I read John Halpin's piece, and like his optimism and naturally, his rejection of identity politics as the touchstone for everything. But at least so far, he betrays the same weakness of most constructive pieces I read from the Left: his notion of progress, which he defines mostly as economic progress, assumes that certain fundamental …
I read John Halpin's piece, and like his optimism and naturally, his rejection of identity politics as the touchstone for everything. But at least so far, he betrays the same weakness of most constructive pieces I read from the Left: his notion of progress, which he defines mostly as economic progress, assumes that certain fundamental arguments are settled, and settled his way, rather than being discussed. That just won't work.
There are many such arguments, all of which could be addressed more constructively without the poison of identity politics, but removing that alone won't solve them. The three biggest ones that he passes over as if they were already resolved are:
1. The proper role of Government, and the proper distribution of that role between the States and the Union;
2. A just Immigration System that serves our national interests and meets our international obligations, in terms of refugees under international law;
3. Our level of societal responsibility to shelter individuals from the consequences of their own bad decisions, as opposed to natural or human-caused disasters, or current and past discrimination.
Advice to abandon identity politics but that then just wishes these (and other real issues) away is nice, but it's not really actionable.
From the essay: "In addition, America needs a stronger social welfare system that ensures all people have good paying jobs and adequate health care, housing, education, and retirement savings." "All people"? Including those who, in the immortal words of AOC's staff in the leaked draft of the Green New Deal, "choose not to work"? Including those who refuse treatment, education, or housing? Unlimited cancer care for smokers? Liver transplants for alcoholics? That sentence is a conversation opener, not a closer or a conclusion, as far as I'm concerned.
Thx. I agree #3 isn't a conclusion, if that's what Halpin is saying (I didn't read the essay). And on #s 1 and 2, my view is that we are really divided and have been for quite a while - no conclusion there. Is that what Halpin is also saying?
But on #3, that is a relatively new thing. I don't think half the nation thinks we should take care of those who choose not to work, unless they are mothers with young children, in which case ensuring they have adequate health care and housing is a good thing and there is support for that among family-oriented conservatives. (Was that who AOC was talking about? I don't know that quote.)
On ensuring good paying jobs, I am worried about future Americans' employability as technology eliminates those jobs as it has been doing for decades. Universal basic income has been proposed to offset that loss, but the People don't know enough about this issue and whether it's going to happen to be clearly divided.
I read John Halpin's piece, and like his optimism and naturally, his rejection of identity politics as the touchstone for everything. But at least so far, he betrays the same weakness of most constructive pieces I read from the Left: his notion of progress, which he defines mostly as economic progress, assumes that certain fundamental arguments are settled, and settled his way, rather than being discussed. That just won't work.
There are many such arguments, all of which could be addressed more constructively without the poison of identity politics, but removing that alone won't solve them. The three biggest ones that he passes over as if they were already resolved are:
1. The proper role of Government, and the proper distribution of that role between the States and the Union;
2. A just Immigration System that serves our national interests and meets our international obligations, in terms of refugees under international law;
3. Our level of societal responsibility to shelter individuals from the consequences of their own bad decisions, as opposed to natural or human-caused disasters, or current and past discrimination.
Advice to abandon identity politics but that then just wishes these (and other real issues) away is nice, but it's not really actionable.
I agree with #s 1 & 2, but I don't understand #3. Pls say more about it.
From the essay: "In addition, America needs a stronger social welfare system that ensures all people have good paying jobs and adequate health care, housing, education, and retirement savings." "All people"? Including those who, in the immortal words of AOC's staff in the leaked draft of the Green New Deal, "choose not to work"? Including those who refuse treatment, education, or housing? Unlimited cancer care for smokers? Liver transplants for alcoholics? That sentence is a conversation opener, not a closer or a conclusion, as far as I'm concerned.
Thx. I agree #3 isn't a conclusion, if that's what Halpin is saying (I didn't read the essay). And on #s 1 and 2, my view is that we are really divided and have been for quite a while - no conclusion there. Is that what Halpin is also saying?
But on #3, that is a relatively new thing. I don't think half the nation thinks we should take care of those who choose not to work, unless they are mothers with young children, in which case ensuring they have adequate health care and housing is a good thing and there is support for that among family-oriented conservatives. (Was that who AOC was talking about? I don't know that quote.)
On ensuring good paying jobs, I am worried about future Americans' employability as technology eliminates those jobs as it has been doing for decades. Universal basic income has been proposed to offset that loss, but the People don't know enough about this issue and whether it's going to happen to be clearly divided.