Author: Sheila Marler

  • Steve Bannon is a Pretend Traditionalist

    I recently found a key date that confirms my suspicions about Steve Bannon’s so-called Traditionalism.  I’ve long suspected that Bannon isn’t a real traditionalist. To be clear, Bannon is not a real traditionalist in the same sense that Donald Trump was never a real candidate.  Bannon piggy-backed on this conversation in the same way that Donald Trump piggy-backed on Bernie’s campaign.  We know Trump had no constituents when he started.  He had to hire actors to attend his first rallies. Steve Bannon is a pretend Traditionalist. He’s just trying to give depth and meaning to his audacious power-grab.

    Teitelbaum’s Book Probably Gives Bannon Too Much Credit

    In his book about Steve Bannon and the populist right, The Return of Traditionalism and the Rise of the Populist Right, 1 Benjamin R. Teitelbaum says he first became aware of Bannon’s Traditionalism in 2016. On the one hand, he gives Bannon too much credit as a traditionalist. But I’m comparing Bannon’s version to the Traditionalism of the early twentieth century. It’s always had authoritarian tendencies, but it used to have a coherent worldview.  He’s right as far as he goes–as an ideology it has shed its coherent worldview and lost much of its luster. All that’s left is its claim to authority.

    Amid startling political gains for nationalist, anti-immigrant forces in the twenty-first century, Traditionalists on the right appeared to be carrying on with a fantasy role-playing game-like Dungeons & Dragons for racists…It was the sort of thing that “serious,” practical-minded activists on the radical right fled from as they charged toward burgeoning political opportunities and the chance to brand themselves as viable leaders.

    Teitelbaum goes on to describe his surprise that ‘an individual with such remarkable power and influence’ (Steve Bannon) had been recorded name-dropping Traditionalism’s key figures (like Rene Guenon).  He couldn’t believe someone like Bannon would even know about Traditionalism.

    What is Bannon Really Up To?

    Teitelbaum was right the first time.  Steve Bannon fits his definition of a typical Traditionalist on the right. However, Bannon represents its modern guise. He has no ideas of his own so he uses Traditionalism as a cloak.  He’s really a hyperactive trickster whose first impulse in 2016 was to steal the show.

    At the Least, Traditionalism Deserves to Be Correctly Represented as a Historical Phenomenon

    I’ve been talking about Rene Guenon since 2015. I wrote What Does Theology Have to do with Life? in March of 2015.  I wrote Transgender Rights, Same-Sex Marriage and Women in November of 2015.  I wrote Can We Talk About Patriarchy? in May of 2016.

    We would do well to ignore the piggy-backers and freeloaders on the conversation.

  • Question the Far-Right’s Claim to God’s Favor

    The right wing’s narrative describes a world in which evangelical Christians and their allies have God on their side.   Normally I wouldn’t disagree–according to Christian doctrine, God is on the side of the human race.  But they are actually saying God approves of their politics.  They apparently assume this will convince believers to vote for them and paint the political opposition as evil.  In my opinion, the left must respect religion enough to question the far-right’s claim to God’s favor.  This doesn’t require a personal calling from God.  It just requires the patience to listen to the far-right’s claims and compare them to the Bible.

    Since Evangelical Christians believe Donald Trump is a messianic figure, the relevant verses would be those that refer to the messianic age.  In Ezekiel 47 the Lord God showed Ezekiel a vision of abundance and blessing and joy.

    Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.

    Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.

    And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ankles.

    Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees.  Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.

    Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.

    And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this?  Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.

    Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.

    Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.

    And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live wither the river cometh.

    And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from En-gedi even unto En-eglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.

    But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.((Ezekiel 47:1-11))

    Ezekiel is then told that the fruit of the trees will be for meat and the leaf will be for medicine.  The leaf will not fade and the fruit will never be consumed because their waters issued out of the sanctuary.  And finally, the Lord God describes the borders whereby the twelve tribes of Israel will inherit the land.  This is not a Zionists’ dream, however.  At least not the Zionists we know.  Nor is it the dream of American wall-builders and imprisoners of immigrant children.

    And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

    And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God.((Ezekiel 47:22,23))

    This does not sound like Donald Trump and his supporters at all.  Instead, it seems to describe the hopes of progressive supporters of Bernie Sanders.

