I think a core problem with the left/Dems is discomfort with the idea of a person as a spiritual being with innate dignity. We define the person as an instrument of production or as an object encrusted with oppression. It's a rejection of the Enlightenment project.
The disinterest in power or governing is pathological, a result of refusing to see the problem of politics as mediating conflict among free individuals without excessive intrusion into their sphere of liberty, which has a spiritual root.
Economic equality on the progressive side isn't about liberating the person to be free and it's not about guaranteeing political equality, which is actually the root American tradition of egalitarianism. It's about creating not equality but sameness.
There's a romantic utopianism, whether it's that of 'technology and globalization' or 'global class struggle,' but it can never be achieved without more bureaucratic ordering because the bureaucratic ordering is the point. The goal is constant endless constant revolution.
I got an email today with a line that really struck me. "Where leaders embrace rationales for learned helplessness, and punish those who think better things are possible."
The lack of curiosity is the point. It's not corruption, it's deeper.
All of the excuses, from money in politics to political betrayal, are the point. Better things aren't possible because politics as a means of self-government doesn't exist, cannot exist. We are defined by either production or oppression, not agency.
It's why most of the demands of the activist left are as amorphous as the pledge from the Biden administration to restore the soul of America. These are not political claims rooted in a view of a good society, they are not a political agenda, because politics cannot exist.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These narratives about family and hardship are designed to position extremely powerful people who enrich themselves via public office as victims. It's a bizarre affect. Working for Google and Goldman to help a poor family might be a necessary choice, but it doesn't make you good.
The revolving door is a tricky problem. I am not opposed to working in business and government. But Google and Goldman have been massive beneficiaries of government aid and being honest about that instead of whining about purity would go a long way.
No one is free of conflicts. Academia and nonprofits have extremely weird politics that can be brutal, and civil servants can be petty tyrants. The problem is systemic corruption for 40 years flowing through elite institutions that goes unrecognized.
Factional disputes among Dems are fake. This entire article is nonsense, there are no distinct ideological factions among Democrats and it’s time to stop pretending. nytimes.com/2020/12/01/us/…
Democrats play the game ‘rent-a-progressive’ or ‘pop-up progressive’ to validate whoever they want. Everyone plays along from Barbara Lee to Pod Save Bros. It’s all just irrelevant personality conflicts not ideological ones.
Progressives pushed to appoint Janet Yellen and Neera Tanden, apparently. This is almost certainly 100% false as it came from Biden-world or being a progressive just means being in Biden-world. I think it’s the latter.
What Dayen doesn’t understand is that the only possible candidate for the NEC job is Blackrock exec Brian Deese because he did some mediocre stuff for Obama ten years ago. No one else in the entire country is qualified.
What I find irritating about Brian Deese is how naive or greedy he is. Blackrock hired him purely because it’s a multi-trillion dollar Too Big to Fail monstrosity that needs political protection. It was the well-paid waiting house for ex-Obama officials. economicliberties.us/our-work/new-m…
To hear this line - Deese tried to push ‘from the inside’ - from @billmckibben is a straight up indictment of the whole lifestyle brand that McKibben has pretended to offer as environmentalism.
I'm sorry, but this @csternopher story is inaccurate. I like Gene a great deal, but he's a consumer rights guy not a foe of big tech. For example he pushed for DOJ to sue book publishers on behalf of Amazon, thus solidifying Amazon's market power in books. theinformation.com/articles/the-b…
There's a tendency to read 'Democrat X wants more antitrust enforcement and likes consumers therefore X is a reformer,' but that view reflects a misunderstanding of the debate. Consumer rights types often support concentrating power with the goal of getting conduct changes.
There is a potent debate about whether to orient antitrust around consumer welfare/efficiency or around the competitive process and small business. Kimmelman is a consumer welfare advocate which is why he doesn't seek to break up big tech.
1. An important new paper from @steelewheelz on big money managers: The New Money Trust: How Large Money Managers Control Our Economy and What We Can Do About It economicliberties.us/our-work/new-m…
2. "The solution is to go straight at the concentration problem by limiting their market share," Graham Steele, who wrote the American Economic Liberties Project paper, told CNN Business. cnn.com/2020/11/24/bus…
3. And separate platform and commerce by forcing BlackRock to split off its Aladdin tech platform. ft.com/content/524a1f…
Excellent review of Obama's book by @ryanlcooper. There's something however that I don't think progressives are willing to countenance. And that is Obama's Democratic Party simply may not include a faction that seeks to decentralize economic power. theweek.com/articles/95090…
Most of the critique from progressives of Democrats is that Dems aren't successful at winning elections or gaining political power, and that if they did what progressives sought, they would be. But aside from untrue, isn't that besides the point?
Obama's political legacy is a Democratic party with moderate upper class Bush Republican, Ivy League social liberals, and older black voters, financed by Wall Street/Silicon Valley. There are no progressives in there, or perhaps that's just where progressives are.