People hear "The Enlightenment" and the branding does the rest, but there's lots of interesting strains of right wing criticism of it along with left. Major evangelical theologians see it as a wrong turn. There are neo-classical thinkers who think we should go back to Aristotle.
One of the most influential evangelical works is "How Should We Then Live?" by Francis Schaeffer, who explicitly makes the case the Renaissance onward was a mistake that took us from religion and led to all sorts of secular and totalitarian evils. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Shoul….
Then there's thinkers like Leo Strauss and Alasdair MacIntyre who championed classical virtues and argued the Enlightenment successfully tore down traditional pillars of thought, but failed to provide a viable alternative. "After Virtue" is a great read whatever your politics.
All of this stuff is very compelling even if you disagree. And there's lots of criticism of the Enlightenment from the left too, all flavors of it. The idea there's some default Enlightenment rationality that only a kook would criticize isn't true; lots of ongoing disagreement.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've read about a million takes on "critical race theory" over the last few months and my one consistent takeaway that obsessing over a definition of "CRT" is largely useless and everyone should just argue over specific examples as much as possible nymag.com/intelligencer/…
This cuts in different directions on left and right. The main activist on the right is openly trying to make CRT a catch-call and political slogan for various things conservatives hate, not some actual rigorous definition. It's easy to dismiss it as bad faith demagoguery as such.
But because it's so easy to dismiss as propaganda, people on the left keep thinking any complaint that falls under its rubric can be safely ignored. But there really is lots of change happening now and they need to address specifics without getting bogged down in label fights.
Manchinometer a little greener today, per @GarrettHaake and @frankthorp: "My goodness, we're agreeing on childcare, we're agreeing on pre-K, we're agreeing on homecare...And we're working on climate very progressive, I think in a good way and we'll get something done I believe."
Manchin said he pointedly did not sign off on BBB framework because he had outstanding issues, but also emphasizing points of agreement. It's a little confusing, because if his concern about temporary programs is real then childcare/pre-k is a huge disagreement. But not clear yet
More on this: "Basically things that would run out in 10 years makes that a much more expensive piece of legislation than what we’re seeing it is right now. Maybe they’re thinking that it’ll just expire and nothing will be done or extended. I don’t know. We’re working through..."
. @MattBruenig digs into the D's current child care plan, which boosts wages for workers, but doesn't add benefits for higher income families for the first 3 years. The danger is a huge short-term spike in child care prices for people who don't get aid. peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/10/20/dem…
A spox for HELP cmte responds to Bruenig: "The requirement to ensure workers are paid a living wage has a three-year phase in, similar to the benefit phase-in for parents. The spike in wages will mirror the increase in subsidies for families...."
"...during the transition years, there are quality and supply grants to support providers directly. Moreover, Brueing’s ‘solution’ is flawed, and will actually have the opposite of effect of what we are trying to accomplish..."
The one thing I'd mention is that there are huge broad political trends Shor is great at identifying, but the reason so many "this is what the next 10 years look like" predictions fail is that they're constantly overtaken by events.
Changes in party demographics have had a huge influence on what those parties want and do in office, for example. But electorally, they're small potatoes versus 9/11, Iraq, the Great Recession, COVID, even Afghanistan now, etc etc etc. And those events also remake the parties.
The most controversial part among R's of Mitch McConnell backing infrastructure is whether it helps or hurts Democrats trying to pass their $3.5T megabill.
The key q here is how likely R's think Manchin/Sinema are to kill it and under what circumstances. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
The anti-deal take is shared by folks like Trump and Cruz and articulated here by @philipaklein. D's say the two bills are linked and must pass in tandem. If you pass one, you're triggering the other one. If you kill it, you might blow them all up. nationalreview.com/corner/joe-man…
R's got VERY excited, for example, when Manchin said this during talks