    Some say the Son of man is not a single person.  The Son of man is a collective.   Of course, Bernie has no intention of being a messiah.  You may recall the day he waved away Birdie Sanders, the bird that landed on his podium during a campaign speech.  He is a politician after all, not a religious leader.  But what about the rest of us?  We thought for a few glorious moments we saw the end of the old regime, and we projected all our hopes on this amazing candidate who appeared out of nowhere.  And they were hopes of peace and fairness and inclusion.

    See also: The Israel Lobby is Spending Millions to Defeat Progressive Democrats https://youtu.be/djZVm1n_XNA
                       Is the GOP Morphing into Christian Nationalism? https://youtu.be/kQQd90mbbDs
                         Reverend Calls Out Marjorie Greene  https://youtu.be/OExYtrfXotQ
                            Lauren Boebert Wants a Biblical Citizenship Test  https://youtu.be/oDQyj8C8PoE
                             American Heretics: The Politics of the Gospel (Christian Nationalism Documentary)  https://youtu.be/B-ePCiUgD0Y
                                The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American  https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
                                  The Psychology of Christian Nationalism  https://youtu.be/nVEqYk-hjNM
                                     Baptist Leader Speaks Out: Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity https://youtu.be/vZukWuT9lcA
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Enabler

    The Republicans have spent decades trying to repeal Roe v Wade.  They were out of step with reality when they started.  Now that their cherished conservative dream has finally come true, they are even more out of step with reality.  Although Republican madness is obvious to millions of people, five conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme enabler who voted to repeal Roe v Wade, are bursting with pride.  Pro-life organizations are also touting this as a victory.  Their stupidity is exceeded only by their short-sightedness.

    The decision to repeal Roe v Wade was made with the help of a doctrine called Originalism.  It’s not clear if anyone really believes in Originalism, least of all, its inventors in the Federalist Society, but it doesn’t matter.  It has been very useful for conservatives who are intent on getting their way.  In fact, that has become the definition of conservatism: People who are intent on getting their way.  If only their ‘way’ was good.

    What is Originalism anyway?  In the 1980s John M. Olin set up the Federalist society and paid it to make the courts rule in his favor in cases involving his polluting company.  The Society promptly wined and dined judges, sponsored university courses to teach Originalism, and generally helped Olin avoid the nasty consequences of his polluting ways.  Amy Coney Barrett has been a member of the Federalist Society twice.  Nevertheless, the blind and the stupid applaud her latest ruling.

    What does Originalism say?  It says that the original public meaning of the constitution is binding today.  Given that the people who wrote the Constitution saw the world very differently than we do today, it is reasonable to fear that this doctrine will have regressive and oppressive effects on American society.  Confronted with this fact, Originalists agree that some amendments to the Constitution might be in order, but the constitution has to be amended democratically.  Democratic principles are the basis of their doctrine after all.

    There are a few problems with this defense.  The media is not democratic.  Neither is the electoral system.  If they were people of good will, Originalists would assure themselves that democratic institutions and principles are working before they impose binding meanings on their society.  But although Originalists claim neutrality, they act as if the proper functioning of democratic institutions is beside the point.  In fact, they deliberately weaken those institutions.  That is not a neutral position.

    This shady, cut-rate, half-baked doctrine is not the sum total of the problem.  There is also the dishonesty and irresponsibility of the politicians who foisted Originalist justices on the Supreme Court, in plain sight of the people whose democracy they have stolen.  Last but not least there are the simple, lazy, complicit souls who have failed to develop their capacity for discernment.

     

  • Lords of Chaos on the Supreme Court

    It seems the Supreme Court Justices are lords of chaos.  Leaking the Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade was like waving a red cape in front of a bull, or a MAGA cap in front of a progressive.  It has brought out the worst in progressives and put anything good we might have done on hold.  Of course, this follows the sudden and meaningless war in Ukraine.  This has been a disaster for the progressive conversation.

    The Roe v Wade leak is not just about abortion, just like the Ukraine War is not just about Ukraine.  They both serve to drag your attention away from climate change, voting rights, and anything else that needs your attention.  The lords of chaos want to stop you from having a coherent conversation.

    I saw a clip today in which pro-life agitators goaded pro-choice protesters into a frenzy.  How they relished taunting those women.  How they loved rubbing it in!  How they basked in their Supreme Court ‘victory’.  Then the pro-choice protesters screamed their slogans a little louder, and the pro-lifers drowned them out anyway.  What a glorious hate-fest!  And all because the lords of chaos on the Court leaked an opinion that hasn’t been decided yet.

