A liberal's take on racism, CRT and the liberal's move to the hard left

[rogue06]

An excellent piece from liberal political commentator Andrew Sullivan, who recently failed a litmus test resulting in his getting booted from the New Yorker Magazine, directed at his fellow travelers, and concerning the rapid radical shift toward the extreme left by liberal institutions

Source: What Happened To You?

The radicalization of the American elite against liberalism

"What happened to you?"

It’s a question I get a lot on Twitter. "When did you become so far right?" "Why have you become a white supremacist, transphobic, misogynistic eugenicist?" Or, of course: "See! I told you who he really was! Just take the hood off, Sully!" It’s trolling, mainly. And it’s a weapon for some in the elite to wield against others in the kind of emotional blackmail spiral that was first pioneered on elite college campuses. But it’s worth answering, a year after I was booted from New York Magazine for my unacceptable politics. Because it seems to me that the dynamic should really be the other way round.

The real question is: what happened to you?

The CRT debate is just the latest squall in a tempest brewing and building for five years or so. And, yes, some of the liberal critiques of a Fox News hyped campaign are well taken. Is this a wedge issue for the GOP? Of course it is. Are they using the term “critical race theory” as a cynical, marketing boogeyman? Of course they are. Are some dog whistles involved? A few. Are crude bans on public servants’ speech dangerous? Absolutely. Do many of the alarmists know who Derrick Bell was? Of course not.

But does that mean there isn’t a real issue here? Of course it doesn’t.

Take a big step back. Observe what has happened in our discourse since around 2015. Forget CRT for a moment and ask yourself: is nothing going on here but Republican propaganda and guile? Can you not see that the Republicans may be acting, but they are also reacting -- reacting against something that is right in front of our noses?

What is it? It is, I’d argue, the sudden, rapid, stunning shift in the belief system of the American elites. It has sent the whole society into a profound cultural dislocation. It is, in essence, an ongoing moral panic against the specter of "white supremacy," which is now bizarrely regarded as an accurate description of the largest, freest, most successful multiracial democracy in human history.

We all know it’s happened. The elites, increasingly sequestered within one political party and one media monoculture, educated by colleges and private schools that have become hermetically sealed against any non-left dissent, have had a “social justice reckoning” these past few years. And they have been ideologically transformed, with countless cascading consequences.

Take it from a NYT woke star, Kara Swisher, who celebrated this week that "the country’s social justice movement is reshaping how we talk about, well, everything." She’s right -- and certainly about the NYT and all mainstream journalism.

This is the media hub of the "social justice movement." And the core point of that movement, its essential point, is that liberalism is no longer enough. Not just not enough, but itself a means to perpetuate “white supremacy,” designed to oppress, harm and terrorize minorities and women, and in dire need of dismantling. That’s a huge deal. And it explains a lot.

The reason "critical race theory" is a decent approximation for this new orthodoxy is that it was precisely this exasperation with liberalism’s seeming inability to end racial inequality in a generation that prompted Derrick Bell et al. to come up with the term in the first place, and Kimberlé Crenshaw to subsequently universalize it beyond race to every other possible dimension of human identity (“intersectionality”).

A specter of invisible and unfalsifiable "systems" and "structures" and "internal biases" arrived to hover over the world. Some of this critique was specific and helpful: the legacy of redlining, the depth of the wealth gap. But much was tendentious post-modern theorizing. The popular breakthrough was Ta-Nehisi Coates’ essay on reparations in the Atlantic and his subsequent, gut-wrenching memoir, “Between The World And Me.” He combined the worldview and vocabulary of CRT with the vivid lived experience of his own biography. He is a beautifully gifted writer, and I am not surprised he had such an emotional impact, even if, in my view, the power of his prose blinded many to the radical implications of the ideology he surrendered to, in what many of his blog readers called his "blue period."

The movement is much broader than race — as anyone who is dealing with matters of sex and gender will tell you. The best moniker I’ve read to describe this mishmash of postmodern thought and therapy culture ascendant among liberal white elites is Wesley Yang’s coinage: "the successor ideology." The "structural oppression" is white supremacy, but that can also be expressed more broadly, along Crenshaw lines: to describe a hegemony that is saturated with "anti-Blackness," misogyny, and transphobia, in a miasma of social "cis-heteronormative patriarchal white supremacy." And the term "successor ideology" works because it centers the fact that this ideology wishes, first and foremost, to repeal and succeed a liberal society and democracy.

In the successor ideology, there is no escape, no refuge, from the ongoing nightmare of oppression and violence -- and you are either fighting this and "on the right side of history," or you are against it and abetting evil. There is no neutrality. No space for skepticism. No room for debate. No space even for staying silent. (Silence, remember, is violence -- perhaps the most profoundly anti-liberal slogan ever invented.)

