Populism in the Time of Trump: A Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2017
- With editors of Dissent magazine and American Affairs. At Verso Books in Brooklyn, May 26, 2017.
After a year of global populist upheaval, the elite consensus that has guided policymaking around the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union is splintering apart. What comes next? Are new political categories required to make sense of politics today, or are the divisions between left and right starker than ever? And what role do intellectuals have in a time of surging populism?
Dissent editors Sarah Leonard (also of The Nation) and Timothy Shenk will debate these questions with Julius Krein and Gladden Pappin, editors of American Affairs, a new journal the New York Times says “seeks to fill the void left by a conservative intellectual establishment more focused on opposing Mr. Trump than on grappling with the rejection of globalism and free-market dogma that propelled his victory.”
everything the dissent editors stated has aged so poorly that there's a violent irony to it.
how is that? pretty much everything they said about the right-populist desperation to ride the tiger of trumpim was proven correct
this was pathetic on the dissent part. it has nothing to do with the left (controlling the means of production), but rather making democratic party talking points. meaningless ramble instead accepting simple points of agreement between two camps.
Late December 2020,.... You can't make this shit up...
Ultimately the unity of the working class comes from not despising them. Something that has become apparent, as we enter into another month of self pro-ported praxis, is that the active and outspoken individuals who seek the same goals as the speakers from Dissent hate the working class. Specifically those who own property, have children, and are employed in blue-collar jobs that don't requires college degrees.
For all the theory and ideology that gets thrown around the last decade, non of these human problems would exist if they were employed and had a pathway to owning property.
One of the interesting things here is that the Dissent editors are basically trying to turn the debate into a referendum on Donald Trump personally, while also conflating Trump's personal nastiness with the broad historic sweep of American history and policy under previous Administrations. Meanwhile, the AA guys are... talking politics. Not always good politics, but politics.
It reminds me of the constant demand for this-or-that Muslim figure to condemn Osama bin Laden back in the 2000s.
HOLY FUCK did he just say California provides a positive example of multiracial democracy? In 2017? Jeeze.
Oh thank God, these utter incompetents managed to corner him into saying he'll lower corporate taxes.
Hello, Sarah, what if we don't agree with the post structural postmodern feminist theory particularly where it comes to the part that rich well educated white women are off the hook in regard to racism and class-ism because of two X chromosomes and a vagina?
Did the guy from American Affairs just endorse the horseshoe theory in his introduction? Good god, my eyes almost rolled outta my head. Half expected him to literally say "we're not so different, you and I" at one point.
What's up with the young man on the right, his lips are constantly moving like he is rehearsing a comeback. He can't seem to sit still, gives no respect to those speaking and his gaze rarely sets on those speaking. Looks like he is going to wring the skin off his hands. Is he high... or only interested in coming up with zingers like the use of the word guys being a trigger... which is very very odd. I'm am three times his age and don't remember ever being triggered by something that silly or anyone I know being triggered by it.
Oh well let me get back to the conversation....