    Sewing chaos and division has been the establishment’s favorite tactic since that first Trump rally was shut down by Sanders’s supporters in 2016.  They try to get both sides all riled up, or afraid, or confused, or all of the above. They know if they can make us fear and hate each other, we will be ineffective.

    The lords of chaos on the Supreme Court may very well undo Roe v Wade, and the harm for women will be real.  But if the leak brings lasting hatred and confusion and division, it will have served its main purpose.  As long as we’re fighting each other, we can’t fight them.

    See Also: https://youtu.be/_d0URbems8M
  • Miser Joe Manchin Offends Faith-Based Allies

    Catholic Democrat Joe Manchin’s position on the child tax credit has put him at odds with important allies such as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Orthodox Union.  Unfortunately, these groups are in a somewhat embarrassing position after objecting to the bill’s mandate that faith-run pre-kindergarten and childcare programs obey federal non-discrimination statutes.  Manchin used their objections as an excuse for his own objections, which have more to do with his dislike of helping those in need.

    Political negotiations first broke down when Manchin proposed to White House officials that the bill maintain elements of the original legislation but omit an expansion of the child tax credit.  Then, this week Manchin told reporters he supports the child tax credit, but only if there is a work requirement for the parents involved.

    Senator Manchin has been trumpeting his work requirement for months despite his religious allies’ prediction that if the requirement becomes part of the law families who don’t pay income tax due to lack of income would not receive the benefit.

    In a September 7 letter, bishops voiced support for the child tax credit expansion without the work requirement.

    “It is especially important that the credit remain fully refundable to ensure the most economically vulnerable children benefit from this family support.”

    The National Association of Evangelicals has not taken a position on the Build Back Better Act as a whole, but the group’s vice president for government relations, Galen Carey, has consistently expressed support for the child tax credit provision. He was asked this week about tying work requirements to the child tax credit.

    “We support making the child tax credit fully available to the families who need the help the most,” he said in a statement. “Work is critically important to human dignity but having a particular level of earned family income should not be a prerequisite to accessing support for their children. Full CTC refundability is what makes it such a powerful anti-poverty tool.”

    The Poor People’s Campaign, a faith-led activist group that often advocates for liberal-leaning legislation, has been protesting against Manchin’s position for months.   The Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, called Manchin’s excuses a “regression back to the tired debate of deserving and undeserving poor.”

    Progressives may have forgotten what an incredible accomplishment the child tax credit was because it was just one item on a very long wish list.  We may have also forgotten to give the Biden administration credit for its implementation.

    This benefit was perfectly aimed at the most vulnerable members of society–children.  And it had the added benefit of demonstrating how valuable the nation’s children are to the President and the people alike.  In my opinion, if the child tax credit is all that can be salvaged from the Build Back Better Act, its survival will be a cause for celebration.

    President Biden has a clear mandate.  I urge his administration to extend the child tax credit–without  Manchin’s work requirement.

     

  • Conservatives are Getting off Easy

    We have veered off track in this conversation.  I’ve been trying to return to the days when we could dream about another way of life.  If we thought about politics at all, we assumed our elected officials knew they’d reached a dead end and that it was time for a change.  Those days ended when we decided to support a presidential candidate.   We learned we were never taken seriously–we were merely a threat.  We have already talked about our shock and disgust at the tactics of conservatives in both parties.  What we haven’t talked about is whether the so-called left shares our vision of the way forward.

    We didn’t require Bernie to share our vision in 2016.  We supported him because he was our best bet.  We believed when he became president he would listen to us.  But now it is becoming clear that even if he had won he might never have been ours.  Bernie and his solutions belong to another time.  When he dreams he dreams about times past.

    Of course he’s not the only one.  There’s a lot of that going around.   The Catholics who fight Pope Francis are doing exactly the same thing.  Unfortunately we made it easy for them by supporting someone with a ‘socialist’ past for president.  Reactionaries need an enemy and we gave them one.  We wrote their script.

    The left will object that socialist policies are exactly what we need to combat inequality.  First, assuming inequality is the priority, you have to be president to put those policies in place.  Second, it is not clear that workers’ prosperity will solve our problem.  I admit it has been infuriating watching Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin play their part in assuring that Bernie’s programs don’t get passed, but don’t forget they are Bernie’s programs–not ours.  Sinema and Manchin prefer it that way.

