Are House Democrats bent on extending the Trump stranglehold?

On July 15, Tara Golshan and Ella Nilsen wrote:

AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley are demanding that moderate House Democrats, including “veteran black lawmakers who have worked their way into the inner circle of House leadership,” conform to their own concept of radical wokeness. “Chakrabarti [AOC’s chief of staff] commented as well, with his tweet comparing current moderate Democrats to the Southern Democrats who enabled segregationist policies in the 1940s.”

 The issue was the border funding vote, the best option available to the Democrats at the time. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley, freshman House members, are adopting a hard line which leaves veteran, experienced House members no choice. A minority of four are attempting to dictate to a much larger majority having generations of experience.

First, this is not democracy. Second, this sort of intolerance is abhorrent to the American voting public, both Democrats and Republicans. There could be no better way of extending the Trump stranglehold for four more years.

-*—

Tara Golshan:

Late Friday night, the official Twitter account for House Democrats, managed by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) — fired off an incendiary tweet about Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, accusing him of “singling out out a Native American woman of color,” Rep. Sharice Davids (D-KS).
[Jeffries wrote:]

Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?
Her name is Congresswoman Davids, not Sharice.
She is a phenomenal new member who flipped a red seat blue.

At the time, [Saikat] Chakrabarti [AOC’s chief of staff] referred to moderate Democrats who advocated for the Senate plan [as] the “New Southern Democrats,” and said they were “hell bent to do to black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s.” (Southern Democrats in the 1940s were on the whole conservative, and were opponents of civil rights efforts, including early attempts at desegregation.) Chakrabarti … [saw those members] as enablers of a racist system.

Tensions between House Democratic leadership and progressive lawmakers have been escalating in recent weeks, as progressives see leadership as dismissive of their demands and influence in the party. Chakrabarti sits at an interesting intersection of this dynamic. He works for Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist member whose viral internet presence has helped her platform to dominate conversation at the national level in a manner that has struck the ire of entrenched House members. And he founded Justice Democrats, a progressive group working to unseat ideologically moderate Democrats, some of which are veteran black lawmakers who have worked their way into the inner circle of House leadership. 

Until now, Pelosi has publicly dismissed progressives’ influence and privately told the House majority to maintain a spirit of unity. But the internal strife within her party keeps boiling over into the public.

Since then, Chakrabarti and another AOC staff member, communications director Corbin Trent, have been dismissed.

The AOC four have been referred to as the progressive, left, or even most liberal part of the Democratic Party. This is a category mistake. AOC belongs to a separate tradition not compatible with the fundamental values of the Party, which trace back to two Enlightenment documents, the Declaration and the Constitution. Those values, originating in western Europe, constitute Enlightenment liberalism, and they are centered on equality; the rights, dignity, and autonomy of the single person; universalism; cooperation; toleration; and a passion for optimum outcomes for everybody.

The AOC group's values come from a dark central European mindset which produced Marxism, Freudianism, and fascism. Behind the scenes, they assume that humanity is afflicted by original sin, and they assume that human existence is a zero sum game: when one group gains something, another group loses something. The AOC group's values imply conflict.

The Democratic Party comes from a heritage which imagines win-win solutions and speaks of "enlightened self-interest," in which voluntary service to the public good makes one's own life better. Democratic values imply cooperation and voluntary association; AOC values imply that life is a war of all against all, and favor obligatory membership in a collective in which the group is all and the individual is nothing.

AOC's left is inherently backward and reactionary, not progressive. The modern world, by contrast, is liberal. Democracy is liberal, science is liberal, justice is liberal, and true intellectuality is liberal. All favor openness, cooperation, free communication and freedom of thought, the conviction that no gender or ethnicity is better than another, and complete equality of opportunity for everyone regardless of background. There is no overlap between the AOC outlook and the outlook of the Democratic Party, between an oppositional, adversarial, subversive outlook and an outlook whose most famous three words is “We the People.”

Caitlin Flanagan’s acerbic remarks about ‘justice critics’

‘Truth stands independently of social opinion,’ Robert Pirsig wrote: and that’s one reason ‘social justice’ is an oxymoron.

Caitlin Flanagan: 

The justice critics, the ones who want to count up every movie’s sins against approved sensibilities, say that the film is nostalgic, a term intended to damage it. Only another artist would understand the way that Tarantino has deployed that potent force. Guillermo del Toro tweeted that the movie was “[chock-full] of yearning,” that it was “a tale of another time that probably never was but feels like a memory.”

The justice critics aren’t interested in fictions that feel like memories. They want movies that adhere to their vision of the way the world should be. To them, the movie is too white, too violent toward women, and too uninterested in Margot Robbie, whose Sharon Tate has few lines. The New Yorker’s Richard Brody reviled the picture, calling it “ridiculously white.” But Charles Manson was a white supremacist, a fact that does tend to put a lot of white people in a movie.

The justice critics want to subject art to ‘constraints and considerations extraneous’ to it. [The phrase comes from Classicist Mary Lefkowitz, who once declared, “Academic freedom is the freedom to profess a discipline according to its recognized content and procedures, free from constraints and considerations extraneous to that discipline.”]