And that tells you about the will to power behind it. Liberalism leaves you alone. The successor ideology will never let go of you. Liberalism is only concerned with your actions. The successor ideology is concerned with your mind, your psyche, and the deepest recesses of your soul. Liberalism will let you do your job, and let you keep your politics private. S.I. will force you into a struggle session as a condition for employment.

What happened to me? You know what I want to know: What on earth has happened to you?

I have exactly the same principles and support most of the same policies I did under BarackObama. In fact, I’ve moved left on economic and foreign policy since then. It’s Democrats who have taken a sudden, giant swerve away from their recent past.

At the moment, I’m recording an audiobook for a new collection of my writing, from 1989 - 2021, "Out On A Limb," to be published next month. (More to come on that next week.) It covers the Obama years, including my impression in May 2007 that he’d be the next president and why I found him so appealing a figure. It’s been a shocking reminder of how our politics has been transformed since then:

My favorite moment was a very simple one. He referred to the anniversary of the March on Selma, how he went and how he came back and someone (I don’t remember who now) said to him: "That was a great celebration of African-American history." To which Obama said he replied: “No, no, no, no, no. That was not a great celebration of African-American history. That was a celebration of American history."

How much further can you get from the ideology of the 1619 Project -- that rejects any notion of white contributions to black freedom? In his Jeremiah Wright speech, the best of his career, this is what Obama said of Wright’s CRT-inspired words, damning America:

They expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America... The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

This is what I still believe. Do you?

A plank of successor ideology, for example, is that the only and exclusive reason for racial inequality is “white supremacy.” Culture, economics, poverty, criminality, family structure: all are irrelevant, unless seen as mere emanations of white control. Even discussing these complicated factors is racist, according to Ibram X Kendi.

Obama was a straddler, of course, and did not deny that “so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.” I don’t deny that either. Who could? But neither did he deny African-American agency or responsibility:

It means taking full responsibility for own lives-- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

To say this today would evoke instant accusations of being a white supremacist and racist. That’s how far the left has moved: Obama as an enabler of white supremacy. You keep asking: what happened to me? I remain an Obamacon, same as I always have been. What, in contrast, has happened to you?

Check out this really insightful interview of Wes Yang by Matt Taibbi. Yang beautifully explains the radical shift in elite opinion. He notes the ascending rhetoric: "So there’s a line in an n+1 essay, where the person is saying, 'Oh, we are now menaced by whiteness and masculinity.' Whereas in the past, we would have said, 'Oh, we’re menaced by racism and sexism.'" He sees what this movement is about: the end of due process, the rejection of even an attempt at objectivity, a belief in active race and sex discrimination ("equity") to counter the legacy of the past, the purging of ideological diversity, and the replacement of liberal education with left-indoctrination.

Yang sees the attempt to dismantle the entire carapace of liberal society and liberal institutions: "[The proponents of the successor ideology are] not trying to be malicious, but they are trying to basically annihilate a lot of the foundational processes that we depend upon and then remake them anew. You operate from the starting point that all the previous ideologies, methods, and processes are untrustworthy, because they produced this outcome previously, so we’ve got to remake all of them." Precisely. This is a revolution against liberalism commanded from above.

Look how far the left’s war on liberalism has gone.

Due process? If you’re a male on campus, gone. Privacy? Stripped away — by anonymous rape accusations, exposure of private emails, violence against people’s private homes, screaming at folks in restaurants, sordid exposés of sexual encounters, eagerly published by woke mags. Non-violence? Exceptions are available if you want to “punch a fascist.” Free speech? Only if you don’t mind being fired and ostracized as a righteous consequence. Free association? You’ve got to be kidding. Religious freedom? Illegitimate bigotry. Equality? Only group equity counts now, and individuals of the wrong identity can and must be discriminated against. Color-blindness? Another word for racism. Mercy? Not for oppressors. Intent? Irrelevant. Objectivity? A racist lie. Science? A manifestation of white supremacy. Biological sex? Replaced by socially constructed gender so that women have penises and men have periods. The rule of law? Not for migrants or looters. Borders? Racist. Viewpoint diversity? A form of violence against the oppressed.

It is absolutely no accident that this illiberal ideology has no qualms whatever with illiberal methods. The latter springs intrinsically from the former. Kendi, feted across the establishment, favors amending the Constitution to appoint an unelected and unaccountable committee of “experts” that has the power to coerce and punish any individual or group anywhere in the country deemed practicing racism. Intent does not matter. And the decisions are final. An advocate for unaccountable, totalitarian control of our society is the darling of every single elite institution in America, and is routinely given platforms where no tough questioning of him is allowed. He is as dumb as Obama is smart; as crude as Obama is nuanced; as authoritarian as Obama is liberal.