    Reactionaries dream of an enemy like Bernie.  They never have to reveal their uselessness in dealing with today’s problems because all they have to do is fight Bernie.   It lets them hide the fact that they are not the people we need for the problems we are facing.

    We are losing farmland to desertification.  The green revolution has run its destructive course, depleting the land and polluting water supplies world-wide, and apparently no one is concerned about this at all.  Politicians continue to beat their natalist drums while bombing far-away people out of house and home and refusing to give them refuge.  And now they withhold covid vaccines from entire countries just because they can.  Strangely, they don’t seem to be aware that their bad behavior is catching up with them–the vaccine policy may finally ruin them.

    The supply chain is breaking down.  This affects the automotive repair industry, the construction industry, the medical industry–basically any industry that depends on the supply chain.  Could it be that parts and supplies and logistics and transportation depend on countries that didn’t get vaccinated?

    Making workers more prosperous is a worthy goal.  However our first priority today is survival, and we’re already failing.  We have a global problem that must be solved globally.  The supply chain demonstrates it is literally suicidal to throw entire peoples to the wolves.

    So what should we do?  We could start by making Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and the right-wingers on Twitter tell us what they will do about the supply chain.  Ask them if they’ve made preparations for shortages in their own states.  Ask Sinema what she’ll do when the Colorado River doesn’t have enough water to farm and fish.  Ask her what she thinks about wealthy countries withholding vaccines from poor countries.  Of course, first you’d have to catch up with her, and then you’d have to get her attention, and then you’d have to convince her she’s just an earthling, like the rest of us.

  • Progressive Goals and Christian Eschatology

     

    The last article left unanswered questions.  Should progressives hope for political success under the logic of Christian theology? How are Christians to understand failure and disappointment in this important work?

    Since the 2020 election, the question of the hour has been Where do we go from here?  The answer to this question depends on your view of reality.  From the secular point of view, we have heard sound political proposals and strategies.  In a video no longer available on YouTube, N.T. Wright answers it with Christian eschatology.  They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    “There is no excuse for Christians not being involved in the work here and now,” Wright says, but the question is, how? He begins by rejecting two common reactions to the current political situation.  The first one is, “There’s nothing we can do.”; the second one is, “Our clever planning will bring God’s kingdom.”

    Wright stresses that Christian eschatology is similar to Jewish eschatology.  He bases this on scriptures from the Old and New Testaments.  From the Book of  Daniel, chapters 2 and 7, he concludes that when God sets up his kingdom that can’t be shaken, He will set it up here on earth.

    Where is Heaven?

    The Jews were creational and conventional monotheists.  Therefore, they did not envision Heaven and Earth as two separate realms.  Heaven and earth  are meant to come together, but how, and in what form?

    The coming together of Heaven and Earth and the future renewal of creation will be like the resurrection of Jesus.  It will be the creation of something new out of the old.

    Paul’s eschatology shapes the mission of the Church.  Heaven and Earth, or the two ages, will overlap…or rather, they do overlap.

    “God has made the world so it will flourish under wise obedient human care.”

    The creation knows it is meant to flourish under the wise rule of human beings…God has subjected the present creation to futility because He designed it to work properly under the image-bearers.

    So how are we to apply Paul’s eschatology to the efforts and disappointments of progressives?  N.T. Wright says Paul’s ‘monotheism and election’ is a new version of the Church’s mission in which we go out in prayer, expecting set-backs, and believing that God has a secret way to rescue the world.  In other words, this vision is not triumphalist. It starts with sharing the pain of the world

    We are justified in order to be justice-hungry people in an unjust world.  We are put right in order to be putting right people for the world.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • The Birth of Aquarius and Human Civilization

    Today people either look forward to the New Age or they fear it.  Religious believers are probably the largest group of people who fear the age of Aquarius.   They may not believe that an age has real influence on the world, but they fear New Age belief systems and alternative lifestyles. It’s important that we all understand the connection between the birth of Aquarius and human civilization.

    (more…)
  • Christianity Fears the New Age

    The world is stuck in the age of Pisces

    Is it possible that Christianity doesn’t know what is unique about its own teachings? The Pontifical Council’s document on New Age implies that Christianity fears the New Age. However, Aquarius may be more compatible with Christianity than Pisces was. There’s no need to fear the New Age. The real problem is that the world is stuck in the Age of Pisces. The Council should have addressed that problem instead. Evidence of the world’s wrong turn can be found in the increasing influence of Hermeticism at a time when it should be fading away.