Unaesthetic philistines telling art what to do is nothing new, from the boy-meets-tractor diktat of Soviet Commissars to Plato’s condemnation of Graeco-Roman mythology for showing the gods chasing each other’s wives.

Kudos to Flanagan for daring to critique puritanical dictatorship-of-virtue justice critics and the boring bowdlerized didactic art they would foist on us. Ars grātiā artis

“Good” discrimination?

Introductory note: The implied reference of Patai's nearly quarter-century-old article below is Enlightenment liberalism (as it is for Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, and I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates; for publications which discuss liberalism explicitly, see Historian Fritz Stern's works, such as The Failure of Illiberalism). Patai is arguing against what Jonathan Chait called  “the illiberal [campus] left.” That left is still with us, as Andrew Sullivan, “We All Live on Campus Now,” wrote recently.

(Elected Democrats are generally liberal, not left in the above sense; but results are still out on some, such as Tlaib, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and others.)

I hold that liberalism — the liberalism of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, MLK, and George Orwell — is the methodology of the good life, and as such not “political.” Furthermore, as in a previous post, “all democracy is liberal, all justice is liberal, all [genuine] intellectuality is liberal, and all science is liberal.”

Contrary to the habits of our media discourse, then, the counter to our increasingly anti-democratic right, or conservatism, is not leftism but liberalism. It was not the left but liberalism which proclaimed the Rights of Man, and declared without any reservation whatsoever that all people are created equal, transcending the “smelly little orthodoxies” of the politics of identity. (As Patai notes below, “Truth, righteousness, and automatic justification in the world of women's studies now reside with "women of color."”)

The cure for bad discrimination (against minorities and women, for example) is not good discrimination (against Caucasians and men, i.e., “Smite the oppressor”). Prejudicial discrimination is not a valid means to a legitimate end at any time in any way. In a liberal society, the point is to avoid anything that is discriminatory, because it is unjust.

“Justice ... cannot be won by means that are themselves unjust.”

The following was from vix.com but apparently is no longer on that site. Daphne Patai, 3/30/96:

I tried to explain that "racism" had nothing to do with the events in question. This simple denial brought a storm down upon my head. I was told by a young black colleague that when a woman of color says she has experienced racism, she is the authority on that experience and cannot be challenged. [Ed. note: This is the ad hominem(1) fallacy]
...
I began to realize that we were confronting a new dogma sanctifying a reversal of privilege: instead of the old privileges accompanying the status of "white," truth, righteousness, and automatic justification in the world of women's studies now reside with "women of color." As if in compensation for past oppression, no one now can challenge or gainsay their version of reality. What can be said for such a turnabout, of course, is that it spreads racial misery around, and this may serve some larger plan of justice, sub specie aeternitatis.(2)

But this is hardly adequate for those who believe earthly justice must be pursued case by case, and cannot be won by means that are themselves unjust. In this instance, however, the facts of the case were of no importance: only identity counted.

This, let me emphasize, was no misinterpretation on my part, for some memos actually did state that it was absurd for a white, tenured professor to claim she was being unjustly accused. By virtue of having a certain identity (white) and occupying a certain position (tenured), an individual would necessarily be guilty of whatever accusations a woman of color (or an untenured individual) might make against her. [Ed. note: If this is Original Sin, or inherited guilt, that is in the realm of theology and has no place in the adjudication of justice. Also, it violates various aspects of due process, such as presumption of innocence; and rules of evidence.]

Among my other offenses was an expression of concern at the way some of our students were using the term "Eurocentric" as a new slur: by dismissing an entire culture as "racist," they relieved themselves of the burden of learning anything about it.

-*--

(1) Argumentum ad hominem “A person is not an argument.” A valid argument is not discredited if the person proposing it has low status or is thought to be in disrepute. (Cf. Hitler, “Relativity is Jewish science.”) On the other hand, neither is a fallacious argument legitimated by personalistic considerations. It does not matter how high the prestige or reputation of the person or community advancing it, any propositional assertion must stand on its own.

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_specie_aeternitatis
Sub specie aeternitatis (Latin for "under the aspect of eternity"), is, from Baruch Spinoza onwards, an honorific expression describing what is universally and eternally true, without any reference to or dependence upon the temporal portions of reality.

It is time to be clear about the difference between the Democratic Party and the campus left

There’s no overlap.

One is liberal, one is a form of Marxism. And Marxism never cared about equality, about civil rights, about the dignity and privacy of the single person, about the right to the pursuit of happiness.

On NPR a few months ago, Linda Wertheimer responded to a study in which women came off better than men by saying, “Perhaps women are just better people.” Would it have been okay to say, “Perhaps men are just better people?”

We may be used to this sort of implicit sexist, inegalitarian, prejudicial language, but we shouldn’t be.

In “We All Live on Campus Now,” Andrew Sullivan wrote, “In the world beyond campus, few people use the term microaggressions without irony or an eye roll; claims of “white supremacy,” “rape culture,” or “white privilege” can seem like mere rhetorical flourishes.” He identifies these as effects of “neo-Marxism.”

Democrats hold that such implicit race and gender prejudice is morally wrong, since it is about attacking people because of immutable characteristics, race and gender, which they can’t change, rather than harmful attitudes, habits, and social conventions, which they can.