Or check out Kevin Drum’s analysis of asymmetric polarization these past few decades. He shows relentlessly that over the past few decades, it’s Democrats who have veered most decisively to the extremes on policy on cultural issues since the 1990s. Not Republicans. Democrats.

https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_4eb73479-ac0b-4f55-9a18-c40a89967771_1698x812.jpeg

On immigration, Republicans have moved around five points to the right; the Democrats 35 points to the left. On abortion, Republicans who advocate a total ban have increased their numbers a couple of points since 1994; Democrats who favor legality in every instance has risen 20 points. On guns, the GOP has moved ten points right; Dems 20 points left.

It is also no accident that, as Drum notes and as David Shor has shown: "white academic theories of racism -- and probably the whole woke movement in general -- have turned off many moderate Black and Hispanic voters." This is why even a huge economic boom may not be enough to keep the Democrats in power next year.

We are going through the greatest radicalization of the elites since the 1960s. This isn’t coming from the ground up. It’s being imposed ruthlessly from above, marshaled with a fusillade of constant MSM propaganda, and its victims are often the poor and the black and the brown. It nearly lost the Democrats the last election. Only Biden’s seeming moderation, the wisdom of black Democratic primary voters, and the profound ugliness of Trump wrested the presidency from a vicious demagogue, whose contempt for our system of government appears ever greater the more we find out about his term in office.

But as Wes Yang notes, Biden has also aided and abetted and justified this radicalism. He has instituted a huge program of overt government race and sex discrimination throughout every policy and area of government; he backs decimating due process for sexual accusations on campus; he favors abolishing religious freedom as a defense of anti-gay discrimination; he believes that gender identity should replace sex as a legal category, and gender identity should rest entirely on self-disclosure; he favors expediting and maximizing mass immigration, not stemming it. In Yang’s rather brutal assessment, for the hard left, "what they saw is that with Joe Biden, who’s this throwback figure, the activists could all rush to him and get most of what they wanted from him anyway."

Does that mean we should support an increasingly nihilist cult on the right among the GOP? Of course not. Does it mean we should ignore its increasingly menacing contempt for electoral integrity and a stable democracy? Absolutely not. But one reason to fight for liberalism against the successor ideology is that its extremes are quite obviously fomenting and facilitating and inspiring ever-rising fanaticism in response. I fear the successor ideology’s Kulturkampf is already making the 2022 midterms a landslide for a cultish, unmoored GOP. In fighting S.I., we are also fighting Trump.

But I am not making a tactical argument here. I’m making a deeper moral argument. We can and must still fight and argue for what we believe in: a liberal democracy in a liberal society. This fight will not end if we just ignore it or allow ourselves to be intimidated by it, or join the tribal pile-ons. And I will not apologize for confronting this, however unpopular it might make me, just as I won’t apologize for confronting the poison and nihilism on the right. And if you really want to be on "the right side of liberalism," you will join me.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

This is actually the short version of his essay You have to be a subscriber to get the full thing.

I've previously mentioned how Nate Silver, the much ballyhooed political guru of the left, has also noted how much the Democrats and liberals have shifted left in recent years, while the MSM continues to try to gaslight the people into thinking they've remained constant in their beliefs and it's been conservatives who are solely responsible.

Also, Sullivan makes a brief comment about the failure of liberal policies, the left's "exasperation with liberalism’s seeming inability to end racial inequality." I think this might be the key to the radical shift we're seeing. They finally have comprehended that their policies haven't worked.

But being liberals, they can not take responsibility for their own actions and instead seek to shift it onto society at large, It's Liberalism 101. It's always society's fault. So the reason that they failed must be that society is far more racist than they ever dreamed and all the evidence showing that racism has sharply dropped over the decades is to be ignored as some sort of racist trick.

[CivilDiscourse]

An excellent piece from liberal political commentator Andrew Sullivan, who recently failed a litmus test resulting in his getting booted from the New Yorker Magazine, directed at his fellow travelers, and concerning the rapid radical shift toward the extreme left by liberal institutions

Source: What Happened To You?

The radicalization of the American elite against liberalism

"What happened to you?"

It’s a question I get a lot on Twitter. "When did you become so far right?" "Why have you become a white supremacist, transphobic, misogynistic eugenicist?" Or, of course: "See! I told you who he really was! Just take the hood off, Sully!" It’s trolling, mainly. And it’s a weapon for some in the elite to wield against others in the kind of emotional blackmail spiral that was first pioneered on elite college campuses. But it’s worth answering, a year after I was booted from New York Magazine for my unacceptable politics. Because it seems to me that the dynamic should really be the other way round.

The real question is: what happened to you?

