The article is short on specifics, but that's probably for the best. I tend to think of this project as one of mutual, suspicious recognition, where one ensemble of *mostly* acceptable policies encounters the other ensemble of mostly tolerable policies in legislative compromise.
Much of the progress in forming a liberal-socialist coalition on specific policy areas can come from socialists and liberals reaching the same reforms but formulating them in their own respective rhetoric. And possibly gaining greater appreciation for the resources of the other.
But yeah this should really be read in conjunction with my own case for rapprochement between liberals and socialists. liberalcurrents.com/at-the-sociali…
Some grafs grasping toward coalition.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, stream-of-conscious thread on liberalism, neoliberalism, politics, policy, and philosophy commencing here and going through the night. (There'll be long gaps and pauses) 🧵#NeoliberalShillBracket
Liberalism is values, practices, & institutions. Usual stuff: representative government, now w/ high suffrage democracy, tho that wasn't always the case. I think at this point liberalism requires democracy and without it—whatever may've been once true—it's not really liberalism.
Okay so rep. gov't and high suffrage democracy. Also markets; professional state bureaucracy, rule of law and a constitutional legal tradition; stable property rights and a welfare state. #NeoliberalShillBracket
If health and fitness, and professional development are middle-class striving, I guess I tend to see middle-class striving as a good thing, and something that doesn't *by necessity* have to be premised on exclusion and elitism.
The urge to better one's condition seems pretty valuable, alongside likely being a basic fact of human nature. Of course it occurs in a social context, which is riddled with various status hierarchies, many malign or toxic. We should fix the social context, not ditch aspiration.
Dreher is right about this. Gender & sexuality are both more fluid for more people than either conservative doctrine or the "born that way" school have supposed. Gender & sexuality are socially construed. *Of course* normalizing LGBTQ identities leads to more LGBTQ people.
It's remarkable that @roddreher thinks of himself as tolerant though. Characterizing a society with more LGBTQ people as "moral insanity", "Babylonian decadence", or the cause of "our dying civilization" is not tolerant. Maybe tolerance for him just means avoiding overt violence.
But it's neither tolerance nor pluralism to merely marginalize--look the other way *so long as* the queers keep hidden--but to drive a demonizing political backlash when LGBTQ folks have gained some cultural influence.
I think it's fair to be confused by all the definitions and vague boundaries of trans vs nonbinary vs genderfluid etc. The definitional overlap between trans and nonbinary arises precisely because we all want to avoid gender essentialism. 🧵
But to go from the regrettable-but-inevitable ambiguity of "transgender is an umbrella term" to "the medical establishment operates on kids to enforce gender conformity is a non-sequitur. It's also a conspiracy theory and basically a blood libel.
The image evoked here is a tomboy who gets gaslit by school counselors and activist doctors into believing she's really a boy and is then rushed into hormone therapy and surgery. This is just false.
Steady stream of these essays by "politically homeless" libertarians. This one by @ismurray. There is exactly one small-l liberal small-d democratic party and one antidemocratic white nationalist party in the US. I wish this choice weren't so difficult for libertarians. 🧵
The piece frets about regulating Big Tech, antitrust policy, and protectionism. Identity politics too, but I'll get to that. Look, I was a big @ewarren booster, but even I complain about her protectionism. But this is *inconsequential* compared to *preserving democracy*.
.@ismurray describes the basic political realignment and its global nature. This is basically correct, in my view.
Disappointing from @AmericanPurpose. There are no trans extremists. There are trans folks who want to live their lives. There is no "radical gender ideology" any more than there was ever a "homosexual agenda". It's a fabrication of the reactionary right to weaponize polarization.
The piece is full of lies and misrepresentation. For example, "trans women are women" does not mean trans women and cis women must be treated the same in all contexts and that's never been the claim. Not even all cis women are expected to be treated the same in all contexts!
We say trans women are women because absent some context where transness is specifically apposite, trans women are, well, women, and to insist on demarcating trans women as an intrinsically separate class is marginalizing. (Mutatis mutandis trans men.)