Sullivan adds, “When elite universities shift their entire worldview away from liberal education as we have long known it toward the imperatives of an identity-based “social justice” movement, the broader culture is in danger of drifting away from liberal democracy as well. If elites believe that the core truth of our society is a system of interlocking and oppressive power structures based around immutable characteristics like race or sex or sexual orientation, then sooner rather than later, this will be reflected in our culture at large. What matters most of all in these colleges — your membership in a group that is embedded in a hierarchy of oppression — will soon enough be what matters in the society as a whole.

And, sure enough, the whole concept of an individual who exists apart from group identity is slipping from the discourse. The idea of individual merit — as opposed to various forms of unearned “privilege” — is increasingly suspect. The Enlightenment principles that formed the bedrock of the American experiment — untrammeled free speech, due process, individual (rather than group) rights — are now routinely understood as mere masks for “white male” power, code words for the oppression of women and nonwhites.”

The Constitution is a representative Enlightenment document; and the Democratic Party honors “the Enlightenment principles that formed the bedrock of the American experiment.” By contrast, the no-platforming of the campus left violates the free speech principle of the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint censorship of prospective campus speakers, sometimes specifically because they endorse liberal values such as the central intellectual concept that competing ideas should be freely debated in the University.(1)

Finally, campus left politics of identity is about approved identity. As Linda Wertheimer inadvertently revealed, this is inseparable from its counterpart, the unacceptable resurrection of such politics of disapproved identity as sexism. The campus left meets a definition which once appeared in the OED: “Not generous in respect to the opinions, rights, and liberties of others: narrow-minded.”

(1) “Academic freedom is the freedom to profess a discipline according to its recognized content and procedures, free from constraints and considerations extraneous to that discipline.” — Mary Lefkowitz

Randall Kennedy's "My Race Problem"

No teacher should view certain students as his racial "brothers and sisters" while viewing others as, well, mere students. — Randall Kennedy

A brute fact does not dictate the proper human response to it. ... In choosing how to proceed in the face of all that they encounter, blacks should insist, as did Martin Luther King Jr., that acting with moral propriety is itself a glorious goal. — Kennedy

Unless inhibited, every person and group will tend toward beliefs and practices that are self-aggrandizing. — Kennedy

I would propose a shoe-on-the-other-foot test for the propriety of racial sentiment. If a sentiment or practice would be judged offensive when voiced or implemented by anyone, it should be viewed as prima facie offensive generally. — Kennedy

In 1997 Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy wrote "My Race Problem: A consideration of touchy matters -- racial pride, racial solidarity, and racial loyalty -- rarely discussed."

"What," he asked, "is the proper role of race in determining how I, an American black, should feel toward others?"

It was a liberal African American's response to a left issue of the time, multiculturalism. Today we would call it the politics of identity.

The politics of identity is the politics of approved identity. Professor Kennedy immediately objects to the proposition that

There is nothing wrong with having a special -- a racial -- affection for other black people. Indeed, many would go further and maintain that something would be wrong with me if I did not sense and express racial pride, racial kinship, racial patriotism, racial loyalty, racial solidarity -- synonyms for that amalgam of belief, intuition, and commitment that manifests itself when blacks treat blacks with more solicitude than they do those who are not black. ... [There is a] notion that blackness gives rise to racial obligation and that black people should have a special, closer, more affectionate relationship with their fellow blacks than with others in America's diverse society.

Professor Kennedy replies, "I reject this response to the question. Neither racial pride nor racial kinship offers guidance that is intellectually, morally, or politically satisfactory. ... the belief that because of racial kinship blacks ought to value blacks more highly than others." Such attempts to counteract discrimination recreate discrimination in another form.

Stephen L. Carter, a professor at Yale Law School writes, in Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby, "Each December, my wife and I host a holiday dessert for the black students at the Yale Law School." He says that he feels a special "solidarity" with them, a racial love for "one's people."

Professor Kennedy:

I contend that in the mind, heart, and soul of a teacher there should be no stratification of students such that a teacher feels closer to certain pupils than to others on grounds of racial kinship. No teacher should view certain students as his racial "brothers and sisters" while viewing others as, well, mere students. Every student should be free of the worry that because of race, he or she will have less opportunity to benefit from what a teacher has to offer.

Randall Kennedy suggests that instead of the left principle of solidarity, which tends to result in a double standard, we should engage in a liberal method: outreach:

The justification for outreach ... is that unlike an appeal to racial kinship, an appeal to an ideal untrammeled by race enables any person or group to be the object of solicitude. No person or group is racially excluded from the possibility of assistance, and no person or group is expected to help only "our own." If a professor reaches out in response to student need, for instance, that means that whereas black students may deserve special solicitude today, Latino students or Asian-American students or white students may deserve it tomorrow.

History, Kennedy argues, is a poor argument for a double standard:

Some will argue that I ignore or minimize the fact that different groups are differently situated and that it is thus justifiable to impose upon blacks and whites different standards for purposes of evaluating conduct, beliefs, and sentiments. ... A brute fact does not dictate the proper human response to it. That is a matter of choice -- constrained, to be sure, but a choice nonetheless. In choosing how to proceed in the face of all that they encounter, blacks should insist, as did Martin Luther King Jr., that acting with moral propriety is itself a glorious goal.