The CRT debate is just the latest squall in a tempest brewing and building for five years or so. And, yes, some of the liberal critiques of a Fox News hyped campaign are well taken. Is this a wedge issue for the GOP? Of course it is. Are they using the term “critical race theory” as a cynical, marketing boogeyman? Of course they are. Are some dog whistles involved? A few. Are crude bans on public servants’ speech dangerous? Absolutely. Do many of the alarmists know who Derrick Bell was? Of course not.

But does that mean there isn’t a real issue here? Of course it doesn’t.

Take a big step back. Observe what has happened in our discourse since around 2015. Forget CRT for a moment and ask yourself: is nothing going on here but Republican propaganda and guile? Can you not see that the Republicans may be acting, but they are also reacting -- reacting against something that is right in front of our noses?

What is it? It is, I’d argue, the sudden, rapid, stunning shift in the belief system of the American elites. It has sent the whole society into a profound cultural dislocation. It is, in essence, an ongoing moral panic against the specter of "white supremacy," which is now bizarrely regarded as an accurate description of the largest, freest, most successful multiracial democracy in human history.

We all know it’s happened. The elites, increasingly sequestered within one political party and one media monoculture, educated by colleges and private schools that have become hermetically sealed against any non-left dissent, have had a “social justice reckoning” these past few years. And they have been ideologically transformed, with countless cascading consequences.

Take it from a NYT woke star, Kara Swisher, who celebrated this week that "the country’s social justice movement is reshaping how we talk about, well, everything." She’s right -- and certainly about the NYT and all mainstream journalism.

This is the media hub of the "social justice movement." And the core point of that movement, its essential point, is that liberalism is no longer enough. Not just not enough, but itself a means to perpetuate “white supremacy,” designed to oppress, harm and terrorize minorities and women, and in dire need of dismantling. That’s a huge deal. And it explains a lot.

The reason "critical race theory" is a decent approximation for this new orthodoxy is that it was precisely this exasperation with liberalism’s seeming inability to end racial inequality in a generation that prompted Derrick Bell et al. to come up with the term in the first place, and Kimberlé Crenshaw to subsequently universalize it beyond race to every other possible dimension of human identity (“intersectionality”).

A specter of invisible and unfalsifiable "systems" and "structures" and "internal biases" arrived to hover over the world. Some of this critique was specific and helpful: the legacy of redlining, the depth of the wealth gap. But much was tendentious post-modern theorizing. The popular breakthrough was Ta-Nehisi Coates’ essay on reparations in the Atlantic and his subsequent, gut-wrenching memoir, “Between The World And Me.” He combined the worldview and vocabulary of CRT with the vivid lived experience of his own biography. He is a beautifully gifted writer, and I am not surprised he had such an emotional impact, even if, in my view, the power of his prose blinded many to the radical implications of the ideology he surrendered to, in what many of his blog readers called his "blue period."

The movement is much broader than race — as anyone who is dealing with matters of sex and gender will tell you. The best moniker I’ve read to describe this mishmash of postmodern thought and therapy culture ascendant among liberal white elites is Wesley Yang’s coinage: "the successor ideology." The "structural oppression" is white supremacy, but that can also be expressed more broadly, along Crenshaw lines: to describe a hegemony that is saturated with "anti-Blackness," misogyny, and transphobia, in a miasma of social "cis-heteronormative patriarchal white supremacy." And the term "successor ideology" works because it centers the fact that this ideology wishes, first and foremost, to repeal and succeed a liberal society and democracy.

In the successor ideology, there is no escape, no refuge, from the ongoing nightmare of oppression and violence -- and you are either fighting this and "on the right side of history," or you are against it and abetting evil. There is no neutrality. No space for skepticism. No room for debate. No space even for staying silent. (Silence, remember, is violence -- perhaps the most profoundly anti-liberal slogan ever invented.)

And that tells you about the will to power behind it. Liberalism leaves you alone. The successor ideology will never let go of you. Liberalism is only concerned with your actions. The successor ideology is concerned with your mind, your psyche, and the deepest recesses of your soul. Liberalism will let you do your job, and let you keep your politics private. S.I. will force you into a struggle session as a condition for employment.

What happened to me? You know what I want to know: What on earth has happened to you?

I have exactly the same principles and support most of the same policies I did under BarackObama. In fact, I’ve moved left on economic and foreign policy since then. It’s Democrats who have taken a sudden, giant swerve away from their recent past.

At the moment, I’m recording an audiobook for a new collection of my writing, from 1989 - 2021, "Out On A Limb," to be published next month. (More to come on that next week.) It covers the Obama years, including my impression in May 2007 that he’d be the next president and why I found him so appealing a figure. It’s been a shocking reminder of how our politics has been transformed since then:

My favorite moment was a very simple one. He referred to the anniversary of the March on Selma, how he went and how he came back and someone (I don’t remember who now) said to him: "That was a great celebration of African-American history." To which Obama said he replied: “No, no, no, no, no. That was not a great celebration of African-American history. That was a celebration of American history."