    Read more: Christianity Fears the New Age

    Hermeticism Should Not be Increasing

    Hermeticism is not compatible with the Age of Aquarius. Siva/Hermes is associated with Hermeticism. Pisces was the age of Siva/Hermes. However, Saturn rules the Age of Aquarius. Saturn is the planet of Brahma. Brahma and Siva/Hermes have different characteristics and preside over different types of societies.

    Brahma, Hindu God, Creator
    Why Doesn’t the Pontifical Council Deal with These Things?

    Perhaps the Pontifical Council doubted that an astronomical age has real effects in the world. If so, Christians are right and wrong at the same time. The New Age will have real effects in the world, but the Church is the remedy.

    What does an Age of the World Mean to Jesus?

    I don’t consider Brahma and Siva/Hermes to be gods, but I think they have a type of reality. Jesus seems to have known that two competing orders of justice confront the human race. They are the Justice of the Rupture and the Justice of the Whole.  If that is the case, we need the Church (the Justice of the Rapture) to tell us how the human race is expected to exist in a cosmic order ruled by the Age of Aquarius (the Justice of the Whole).

    The Secular World is Equally, or maybe more, Mistaken

    How is it possible that the secular world’s expectations of the New Age are wrong? Maybe the secular world doesn’t understand the importance of the Planet Saturn in myth and religion. At the beginning of the Age of Pisces, Siva/Hermes claimed Saturn for himself because it was central to the religious system that legitimated his rule.  However, Saturn is not his Planet.  Saturn is Brahma’s planet.  Brahma will rule over the Age of Aquarius. This means she will reign over the cosmic order.  (Edward Moor called Brahma ‘she’.) ((Edward Moor F.R.S., The Hindu Pantheon, T. Bensley, Bolt-Court, Fleet Street, 1810))</p>

    Madame Blavatsky was Wrong

    The significance of the planet Saturn was either not understood by Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, or it was deliberately obscured. The result is that the Theosophists did not usher us in to the new age. They saddled us with a hashed-over version of Saivism. The entire effort was a waste of time because the coming age does not belong to Siva/Hermes. Madame Blavatsky was wrong.

    Blavatsky’s writings contributed to the racism of the Nazi Party. They were also influential in modern physics. Her determination to rehabilitate Lucifer/Siva as the god of the New Age turned him into the patron of the Bomb. This association is problematic, in spite of the fact that the age of Lucifer/Siva is over.

    It’s true that one of Siva’s names is The Destroyer, but Siva’s destruction is not annihilation. It is the destruction wrought by time. The Bomb on the other hand, is all about annihilation.

    What will the New Age Look Like?

    Christianity fears the New Age. However it seems to me that the Age of Aquarius is not in conflict with Christianity any more than Pisces was. Aquarius might even be more compatible with Christianity. New Age believers, on the other hand, believe it is opposed to the Church. The Church seems to have been confused with an age of the world.

    Don’t Fear the New Age

    Section 6 of the Pontifical Council’s document says, there is a choice to be made between Aquarius and Christ. I agree. It can be argued that there is an attempt to oppose Christ to Aquarius. Interpretations of Aquarius may have led to the current belief that the ancient separation of male and female will no longer be in force. Some say humans ‘should be systematically called to take on an androgynous form of life. This will allow the two sides of the brain to be used in harmony at the right time. This is one instance where the Church is seen as opposition to the new age. The phrase, ‘should be systematically called’ might explain the motive and exuberance behind the transgender movement.

    Conclusion

    New Age movements have been celebrating the coming of Aquarius. However, Aquarius doesn’t look so promising at this time. I’m sure believers didn’t expect it to begin with an environmental and economic crisis. That’s one of the risks of making predictions. The New Age movements seem to be obeying their own erroneous interpretation of the cosmic order. In this way, they’ve turned it into dogma. Does an age of the world need humans to implement it? I don’t think so. Maybe the secular world is the one that lacks faith in the power and nature of the ages. They think Aquarius will be their age and they prefer to face it without the Church. But the planets are indifferent to human thriving.

    Christianity fears the New Age. Or maybe the Christians merely fear the human interpretation of it.

    See Also: the Shechinah, divine attribute of kingship

    (more…)
  • The Return of Liberalism?