People who have suffered past wrongs, unfortunately, are no more immune than anyone else to the temptation of favoritism toward one's own:

In seeking to attain that goal, blacks should be attuned not only to the all too human cruelties and weaknesses of others but also to the all too human cruelties and weaknesses in themselves. A good place to start is with the recognition that unless inhibited, every person and group will tend toward beliefs and practices that are self-aggrandizing. This is certainly true of those who inherit a dominant status. But it is also true of those who inherit a subordinate status. Surely one of the most striking features of human dynamics is the alacrity with which those who have been oppressed will oppress whomever they can once the opportunity presents itself. Because this is so, it is not premature to worry about the possibility that blacks or other historically subordinated groups will abuse power to the detriment of others.

Another argument against double standards concerning identity is reciprocity: They don't meet the "shoe-on-the-other-foot test":

A second reason I resist arguments in favor of asymmetrical standards of judgment has to do with my sense of the requirements of reciprocity. I find it difficult to accept that it is wrong for whites to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of white advancement but morally permissible for blacks to mobilize themselves on a racial basis solely for purposes of black advancement. I would propose a shoe-on-the-other-foot test for the propriety of racial sentiment. If a sentiment or practice would be judged offensive when voiced or implemented by anyone, it should be viewed as prima facie offensive generally. If we would look askance at a white professor who wrote that on grounds of racial kinship he values the opinions of whites more than those of blacks, then unless given persuasive reasons to the contrary, we should look askance at a black professor who writes that on grounds of racial kinship he values the opinions of blacks more than those of whites.

How Fares the "Republic?"

In Aaron Sorkin's "The Newsroom," Producer MacKenzie McHale said, A well-informed electorate is essential to the proper functioning of a healthy democracy. Inadequate information, or worse, wrong information, can lead to catastrophic decisions and impede vigorous debate.

In the national election four years ago, this blog posted "How Fares the Republic?" articles. Current answer: We made a catastrophic decision.

Looking for clues, we might first note that in the vast majority of cases in which the word "liberalism" appeared in our public discourse, what followed was utter nonsense, because our assumptions mix the "we're all in this together" outlook of liberalism with the class warfare, oppressor vs. oppressed outlook of the left. America was founded on the liberal ideas of the Declaration and Constitution, and can no more function with the agonistic assumptions of the left (or right) than a gasoline engine can run on diesel oil.

It is impossible to discuss liberalism and leftism as if they were the same without being intellectually incoherent. To do so is to pretend to be two incompatible things at the same time: Seeking win-win situations and having a zero-sum-game outlook; seeking what Washington called "the public good" and taking pride in being "oppositional," "adversarial," and "subversive"; holding slavery's negation of human equality deeply against American principles and "in course of ultimate peaceable extinction," as Lincoln argued, and holding, as Ta-Nehisi does, that "white supremacy" underlies all America does yesterday, today, and forever. ("The certain sins of the future.")

Being unable to discuss the principles of our liberal Founding in any coherent manner, we elected the most illiberal president possible: Authoritarian, bullying, vindictive, narcissistic, and childish. See pre-election posts on president-elect Trump here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Dissenting from the Critique of "Respectability Politics"

Last year Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy, in "Lifting as We Climb," defended "a sensible respectability politics." The rap on "respectability politics" is that it is dysfunctional, meaning that it asks members of minority groups to feign mainstream appearance, manners, speaking habits, boring personalities, etc.

In some cases skepticism about lack of respectability reflects warranted distrust of those manifesting dysfunctional cultural traits.

Critiquing a cultural trait which attacks those who pursue an education for "acting white" isn't about respectability politics, it is legitimate distrust of behavior which impedes becoming a functional member of modern society.

Randall Kennedy does not discuss the relationship of the Marxist objection to "bourgeois morality" to respectability politics discourse. This objection was part of Marx's wholesale opposition to the norms, ethics, and manners of liberal democracy. In this context the objection to respectability is the objection to the 21st century skills, education, standards, and deportment needed to prosper in and enjoy the resources of a wealthy first world nation.

Below, selections from Kennedy's long article. He emphasizes Martin Luther King's and Thurgood Marshall's use of respectability in the civil rights campaign. He notes Ta-Nehisi Coates' flawed logic in rejecting Obama's advocacy of good behavior (Coates tends to argue(1) that all problems of marginalized groups are the result of racism). Kennedy concludes that respectability's appeal to young black men and women to invest in themselves "will pay dividends in the future."

Randall Kennedy:

Defenders of a sensible black respectability politics — I am one of them — do face real challenges. “Respectability” has served at times as a harbor for bigotry or for the complacent acceptance of racism. Moreover, what should count as disreputable conduct has been subject to serious debate.

Then Kennedy argues that the appearance of respectability is an important civil rights tool (just as looking well is important in an employment interview):

Any marginalized group should be attentive to how it is perceived. The politics of respectability is a tactic of public relations that is, per se, neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad. A sound assessment of its deployment in a given instance depends on its goals, the manner in which it is practiced, and the context within which a given struggle is being waged. Its association with esteemed figures and episodes in African-American history suggests that the politics of respectability warrants a more respectful hearing than it has recently received.