How much further can you get from the ideology of the 1619 Project -- that rejects any notion of white contributions to black freedom? In his Jeremiah Wright speech, the best of his career, this is what Obama said of Wright’s CRT-inspired words, damning America:

They expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America... The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

This is what I still believe. Do you?

A plank of successor ideology, for example, is that the only and exclusive reason for racial inequality is “white supremacy.” Culture, economics, poverty, criminality, family structure: all are irrelevant, unless seen as mere emanations of white control. Even discussing these complicated factors is racist, according to Ibram X Kendi.

Obama was a straddler, of course, and did not deny that “so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.” I don’t deny that either. Who could? But neither did he deny African-American agency or responsibility:

It means taking full responsibility for own lives-- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

To say this today would evoke instant accusations of being a white supremacist and racist. That’s how far the left has moved: Obama as an enabler of white supremacy. You keep asking: what happened to me? I remain an Obamacon, same as I always have been. What, in contrast, has happened to you?

Check out this really insightful interview of Wes Yang by Matt Taibbi. Yang beautifully explains the radical shift in elite opinion. He notes the ascending rhetoric: "So there’s a line in an n+1 essay, where the person is saying, 'Oh, we are now menaced by whiteness and masculinity.' Whereas in the past, we would have said, 'Oh, we’re menaced by racism and sexism.'" He sees what this movement is about: the end of due process, the rejection of even an attempt at objectivity, a belief in active race and sex discrimination ("equity") to counter the legacy of the past, the purging of ideological diversity, and the replacement of liberal education with left-indoctrination.

Yang sees the attempt to dismantle the entire carapace of liberal society and liberal institutions: "[The proponents of the successor ideology are] not trying to be malicious, but they are trying to basically annihilate a lot of the foundational processes that we depend upon and then remake them anew. You operate from the starting point that all the previous ideologies, methods, and processes are untrustworthy, because they produced this outcome previously, so we’ve got to remake all of them." Precisely. This is a revolution against liberalism commanded from above.

Look how far the left’s war on liberalism has gone.

Due process? If you’re a male on campus, gone. Privacy? Stripped away — by anonymous rape accusations, exposure of private emails, violence against people’s private homes, screaming at folks in restaurants, sordid exposés of sexual encounters, eagerly published by woke mags. Non-violence? Exceptions are available if you want to “punch a fascist.” Free speech? Only if you don’t mind being fired and ostracized as a righteous consequence. Free association? You’ve got to be kidding. Religious freedom? Illegitimate bigotry. Equality? Only group equity counts now, and individuals of the wrong identity can and must be discriminated against. Color-blindness? Another word for racism. Mercy? Not for oppressors. Intent? Irrelevant. Objectivity? A racist lie. Science? A manifestation of white supremacy. Biological sex? Replaced by socially constructed gender so that women have penises and men have periods. The rule of law? Not for migrants or looters. Borders? Racist. Viewpoint diversity? A form of violence against the oppressed.

It is absolutely no accident that this illiberal ideology has no qualms whatever with illiberal methods. The latter springs intrinsically from the former. Kendi, feted across the establishment, favors amending the Constitution to appoint an unelected and unaccountable committee of “experts” that has the power to coerce and punish any individual or group anywhere in the country deemed practicing racism. Intent does not matter. And the decisions are final. An advocate for unaccountable, totalitarian control of our society is the darling of every single elite institution in America, and is routinely given platforms where no tough questioning of him is allowed. He is as dumb as Obama is smart; as crude as Obama is nuanced; as authoritarian as Obama is liberal.

Or check out Kevin Drum’s analysis of asymmetric polarization these past few decades. He shows relentlessly that over the past few decades, it’s Democrats who have veered most decisively to the extremes on policy on cultural issues since the 1990s. Not Republicans. Democrats.

https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_4eb73479-ac0b-4f55-9a18-c40a89967771_1698x812.jpeg

On immigration, Republicans have moved around five points to the right; the Democrats 35 points to the left. On abortion, Republicans who advocate a total ban have increased their numbers a couple of points since 1994; Democrats who favor legality in every instance has risen 20 points. On guns, the GOP has moved ten points right; Dems 20 points left.

It is also no accident that, as Drum notes and as David Shor has shown: "white academic theories of racism -- and probably the whole woke movement in general -- have turned off many moderate Black and Hispanic voters." This is why even a huge economic boom may not be enough to keep the Democrats in power next year.

