@davidshor New Democratic Technocrat/Apparatchik Old Socialist comments.

I printed out this July 2020 interview, conducted by Eric Levitz, of Mr. Shor. Almost a full twenty pages long.  Mr. Levitz excels at soft-ball questions, inquiries. Perhaps in deference to Mr. Shor’s wunderkind status? ‘College Marxist’ is a demonstration of a once youthful flirtation?  

Mr. Shor assumes that his readership’s memory doesn’t go back as far as the Clinton’s ! Mine reaches back to The Kennedy presidency. Not to waste the reades time: Hillary Clinton is was and remains a Neo-Liberal. She was in 1964 a ‘Goldwater Girl’. So as a Party apparatchik, Mr. Shor presumes that the New York  Magazine’s readership meets his own callow historical/political standard. 

But the reader is made aware of Mr. Shor’s status as Political Technocrat.Whose business is the construction of winning  political strategies. His handbook is  Edward L. Bernays ‘Propaganda’ allied with more up to date methodologies of manipulation. Shor is the embodiment of the Lippmann Ideal of ‘Expert’, as a hedge against too much Democracy.

Both Mr. Levitz and Mr. Schor manage to provide a wobbly ‘seminar’ on winning strategies, or at least an attempt to construct them. Yet Mr. Shor is without the ability to construct a set of reasons why a voter would choose a  New Democrat, over a Republican Party, that even expelled their Jacobins, in favor of Trump. To resort to political metaphysics Mr. Shor is without either vision, charisma, or even in the most vulgar terms, dogmas. Neo-Liberalism is steeped in Free Market Dogmas. Even Bernie Sanders’ Left-Wing Social Democracy presents a Program.

Mr. Schor defensiveness about Neo-Liberalism is evident:  

             

So a lot of people on the left would say that the Hillary Clinton campaign largely ignored economic issues, and doubled down on social issues, because of the neoliberal ideology of the people who worked for her, and the fact that campaigning on progressive economic policy would threaten the material interests of her donors.



Ah, right. People yell at me on Twitter about this. So working-class white people have an enormous amount of political power and they’re trending towards the Republican Party. It would be really ideologically convenient if the reason they’re doing that was because Democrats embraced neoliberalism. But it’s pretty clear that that isn’t true.


“Actually these working-class white people were betrayed by decades of neoliberalism and we just need to embrace socialism and win them back, we can’t trust people in the suburbs.”


You see Matt Stoller and Ryan Grim do this, where you try to pinpoint the moment in time when Democratic elites decided to turn their backs on the working class and embrace neoliberalism. Maybe it was the Watergate babies. Maybe it was the failure to repeal Taft-Hartley. Maybe it was Bill Clinton in 1992.



https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-culture-2020-election-theory-polls.html#comments

Old Socialist

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.