Recall the dignified black teenagers who desegregated Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, while bands of snarling, foulmouthed white hooligans sought to torment them. Remember the determined activists who demanded service at segregated lunch counters while screaming white thugs doused them with ketchup and mustard. ... James J. Kilpatrick, the racist journalist who fiercely opposed the civil-rights movement ... expressed grudging admiration for the youngsters who carried off the sit-ins with such splendid tact. In some circumstances it is effective and praiseworthy to scandalize the arbiters of established opinion, to give the finger to the powers that be. No movement in American history practiced a more honorable politics than the abolitionists, even though they often luxuriated in incivility. I am not defending observance of conventional propriety as a timeless principle. I am simply saying that there are occasions when deploying respectability can be useful and ought to be done.

Dr. Kennedy continues to the next item in his argument: "failings by blacks" (whose importance, as we shall see, Ta-Nehisi Coates rejects):

[Barack Obama] criticizes the constraints that blacks encounter because of past and ongoing racism, and, to the extent that it is feasible, he supports policies that he believes will provide relief. But he also openly identifies failings by blacks — parental absence, negligent nutrition, destructive criminality, inadequate civic engagement. And he demands that African Americans, individually and collectively, do more for themselves.

Randall Kennedy cites Coates' objection:

Critics of black respectability politics objected to this speech vociferously. Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote:

Taking the full measure of the Obama presidency thus far, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this White House has one way of addressing the social ills that afflict black people — and particularly black youth — and another way of addressing everyone else. I would have a hard time imagining the president telling the women of Barnard that “there’s no longer room for any excuses” — as though they were in the business of making them. Barack Obama is, indeed, the president of “all America,” but he is also singularly the scold of “black America.”

Charging that the Morehouse graduation speech fit into a pattern of “convenient race-talk,” Coates asserted that surely black Americans “have earned something more than targeted scorn.”

This response [by Ta-Nehisi Coates] is strikingly tendentious. It implies that any criticism of blacks by Obama nullified every other feature of the president’s address. His speech was primarily celebratory, as one would expect and hope for at a graduation. Obama congratulated Morehouse for “the unique sense of purpose [it] has always infused — the conviction that [it] is a training ground not only for individual success but for leadership that can change the world.”

Dr. Kennedy concludes by noting that “respectability” is about such functional matters as education, skill, competence, and work ethic. These are not political. Only practical:

As brutal and frustrating as our era can be, however, day by day it offers more racial decency than any previous era. At no point in American history has there been more overall freedom from antiblack racial impediments. At no point has there been more reason for young black men and women to be hopeful that investing in themselves will pay dividends in the future.

(1) Coates, 2014, Charles Barkley and the Plague of Unintelligent Blacks:

The notion that black irresponsibility is at least part of the "race problem" is widely shared among black America's most prominent figures, beginning—but not ending—with the president of the United States. ...

Respectability politics is, at its root, the inability to look into the cold dark void of history. For if black people are—as I maintain—no part of the problem, if the problem truly is 100 percent explained by white supremacy, then we are presented with a set of unfortunate facts about our home.

The Class Warfare Logic of a Baltimore Protester

In June Steve Inskeep recorded an interview with Kwame Rose, who was one of the protesters against the death of Freddie Gray, a black man being transported in a police van. Excerpts:

KWAME ROSE: He called us thugs and criminals. And you don't know the story behind each one of those individuals. I was one of the people he called a thug and a criminal because I was out there. ...
ROSE: Yeah, but even in a notion to differentiate peaceful - when I was there, firsthand experiences, watching people run in the stores, I didn't interpret it as violence. I interpreted it as a survival skills - as a survival tactic. ...
ROSE: No. I've - I don't think the president has done enough for black people.

This shows some of the Baltimore street hustler logic also found in Ta-Nehisi Coates' white supremacy articles. For example, skid logic: "I was ... called a thug and a criminal because I was out there." (Below, there will be excerpts from Inskeep's interview in which President Obama responds to Rose's accusations.)

Kwame Rose's argument has the class warfare characteristics of:

1. Justified by an overriding emergency
2. Rejection of the rule of law
3. Double standard — the plight of the oppressed trumps the principle of equality — see "moral primitivism" (1)
4. Specific rejection of pluralism (that is, unconcern for anyone not like us)
5. Disregard for the public good (those who loot and destroy a drug store in the name of racial affirmation force sick people of that same race to travel farther for medicine they need to survive)
6. Rejection of the powerful just tools of liberal democracy (Obama: "You have situations in which, suddenly, friends of mine in Baltimore - their mothers, who are elderly, have to now travel across town to get their medicines because the local drug store got torn up. And making excuses for them, I think, is a mistake. There are ways of bringing about social change that are powerful and that have the ability to pull the country together and maintain the moral high ground. And there are approaches where I may understand the frustrations, but they're counterproductive. And tearing up your own neighborhood and stealing is counterproductive." (Emphasis added.)
7. Specious justification of violence ("survival skills")
8. Rejection of universalism ("I don't think the president has done enough for black people"; that is, a black president should show favoritism toward black people in preference to serving all equally.)
9. Implied the-end-justifies-the-means logic

Steve Inskeep's follow up interview with Obama ("What I would also say, though, is that if somebody is looting, they're looting."):

Let me ask about a passionate young person that we met along the way. His name is Kwame Rose.