We are going through the greatest radicalization of the elites since the 1960s. This isn’t coming from the ground up. It’s being imposed ruthlessly from above, marshaled with a fusillade of constant MSM propaganda, and its victims are often the poor and the black and the brown. It nearly lost the Democrats the last election. Only Biden’s seeming moderation, the wisdom of black Democratic primary voters, and the profound ugliness of Trump wrested the presidency from a vicious demagogue, whose contempt for our system of government appears ever greater the more we find out about his term in office.

But as Wes Yang notes, Biden has also aided and abetted and justified this radicalism. He has instituted a huge program of overt government race and sex discrimination throughout every policy and area of government; he backs decimating due process for sexual accusations on campus; he favors abolishing religious freedom as a defense of anti-gay discrimination; he believes that gender identity should replace sex as a legal category, and gender identity should rest entirely on self-disclosure; he favors expediting and maximizing mass immigration, not stemming it. In Yang’s rather brutal assessment, for the hard left, "what they saw is that with Joe Biden, who’s this throwback figure, the activists could all rush to him and get most of what they wanted from him anyway."

Does that mean we should support an increasingly nihilist cult on the right among the GOP? Of course not. Does it mean we should ignore its increasingly menacing contempt for electoral integrity and a stable democracy? Absolutely not. But one reason to fight for liberalism against the successor ideology is that its extremes are quite obviously fomenting and facilitating and inspiring ever-rising fanaticism in response. I fear the successor ideology’s Kulturkampf is already making the 2022 midterms a landslide for a cultish, unmoored GOP. In fighting S.I., we are also fighting Trump.

But I am not making a tactical argument here. I’m making a deeper moral argument. We can and must still fight and argue for what we believe in: a liberal democracy in a liberal society. This fight will not end if we just ignore it or allow ourselves to be intimidated by it, or join the tribal pile-ons. And I will not apologize for confronting this, however unpopular it might make me, just as I won’t apologize for confronting the poison and nihilism on the right. And if you really want to be on "the right side of liberalism," you will join me.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

This is actually the short version of his essay You have to be a subscriber to get the full thing.

I've previously mentioned how Nate Silver, the much ballyhooed political guru of the left, has also noted how much the Democrats and liberals have shifted left in recent years, while the MSM continues to try to gaslight the people into thinking they've remained constant in their beliefs and it's been conservatives who are solely responsible.

Also, Sullivan makes a brief comment about the failure of liberal policies, the left's "exasperation with liberalism’s seeming inability to end racial inequality." I think this might be the key to the radical shift we're seeing. They finally have comprehended that their policies haven't worked.

But being liberals, they can not take responsibility for their own actions and instead seek to shift it onto society at large, It's Liberalism 101. It's always society's fault. So the reason that they failed must be that society is far more racist than they ever dreamed and all the evidence showing that racism has sharply dropped over the decades is to be ignored as some sort of racist trick.

He hits what I've mentioned in previous posts, obviously I'm at the surface level, but still.

People keep focusing on arguing about the label, and in doing so, ignore whether that label is actually applying to actual issues. It doesn't actually matter if what's called CRT meets the technical definition of CRT, what matters is whether the issues its labeling are actual meaningful grievences.

(And of course, the point of the essay is yes, many of them are legitimate)

[Ronson]

I see this Leftist shift as the byproduct of lower IQs, lowered testosterone, and a general decline in common sense in the West.

IMO, it is caused (in part) by academia ... but there is something else. I can't figure it out but something physical is also happening. I see it in my kids and grandkids; a near-total lack of curiosity. When I was a teen, and into adulthood, my friends and I were always hungry to learn something new. The attitude of Millennials appears to be "I don't know and I don't care. Someone else can figure it out." They don't question anything and accept whatever they are told by "authorities." The perfect breeding ground for an authoritarian takeover.

This generation had better wake up soon. I will be dead and gone by the time this apathetic attitude completely ruins the free world.

[rogue06]

I see this Leftist shift as the byproduct of lower IQs, lowered testosterone, and a general decline in common sense in the West.

IMO, it is caused (in part) by academia ... but there is something else. I can't figure it out but something physical is also happening. I see it in my kids and grandkids; a near-total lack of curiosity. When I was a teen, and into adulthood, my friends and I were always hungry to learn something new. The attitude of Millennials appears to be "I don't know and I don't care. Someone else can figure it out." They don't question anything and accept whatever they are told by "authorities." The perfect breeding ground for an authoritarian takeover.

This generation had better wake up soon. I will be dead and gone by the time this apathetic attitude completely ruins the free world.

I wonder if it has to having so much available online. That seems to promote the idea of not needing to learn anything because they can simply look it up if they ever want to know.

[seanD]

He hits what I've mentioned in previous posts, obviously I'm at the surface level, but still.

