tweets? I don't think Trump represents the intellectual right. I don't think you know what the Right is thinking."As Christopher observed, he was quoting me.
I said in the last paragraph of post 35, above:
"The Right has abandoned logic, reason, critical thinking, and evidence and has instead adopted the postmodernist Left's view that all truth is relative. Thus, we have the present administration basing major policy decisions on 'alternative facts' that they make up on a daily, sometimes an hourly, basis. Somewhere George Orwell is turning over in his grave."
By "the Right" here, I was referring to the popular political and media Right, not to all members of the intellectual Right, some of whom are famously "NeverTrumpers." Much of the Republican base is still solidly behind Trump and all his works and ways. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am able to carry on intelligent and reasonable conversations and other communications with at least some members of the intellectual Right; not so, those who have, in my words, "abandoned logic, reason, critical thinking, and evidence and ha[ve] instead adopted the postmodernist Left's view that all truth is relative." I have similar issues with the postmodernist Left.
I am a new member and I'd love to have comments on the following:The current move by the political right to focus on national vs global political concerns strikes me as overly binary, i.e. one or the other.
Serious global issues result from advances of science and technologies are emerging.
Implications of scientific breakthroughs in the recent decades are not fully understood or managed.
Consider these:
The atom: nuclear proliferation, energy production
Rocketry: space travel, weapon delivery
The Byte: electronic computing, AI, social networks bypassing the free press, cyber war, etc.
The Gene: virus created weapons, genetic engineering, rebirth of eugenics, approval of genetic medical procedures.
Climate change and waste created by humans
Reactionary clashes of civilizations in this era of weakening belief of creationism.
Other topics can easily be added!
My point is that the current politics of Brexit and MAGA result in local political focus when focus on these powerful and perilous global issues go wanting!
Again, I'm interested in comments from those who support a local focus in politics.
It seems this book is forgetten today (the curse of timeliness), but it was a sound discussion of the mid-90s campus controversy over 'speech codes,"Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism & the Battle for America's Future
Basically, the attempt to suppress speech on campus simply because it was politically incorrect was struck down by the courts, for any institution which took federal funds.
The loophole was for physically threatening speech, and that loophole is the reason every attempt to suppress 'unacceptable' speech on campus (and elsewhere) is couched in terms of physical symptoms. "literally shaking" is a joke now, but basically the only way to justify 'speech codes' now is to act as though one is physically threatened by speech.
We live in decadent times, indeed, when speech is considered violence, and violence (by antifa, etc.) is 'protected speech.'
The fact that "social justice warrioring," anti-Christian as it is, is almost pure, unaltered puritanism isn't even 'ironic,' just slightly underappreciated.
Christopher wrote: "It seems this book is forgetten today (the curse of timeliness), but it was a sound discussion of the mid-90s campus controversy over 'speech codes,"[book:Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism..."
Along this line, you might be interested in reading Teresa Bejan's Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017). Disclosure: she cites my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (Pittsburgh, PA: Philosophia, 2015).
This is a philosophical and historical work, considerably above the level of contemporary partisan bickering over these issues.
Cary wrote: "I am a new member and I'd love to have comments on the following:The current move by the political right to focus on national vs global political concerns strikes me as overly binary, i.e. one or..."
Welcome to the group Carey. Since you are "interested in comments from those who support a local focus in politics," I won't comment on your post except to say that I basically agree with you, though some "local focus" (whether unemployment caused by outsourcing or resistance to Trumpian federal ukases) is appropriate. Some federalism does, it turns out, accommodate progressives as well as conservatives.
Alan wrote: "Christopher wrote: "It seems this book is forgetten today (the curse of timeliness), but it was a sound discussion of the mid-90s campus controversy over 'speech codes,"."
Thanks, Allen. I will put it on my wish list. The Kindle version is on the expensive side.
I don't know much about Roger Williams, except to the extent he is mentioned in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, but I do think our partisan bickering has roots in the Whig and Tory "pamphlet wars" (actually, the pamphlet wars preceded Whig and Tory)-and the best writers in those days were very good controversialists indeed.
"Ironic" parodies of opponents, and general sarcasm, abounded.
I am thinking of Defoe's "The Shortest Way with Dissenters," or Sir Roger L'estrange:
Citt and Bumpkin
Reading them is seeing ourselves in "a distant mirror."
I am also making my way through The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution with similar feelings of recognition of our own breakdowns along partisan lines.
Christopher wrote: "Thanks, Allen. I will put it on my wish list. The Kindle version is on the expensive side.I don't know much about Roger Williams, except to the extent he is mentioned in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, but I do think our partisan bickering has roots in the Whig and Tory "pamphlet wars" (actually, the pamphlet wars preceded Whig and Tory)-and the best writers in those days were very good controversialists indeed."
Both Bejan and I discuss (from different albeit not incompatible perspectives), the seventeenth-century English pamphlet wars, which were extremely vitriolic. See also the Federalist vs. Jeffersonian Republican newspaper wars of the 1790s, which make our current verbal contests seem tame by comparison. I am currently reading (as background for Chapter 3 of my forthcoming book on the Electoral College) Terri Diane Halperin's The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 2016). Under their recently enacted Sedition Act, the Federalists prosecuted and imprisoned Jeffersonian newspaper publishers and others in 1798, 1799, and 1800. Fortunately, the US no longer has the crime of seditious libel, though it does exist in some other countries admired by our current presidential administration.
Academic publishers charge high prices for their books, including their Kindle books. The university presses at Cambridge and Oxford probably have the highest prices, though Harvard and several others are right up there. I believe the logic is that they can sell those books at such prices to university and college libraries, the public be damned. But don't get me started on publishing issues. The Kindle editions of my books are $9.99.
Alan wrote: " See also the Federalist vs. Jeffersonian Republican newspaper wars of the 1790s, which make our current verbal contests seem tame by comparison. I am currently reading (as background for Chapter 3 of my forthcoming book on the Electoral College) Terri Diane Halperin's The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 2016). .."Oh, yes. Peter Porcupine is very good reading.
(William Cobbett as a pro-Federalist)
As I understand it, Cobbett was driven out of his American journalistic career by going to far in his attacks on Benjamin Rush, which I think was before the Alien and Sedition Act controversy.
Delving into that stuff can make your head spin, what with Fenno and Freneau- that National Journal vs. the National Gazette.
I doubt if many of them had Cobbett's genius, though.
I begin with citing an article entitled "In Poland, a Window on What Happens When Populists Come to Power," which can be accessed at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/.... Poland may be a template for the actions of the forthcoming Trump administration in the United States.
Later Notes: I have revised the title of this topic from "International Conservative Populism" to "International Populist Authoritarianism" to allow for discussions of left-wing as well as right-wing populism.
See also the Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, Rule of Law topic.