Yeah.

He is an activist now in Baltimore. He was active in the protests after the death of Freddie Gray ...

Right.

... who was in a police van, and died later, as you know.

And he was unhappy with a statement that you made at the time, when you were supportive of peaceful protests but also criticized what you called criminals and thugs who had looted stores.

He felt that you were being too harsh and went on to say in our interview that you were speaking from a position of privilege, his suggestion being that maybe you didn't quite get what was going on in the streets.

What would you say to him?

[Obama] Well, obviously, I don't know him personally, so we would have to have a longer conversation.

What I would say is that the Black Lives Matter movement has been hugely important in getting all of America to — to see the challenges in the criminal justice system differently. And I could not be prouder of the activism that has been involved. And it's making a difference.

You're seeing it at state and local levels, and the task force that we pulled together in the wake of Ferguson has put forward recommendations that were shaped both by the people who organized the Ferguson protests as well as police officers. And it turns out that there's common ground there, in terms of how we can be smart about crime, smart about policing, respectful to all communities and try to wring some of the racial bias that exists in the criminal justice system out of it.

What I would also say, though, is that if somebody is looting, they're looting.

-*--
 
(1) Moral Primitivism: An earlier post concerning Coates' fallacies argued that Coates does not see a society of equal, rights-bearing citizens, 

"caught in an inescapable network of mutuality," but a polity irrevocably divided between oppressed race and oppressor race. "Once that fact is acknowledged," Kevin D. Williamson suggests "then the case for reparations is only moral primitivism: My interests are inextricably linked to my own kin group and directly rivalrous with yours, i.e., the very racism that this program is in theory intended to redress." (Emphasis added)

Ten Points Against the Class Warfare Ideology (Repost)

This is a repost of an article posted last November under another title.

Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. - Justice Harlan, Plessy v. Ferguson

Class Warfare: 

1. Against political democracy, which by definition includes all the people. Proposes rule by the oppressed rather than government (not rule) by the people.
2. Rejects equality. The oppressed class and the oppressor class do not consist of people who are equal but, in the latter case, are in error and need to be corrected. Class warfare considers the wrongness of the oppressor class to be existential, and in that sense, a wickedness which is incorrigible and cannot be corrected.
3. Rejects the rule of law. Class warfare regards the supposed protections and rights of the existing body of law as hypocritical, benefiting only members of the oppressor class. After all, the justice system and its laws allow the existing system of oppression, don't they?
4. Arrogates to itself two things belonging to the justice system in civilized societies: Determination of guilt; and administration of punishment (Example: “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.”).*
5. Is inherently ad hominem. The narratives produced by members of oppressed groups are considered true because to recognize the true state of things—one is oppressed and not a member of a free democratic society—confers authenticity lacked by membership in an oppressor group.**
6. Employs a double standard in many areas. For example, members of oppressor groups do not have the same rights as the oppressed. Discrimination by the oppressed against oppressors is approved, but oppressors are accused of discriminatory attitude and conduct.
7. Is anti-intellectual (see 5). There are no "neutral" intellectual positions, free from constraints and considerations extraneous to pure intellectual matters. There is no justification for socially constructed intellectual propositions which are blithely ignorant of the plight of the oppressed (see "state of emergency," below). It is the duty of faculty members to use their platform to unmask oppression and advocate change.
8. Rejects normative concepts of civility, decency, and nonviolence as contributing to structural oppression. (Cf. "repressive tolerance") When modern democratic states give the police and the National Guard a monopoly on legitimate violence, they seek to render the oppressed powerless to fight for justice.
9. Can only achieve its objective through revolution, not by leveraging the structures (elected representatives, the justice system) of the existing oppressive society.
10. State of emergency which overrides all other considerations. Until the present existing state of monstrous injustice is rectified, no one has the right to pursue their own selfish interests. Everyone must be involved in the struggle. "Your silence will not save you."

Remarks by Kate W. to The Atlantic's Chris Bodenner illustrate class warfare influences in current publications. He begins:

Next is a blistering critique from Kate W., who doesn’t want to use her last name “because I work in professional circles (the arts and news media) where anti-Coatesism is frowned upon big time”

What she means is that Ta-Nehisi Coates, who began playing the race card when he leveled the charge of "white supremacy" against the mainstream, is the beneficiary of the oppressor group member double standard. Who he is, according to class warfare dogma, trumps [her] critique of his articles. (5 and 6, above)

She says,

2. Mr. Coates claims that the death of Prince Jones is his political “origin story.” He writes, “After Prince, I fully accepted the laws of gravity.” You see, Mr. Coates is the Reluctant Warrior. This as a very old gimmick but apparently still packs a rhetorical punch for some people. Mr. Coates didn’t want to be in a rage with “White America”! He was just minding his own business when Prince Jones (a friendly acquaintance) was killed by a racist policeman (who happens to be black, but that fact is irrelevant for his purposes) and then Mr. Coates found his worldview rocked. He was now radicalized and fully awake to the horrors of the racist country he lived in.

I’m sorry, but given the fact that Mr. Coates was raised by two political activists—one of whom is a former Black Panther—I am not buying this. Mr. Coates comes by his “radicalness” honestly. It did not take the death of Prince Jones to turn Mr. Coates into a Black Nationalist author. He was raised with these ideas, and based on what I have heard him say in current interviews, he is also raising his son the same way (this is a shame).