People keep focusing on arguing about the label, and in doing so, ignore whether that label is actually applying to actual issues. It doesn't actually matter if what's called CRT meets the technical definition of CRT, what matters is whether the issues its labeling are actual meaningful grievences.

(And of course, the point of the essay is yes, many of them are legitimate)

He makes it sound very conspiratorial with word uses such as "elites" and "they."

I've always said, the "woke" movement doesn't look grassroots to me at all. It looks forced. And the fact this movement is happening so fast and you have those on the left themselves opposed to it, makes what's driving it look highly suspicious.

Then when you add the fact there seems to be an "anti-America" element at least within the movement itself... makes you really wonder.

[CivilDiscourse]

He makes it sound very conspiratorial with word uses such as "elites" and "they."

I've always said, the "woke" movement doesn't look grassroots to me at all. It looks forced. And the fact this movement is happening so fast and you have those on the left themselves opposed to it, makes what's driving it look highly suspicious.

Then when you add the fact there seems to be an "anti-America" element at least within the movement itself... makes you really wonder.

I don't think its moving fast, but its intensifying. This was the same movement that was going on under Obama on campuses. The election of Trump just poured gasoline on it and caused many to lose thier mind.

[seanD]

I don't think its moving fast, but its intensifying. This was the same movement that was going on under Obama on campuses. The election of Trump just poured gasoline on it and caused many to lose thier mind.

True, but this was concentrated almost solely to university campuses. Occasionally you had some spill out of that system (like the BLM riots), but it was exclusively spawned from that system. That makes it even more suspicious. Why did university professors all of a sudden start promoting this philosophy?

[Mountain Man]

I wonder if it has to having so much available online. That seems to promote the idea of not needing to learn anything because they can simply look it up if they ever want to know.

One of my son's grade school teachers downplayed the need to learn how to spell because you can always use a spellchecker, which I thought was an appalling attitude.

[Mountain Man]

He makes it sound very conspiratorial with word uses such as "elites" and "they."

I've always said, the "woke" movement doesn't look grassroots to me at all. It looks forced. And the fact this movement is happening so fast and you have those on the left themselves opposed to it, makes what's driving it look highly suspicious.

Then when you add the fact there seems to be an "anti-America" element at least within the movement itself... makes you really wonder.

I think it's clearly coming from foreign interests, most likely China. China has been buying up US business assets for decades; they have compromised far more of our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, than most people realize; and the reason most people don't realize it is because our media watchdogs who are supposed to be keeping us informed are also compromised.

[seanD]

I think it's clearly coming from foreign interests, most likely China. China has been buying up US business assets for decades; they have compromised far more of our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, than most people realize; and the reason most people don't realize it is because our media watchdogs who are supposed to be keeping us informed are also compromised.

I think china is definitely exploiting it.

And it really is freaking disturbing that the Dems refuse to look into the lab leak theory, even though there are prominent scientific voices now in support of it. That really makes you wonder.

[Starlight]

An excellent piece from liberal political commentator Andrew Sullivan

So by "liberal" you mean "conservative Catholic"?

People keep focusing on arguing about the label, and in doing so, ignore whether that label is actually applying to actual issues. It doesn't actually matter if what's called CRT meets the technical definition of CRT, what matters is whether the issues its labeling are actual meaningful grievences.

What conservatives are currently calling CRT is simply the latest push by liberals to be more reflective on how society is treating black people. Conservatives are opposing it, as they did when liberals wanted to end slavery, as they did when liberals wanted to end Jim Crow, etc. The label might change over time, but the underlying topic is basically the same.

I see this Leftist shift as the byproduct of lower IQs

Did you know that higher liberalism correlates with higher IQs?

I had the pleasure of attending a talk by Dr Flynn before his death, discoverer of the Flynn Effect (that IQs have massively risen across the Western world over the last 100 years as a product of better education and nutrition). And one thing he mentioned was that the Baby Boomer generation in red states in the US are massively undereducated compared to their contemporaries elsewhere in the Western world, and thus their IQ is substantially lower, and that this is probably the underlying explanation for why US conservativism is such an outlier in politics within the Western world. He noted that the new generation in red states were receiving a more normal level of education, and so he expected the US population to rapidly become more liberal as that new higher-IQ generation aged in and the older lower-IQ one aged out.

I see it in my kids and grandkids;...a near-total lack of curiosity. When I was a teen, and into adulthood, my friends and I were always hungry to learn something new. The attitude of Millennials appears to be "I don't know and I don't care. Someone else can figure it out." They don't question anything and accept whatever they are told by "authorities." The perfect breeding ground for an authoritarian takeover.