    The Meritocracy Versus Just America

    I recently watched George Packer talk about his new book, Last Best Hope.  I agree with most of what I heard in this interview (although there are hints that he is not an ally of progressives).  Parker is calling for the return of liberalism.  On the positive side, he thinks the goal for the country should be equal citizens governing themselves.  He stresses that he doesn’t define equality in the sense of equal outcome, but in the sense of no one being born and dying in a permanently subordinate class.  And when he says citizens should govern themselves, he means they should participate in the current democratic system.   My main concerns are the rivalry he sets up between liberalism and progressivism, and his belief that we actually have a self-governing system.

    The root of our problems, Packer says, is that we’ve been unable to make an equal America across race and class lines.  We have to create conditions of equality, mostly through government intervention, through breaking up monopolies, by empowering workers, by rebuilding the safety net, by making education more equal.

    I agree with all of these proposals.  However, I would argue that the attempt to achieve these goals has lead to the divisions he is trying to heal.  But Packer believes his policies would allow the temperature to go down so that people could work together again.

    Packer does mention progressives.  He credits Elizabeth Warren as the leader of progressives who want to rein in monopolies.  But progressives are not listed in his four divisions of America, and the category that would seem to include progressives is not invited to participate in the return of liberalism.  Below is Packer’s list of four rival Americas which have arisen since the 1970s:

    The four Americas are Free America; Real America; Smart America; and Just America.  Free America is conservative to the point of libertarianism.  Real America is Sarah Palin’s America, and the direct rival of Free America. Smart America is the professional class or meritocracy.  Smart America is separate from liberalism.  Just America is the chief critic of Smart America.  Packer does not think Just America has any benign attributes.  It is associated with social intolerance and cancel culture.

    According to Packer, Just America sees the United States as nothing but a caste system.  For this group everything about American history is white, and whiteness is on trial.  He illustrates this by citing Ta-Nehisi Coates’s statement that America is a unitary malignant force.  But Packer’s so-called illustration is misleading, because Coates has been criticized by progressives.

    Packer also claims that Just America’s focus on race makes them unwilling to talk about class.  What is needed, in his opinion, is two people of different races to spend several hours together in a room.  He seems unaware that Bernie Sanders and Killer Mike met together in just this way.

    Packer also criticizes Just America’s denial of black violence in black communities, as well as its support for defunding the police.  On the other hand, he speaks approvingly when he calls Black Lives Matter a movement for oppressed people.  This is a contradiction because Black Lives Matter is the most prominent voice for defunding the police.

    In case you are not convinced that Just America is on the firing line, I’ll share Packer’s summary of the four divisions of America:  Free America lauds the energy of the unencumbered individual; Smart America respects intelligence and welcomes change; Real America commits itself to a place and has a sense of limits; and Just America demands a confrontation with what the others want to avoid.

    The Return of Liberalism Needs the Left

    If the changes listed by Packer can be accomplished, I won’t object to the dismissal of the progressive movement.  But Packer’s false definition of the left makes success unlikely.  The accomplishments of progressives have to be acknowledged and appreciated and built upon if we’re going to achieve the equality George Packer is talking about.

    A Supporting View

    Packer’s misidentification of progressives is summed up by Eric Levitz in a June 15 article for Intelligencer.

    There are many problems with Packer’s essay.  For one, its characterization of Just America is a tendentious description of one ideological tendency in a single segment of the millennial left.  There are no small number of racial-justice advocates whose vision is unabashedly universalist…

    But an even bigger problem with Packer’s schema is this: It completely ignores the majority of Democratic voters who are neither professional-class meritocrats nor millennial anti-racists.  Packer hasn’t described the central division within Blue America but the generational cleavage within his own professional circle.

    The Return of Liberalism and Self-Governance

    Packer wants this country to remain self-governing.  I share his concern, but it’s important to acknowledge that the system needs improvement.  After all, it gave the presidency to Donald Trump in 2016 even though he had 4 million fewer votes than his opponent.  More importantly, it has silenced the voices of many generations who have tried to warn us about the climate crisis.  We need a system capable of being influenced by the voters, and we need voters who are willing to participate.  We can do a better job of self-governance.

    Tim Black on The Black Left

    Lynn Parramore on the Coup – and the corporations- That Destroyed the Black Middle Class

    Radical Universalism, on the Jacobin Show

    Zero Books: Identity Politics is Right Wing

    Gresham College: Food Oppression

    Bad Faith: What to do with Inconvenient Truths

    Glenn Greenwald: Canceling Comedians While the World Burns

error: Content is protected !!