But let’s take him at his word that this one event changed him. Please allow me a point of personal privilege here: I have a good friend (a white person) who is a quadriplegic as a result of being shot during a robbery by black men. I was also personally robbed at gunpoint by black men (in a separate incident) but was more lucky than my friend and lost only money. 

If I were to follow Mr. Coates’s example, I would paint all black Americans with this brush. I would become “radicalized” and henceforth say that all black people are dangerous criminals. Does this make any sense, intellectually or morally? I hope not. 

But when Mr. Coates tells this story, Charlie Rose, David Brooks, David Remnick and Jon Stewart fall over each other to fawn over him. Why are the two examples different? Why is bigotry against white people acceptable when bigotry against blacks is anything but?

As K.W. describes Coates' narrative, he is using anecdotal argument. One bad experience justifies global guilt and punishment. A larger issue is that our democracy asks us to exhibit what the Founders called toleration. The double standard (6) and the emergency (10) allow Coates to violate standards of decency (8).

It's actually worse than that As a commentator relates:

He writes of the police and firefighters who died running into the burning buildings [the twin towers on 911] in a forlorn effort to save all the people whose bodies were about to be obliterated into dust, “They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.” (Emphasis added)

Generalizing from one black policeman to the firefighters who lost their lives trying to save strangers in burning skyscrapers is beyond excuse. Firefighters don't carry guns, carry out arrests, or in any other way commit violence. Coates' extremism should have resulted in a national uproar. The fact that it didn't shows how completely class warfare dogma has corrupted our thinking and eroded our sense of human decency.

 K.W. describes ways in which the double standard (6) even applies to cause and effect:

4. The book’s thesis is perhaps the most troubling part but certainly the most hyperbolic: “Here is what I would like for you to know: In America, it is traditional to destroy the black body—it is heritage.” Here is where the circular logic comes into play. When it is pointed out that the vast majority of black people who are murdered are murdered at the hands of other black people, Mr. Coates conveniently blames even this on White Supremacy. 
For him, it’s as simple as this: there is literally nothing a black person can do wrong that is their fault, in a cosmic sense. Every moral, ethical or legal crime is caused by the effects of White Supremacy. Some people, including myself, characterize this as racism. Denying that black people are capable of being agents of their own life or destiny is the ultimate kind of bigotry.

K.W. describes Coates' abundant false accusation:

5. The white-shaming throughout the book. Mr. Coates seems to think it’s OK to insult all white people in the gravest ways possible. All white people exist on a spectrum that has “benign neglect” and “free rider” on one end and “violent torture murderer” and “slave master” on the other end. All white Americans are guilty; it is only a matter of determining where they fit on that guilt spectrum. 
In Mr. Coates’ world, to wake up white is to wake up a guilty person. This acts as a kind of mirror image to his view of black people, who have no responsibility for anything in Mr. Coates' world.

In a free, democratic society, it is a very serious thing to bear false witness and level false accusations. To repeat, in our politics the determination of guilt, let alone punishment, belongs to the justice system and to the justice system alone (3, 4). Historically, the class warfare ideology has played fast and loose in applying the label, class enemy. For Marx, it was the commercial culture of the emerging modern world. In our contemporary class warfare culture, who is guilty is dependent on your vested interest. If you're a feminist, the oppressor is men. All of them. If you're a minority, it is white folks. All of them. Rules of evidence, due process, and the constraint of applicable law are nowhere on the horizon.



(*) As such, class warfare veers toward mob rule. Here are the constraints which proper justice has and class warfare lacks:

1. Due process
2. Rules of evidence
3. A controlling body of law developed over centuries, which the court must not violate

(**) We're employing an expanded conception of the argumentum ad hominem. Ad hominem usually refers to a demonstration or argument which purports to discredit a proposition by discrediting its author, as in Hitler's dismissal of theories of relativity as "Jewish science." In the larger sense, ad hominem is held to be a fallacy because a person cannot be an argument, either to discredit or to validate. For example, the belief that political democracy is discredited because a great thinker such as Plato said so, is a form of ad hominem. A person is not an argument.

The Left Itself Does Not Actually Consider Itself Liberal

"Liberal" has often been equated with "left." Thus it is a significant change in our political rhetoric that the left itself has begun to impugn liberalism. Last August this blog noted that the radical protesters who disrupted a Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle condemned liberalism as such:

Marissa Johnson, one of the protesters, shot back, “I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is, filled with its progressives, but you did it for me,” accusing the audience of “white supremacist liberalism.” (Emphasis added) - Seattle Times

Likewise some members of the mainstream media have begin to speak of "the illiberal left." That's Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine. Chait describes the left as assailing liberalism, and implies that this radical movement prefers a destructive revolution to democratic gradualism:(1)

It is the expression of a backlash on the left against liberalism — with all its maddening compromises and deference to the rights of the enemy — which fetishizes success as the by-product of cataclysmic struggle.

