@DouthatNYT asks the question ‘Who Are We’. American Writer comments

As usual Mr. Douthat points in many directions to ‘explain’ Trump and Trumpism. But the starring role in this melange of pop culture references, and a foreshortened potted American history, in its most usable shorthand version, is the naming of ‘Liberals’ and the ‘Left’ as the central actors in his turgid melodrama: this line of argument being a permanent garnish to the ex cathedra pronouncements of Our Man From Opus Dei . The ‘Liberals’ have not simply ceded their political territory to the ‘Left’, but are its callabos, in the demonizing of the exemplars of American Political Virtue, a selected list of the Left’s villains is provided. Absent from Douthat’s  list of American Heroes are Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, not speak of other less well known moral/political actors, although the ‘Christian Abolitionists’ do garner a mention.

Yet Douthat’s moralizing argument, about the centrality of the Liberal/Left moral/political nihilism elides from a potentially honest conversation, the fact that the 2008 economic catastrophe, and the codified Neo-Liberal Reforms, and the death of the notion of a Self-Correcting Market, are the watershed of that failure. Aided by the political actors of that Neo-Liberalism, the New Democrats and Republicans, who were the active agents of change that ended in catastrophe.The question of how the failure of that Neo-Liberal thought collective’s ideas, and political practices, contributed, or even paved the way, for Trump remain conveniently outside of the hectoring Douthat intervention. Mr. Douthat is too busy using the shibboleths of an American Catholic Conservatism to do battle with the perpetually heretical ‘cosmopolitan liberalism’ in thrall to a mendacious ‘Left Intelligentsia’.

American Writer

Who Are We? https://nyti.ms/2kADOyH

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.