Um, you realize a high openness to new ideas is a liberal trait, and a disinterest in them is a conservative trait? So your observations are backward if you're trying to explain why the younger generations are more liberal.

I wonder if it has to having so much available online.

I suspect so. I suspect Ronson is hugely underestimating by orders of magnitude, how many new ideas his kids and grandkids are being exposed to daily through having online access. He's comparing his childhood in which a person was exposed to zero new ideas unless they actively sought one out and made an effort to find one, to the modern world in which kids might be bombarded with 10 or 100 new ideas daily. Kids today will regularly have friends from other cultures, talk on the internet to people on the other side of the world, and watch / read internet content made by a huge variety of people, so they are being exposed to new ideas at a rate unprecedented in world history regardless of whether they are intellectually curious or not.

One of my son's grade school teachers downplayed the need to learn how to spell because you can always use a spellchecker, which I thought was an appalling attitude.

As technology changes, the skills necessary to thrive in society change. Ability to spell or perform basic arithmetic are no longer particularly important, but other skills like being able to use a computer effectively are massively important job skills.

[seer]

At least 30 school districts use children's book that teaches 'whiteness' is an evil contract with the devil

https://www.theblaze.com/news/childr...act-with-devil

[seanD]

At least 30 school districts use children's book that teaches 'whiteness' is an evil contract with the devil

https://www.theblaze.com/news/childr...act-with-devil

This could also be a form of Hegelian Dialectic.

You have the Thesis = leftist extremism.
You have Antithesis = The center or the norm in opposition.

In order for the social controllers to get society more left of center away from the norm, you create a radical thesis that's so absurdly extreme, the Antithesis opposition moves towards the Thesis in order to fight against it, which results in the Synthesis = the norm has now shifted more left than before. This seems plausible when considering how utterly absurd some of this stuff has become.

[Ronson]

Did you know that higher liberalism correlates with higher IQs?

I'm talking about Leftists, not "classical" liberalism.

I had the pleasure of attending a talk by Dr Flynn before his death, discoverer of the Flynn Effect (that IQs have massively risen across the Western world over the last 100 years as a product of better education and nutrition). And one thing he mentioned was that the Baby Boomer generation in red states in the US are massively undereducated compared to their contemporaries elsewhere in the Western world, and thus their IQ is substantially lower, and that this is probably the underlying explanation for why US conservativism is such an outlier in politics within the Western world. He noted that the new generation in red states were receiving a more normal level of education, and so he expected the US population to rapidly become more liberal as that new higher-IQ generation aged in and the older lower-IQ one aged out.

"Discovering" a change in test scores is like discovering a mountain; anyone traveling nearby is going to "discover" it. And the whole red state/blue state distinction is largely myth, as the political divide is more connected to urban areas versus suburban and rural areas. The red state/blue state myth is perpetuated by people who do not dig deeper and simply accept what they are told. Thanks for supporting my argument.

counties.jpg

Um, you realize a high openness to new ideas is a liberal trait, and a disinterest in them is a conservative trait? So your observations are backward if you're trying to explain why the younger generations are more liberal.

You are conflating again. I am talking about Leftists, not classical liberalism. I realize modern-day Leftists would like to take ownership of liberalism, which is what Sullivan is complaining about. Democrats have changed. He hasn't.

I suspect so. I suspect Ronson is hugely underestimating by orders of magnitude, how many new ideas his kids and grandkids are being exposed to daily through having online access. He's comparing his childhood in which a person was exposed to zero new ideas unless they actively sought one out and made an effort to find one, to the modern world in which kids might be bombarded with 10 or 100 new ideas daily.

And that is completely wrong. Babbling on social media and playing video games is not absorbing new ideas. These are people totally ignorant in politics, geography, history, and can barely spell, so learning about the next Harry Potter movie is hardly worthwhile knowledge.

[rogue06]

So by "liberal" you mean "conservative Catholic"?

By liberal I mean the first journalist to write a piece in favor of gay marriage in the U.S. (hardly a conservative Catholic position). While a Catholic, Sullivan believes that prohibitions against homosexuality are only meant when linked to pagan ceremonies or prostitution (hardly a conservative Catholic position). He denounced the election of Benedict XVI as pope because of his position on gay marriage, and women's rights issues, and has declared himself to be a "dogged defender of pluralism and secularism" (hardly a conservative Catholic position).

Moreover, in 2006 he was named an "icon" of LGBTQ Month, and while initially a supporter of the War on Terror (as were most liberals after 9/11) the naked Twister incident at Abu Ghraib caused him to reverse course and call supporters of the Iraq War "cowards."

He also lays out his bona fides in the article itself, but should it really come as any surprise that someone who repeatedly insists that the Communist dictator Joseph Stalin was in fact a right-winger, also thinks that Sullivan is a conservative Catholic?