Chait rejects class warfare's assumption that citizens in "oppressed groups" have greater civil rights than citizens who are not, for example, minorities:(2)(3)

Liberalism sees political rights as a positive good — rights for one are rights for all. “Democracy” means political rights for every citizen. The far left defines democracy as the triumph of the subordinate class over the privileged class. Political rights only matter insofar as they are exercised by the oppressed. The oppressor has no rights.

Chait exposes the left's implicit justification of undemocratic violence. His article supports the conjecture that illiberal "progressive" class warfare leftism, despite its shrill proclamations, is a marginal movement existing mainly on some campuses and in the writings of the misguided "progressive" journalists who failed to notice that Ta-Nehisi Coates White Supremacist series constituted a wholesale condemnation of the liberal democratic principles of the Founding. Chait:(4)

Such a “victory” would actually constitute the blow to democracy it purports to stop, eroding the long-standing norm that elections should be settled at the ballot box rather than through street fighting. ...
But the campus was merely the staging ground for most displays of left-wing ideological repression because it is one of the few places the illiberal left has the power to block speakers and writers deemed oppressive.

Another fundamental difference: "A liberal sees Trump’s ability to deliver a speech before supporters as a fundamental political right worth defending. A radical sees this “right” as coming at the expense of subordinate classes, and thus not worth protecting."(5)

The conclusion to be drawn from Chait's article is, Always remind yourself, when you hear someone using the term "liberal" or the term "left," that you need to determine which is being referred to. They have nothing in common. There is, Chait argues, an "irreparable contradiction between two styles of politics. Does the future of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement lie in building a revolution, or in the continued work of (small-d) democratic liberalism?"

Finally, as argued in our article The Atlantic Revives Radical Chic: Ta-Nehisi Coates and the English Language, and several months later in Carlos Lozada's The Radical Chic of Ta-Nehisi Coates, leftism, in contrast to liberalism, is essentially radical chic. It is not practiced by working politicians of either American political party (with the exception of a vanishingly small fringe). How often do you hear a Democratic politician, let alone a Republican, advocate public policy in terms of protecting the oppressed from the oppressor? As radical chic, class warfare leftism is about pretense. A privileged elite pretends solidarity with people they don't socialize with in order to grant themselves absolution for benefiting from conditions whose solution is liberal democracy, not double standards, the denial of civil rights to people you don't approve of, violent censorship of opinions you're afraid to debate, an end run around the rule of law, and mob rule.

Michelle Goldberg notes the phenomenon of Leftists for Trump. "Increasingly, a vocal part of the left is marked by its contempt for liberalism."

This romantic-fantasy left functions mainly as a remedy for its practitioners' own psychological problems:

I recoil from a personality type—not uncommon in radical movements—that treats politics as a realm in which to enact revenge on society for its own alienation and to claim a starring role in history. (Emphasis added)

Because demolitionist left pretense has lost its earthly moorings, its wilful ignorance of its harmful effect is hardhearted:

There’s not a word in [Christopher Ketcham's] piece about the immigrants who would be rounded up and put into detention camps under Trump’s plan, or the people of color who would be terrorized by a total breakdown in the norms that make even an imperfect multiethnic democracy possible. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that Ketcham, as well as the likeminded people he quotes, are so forthright about seeing politics purely in terms of personal catharsis. (Emphasis added)

As we noted in You Say You Want a Revolution, 

One of the problems of "progressive" politics' underlying class warfare ideology, ... is that it can only work through revolution, not the "incremental reform" which is democracy's methodology. And the too-rapid change of revolution, as serious thinkers since Burke have concluded, wreaks catastrophic damage on society, particularly on its weakest members. ... Limousine liberals such as [Susan] Sarandon promote a "progressive" ideology whose hidden premise is "a populace that needs to suffer more in order to reach Sarandon’s superlative level of wokeness." Since democracy's tender-minded methods haven't worked, increasing the sufferings of the wretched of the Earth will produce an aroused angry mob which will sweep all the evil and corruption away, allowing a wonderful, paradisal world to flower in the ruins.

Such magical thinking is scary. The actual result of totalist revolution is, typically, real social harm. The revolution Burke meditated on eventuated in the Terror.

-*--

(1) Point 9: Can only achieve its objective through revolution, not by leveraging the structures (elected representatives, the justice system) of the existing oppressive society. - Ten Points Against the Class Warfare Ideology

(2) See Point 1: Against political democracy, which by definition includes all the people. Proposes rule by the oppressed rather than government (not rule) by the people.

(3) See Point 6: [Class warfare] employs a double standard in many areas. For example, members of oppressor groups do not have the same rights as the oppressed. Discrimination by the oppressed against oppressors is approved, but oppressors are accused of discriminatory attitude and conduct.

(4) See Point 4: [Class warfare] arrogates to itself two things belonging to the justice system in civilized societies: Determination of guilt; and administration of punishment (Example: “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.”).

Re Ta-Nehisi Coates on "white supremacy":

White Supremacy is foundational to America. White Supremacy is not a bump on the road toward a better America. It is the road itself, the means by which America justified the taking of land and enslaving of humans, which is to say the means by which America came to be. - in Chris Bodenner's In the Wake of Baltimore: Your Thoughts

(5) See Point 3: [Class warfare] rejects the rule of law. Class warfare regards the supposed protections and rights of the existing body of law as hypocritical, benefiting only members of the oppressor class.