I'm going to say something relating to the title of the piece (straw man alert?), not necessarily about the book which sounds interesting or the review which is enlightening. But there is a problem with the term 'The Left'. This term is now used chiefly by people who oppose 'woke', centrist or 'progressive' politics. I do not see any tee-shirts or banners with the slogan 'we are The Left'. The Left has always been sectarian, in the 1980's and 90's I remember student leftist, trade unionists, Labour Party supporters, various Marxist groups and many fringe groups.
Identity politics is not Left wing, it represents a failure of the left. Identity politics began with race, we might also say feminism. But ethnic minorities are not traditionally part of the left. The left supported these groups, sometimes in good faith, sometimes in the hope of some quid pro quo; that these groups would support the revolutionary struggle or worse be the foot soldiers of the revolution.
My second related point is that the title is an imperative. Who is it aimed at? No one follows imperatives anymore. Even our governments seek to 'nudge' us, or clothe their objectives in therapeutic language; 'this will be good/bad for your mental health'. Not only can we not identify 'The Left', but we can't identify anyone who will respond to this imperative. I'm not saying that our situation is hopeless, if the writer, reviewer, or anyone else wants to create a new universalist movement, I might even join myself. But I don't believe that this movement already exists and is just waiting to be mobilised; The Left will not deliver, there is no 'Left' to appeal to or mobilise.
We are faced with the laborious process of recruiting/saving? souls one by one wherever they come from. Some of us seek redemption, but not all of us.
PS Identity politics is a means by which the political establishment seeks to manage political conflict or dissent. In British politics today the language of left and right does not help us to understand those who govern.
The problem with universalism is that it appeals to some unstated higher power beyond the legal system of any one nation state. Liberals reason that there cannot be a deity, so this higher power must go unidentified forever. This is the demented reasoning behind the Globalism that has created the dystopia of England's post-industrial towns and the insult to that injury of mass immigration that threatens to sink them into the third world for good. No, the Left should not champion universalism and nor should anyone else.
All of those things that the author wants to champion are all part of classical liberalism. The progress happens through reform instead of revolution.
The more we ignore the left-wing Progressivsm the better. Emotion, not reason reigns. Refusal to acknowledge the vast progress that we’ve made on issues - again through reform not revolution, makes things worse at great cost - money and otherwise.
Many of their goals are destabilization of the society and anti-capitalism not the goals that they actually stated. this is not your grandpa’s progressivism.
Their Jerry Lewis Syndrome shows by not being settled with the achievements we made to overcome problems we had but instead they go out onto really postmodernist cliffs to jump off into areas where only other radicals are interested in following them.
There’s a tremendous amount of value in adhering to the concepts of freedom and equality and individuality that exists in classical liberalism. Most of left wing radicalism ignores our constitution and that’s a big problem for me, too.
The most wonderful part of classical liberalism is the pluralism that exists within it. You can be quite liberal or quite conservative or a total hybrid of both of those things and still fit so well within the construct of classical liberalism. Leads to great conversations too when you’re basically on the same page with somebody even though they might be the other party and you can debate about the way to accomplish things rather than beating each other over the head, never agreeing and polarizing entire parties against each other.
I'm going to say something relating to the title of the piece (straw man alert?), not necessarily about the book which sounds interesting or the review which is enlightening. But there is a problem with the term 'The Left'. This term is now used chiefly by people who oppose 'woke', centrist or 'progressive' politics. I do not see any tee-shirts or banners with the slogan 'we are The Left'. The Left has always been sectarian, in the 1980's and 90's I remember student leftist, trade unionists, Labour Party supporters, various Marxist groups and many fringe groups.
Identity politics is not Left wing, it represents a failure of the left. Identity politics began with race, we might also say feminism. But ethnic minorities are not traditionally part of the left. The left supported these groups, sometimes in good faith, sometimes in the hope of some quid pro quo; that these groups would support the revolutionary struggle or worse be the foot soldiers of the revolution.
My second related point is that the title is an imperative. Who is it aimed at? No one follows imperatives anymore. Even our governments seek to 'nudge' us, or clothe their objectives in therapeutic language; 'this will be good/bad for your mental health'. Not only can we not identify 'The Left', but we can't identify anyone who will respond to this imperative. I'm not saying that our situation is hopeless, if the writer, reviewer, or anyone else wants to create a new universalist movement, I might even join myself. But I don't believe that this movement already exists and is just waiting to be mobilised; The Left will not deliver, there is no 'Left' to appeal to or mobilise.
We are faced with the laborious process of recruiting/saving? souls one by one wherever they come from. Some of us seek redemption, but not all of us.
PS Identity politics is a means by which the political establishment seeks to manage political conflict or dissent. In British politics today the language of left and right does not help us to understand those who govern.
Leftism IS woke, it needs division, without it they have nothing to do. Marx used class and today’s leftist elites use all manner of division.
The problem with universalism is that it appeals to some unstated higher power beyond the legal system of any one nation state. Liberals reason that there cannot be a deity, so this higher power must go unidentified forever. This is the demented reasoning behind the Globalism that has created the dystopia of England's post-industrial towns and the insult to that injury of mass immigration that threatens to sink them into the third world for good. No, the Left should not champion universalism and nor should anyone else.
All of those things that the author wants to champion are all part of classical liberalism. The progress happens through reform instead of revolution.
The more we ignore the left-wing Progressivsm the better. Emotion, not reason reigns. Refusal to acknowledge the vast progress that we’ve made on issues - again through reform not revolution, makes things worse at great cost - money and otherwise.
Many of their goals are destabilization of the society and anti-capitalism not the goals that they actually stated. this is not your grandpa’s progressivism.
Their Jerry Lewis Syndrome shows by not being settled with the achievements we made to overcome problems we had but instead they go out onto really postmodernist cliffs to jump off into areas where only other radicals are interested in following them.
There’s a tremendous amount of value in adhering to the concepts of freedom and equality and individuality that exists in classical liberalism. Most of left wing radicalism ignores our constitution and that’s a big problem for me, too.
The most wonderful part of classical liberalism is the pluralism that exists within it. You can be quite liberal or quite conservative or a total hybrid of both of those things and still fit so well within the construct of classical liberalism. Leads to great conversations too when you’re basically on the same page with somebody even though they might be the other party and you can debate about the way to accomplish things rather than beating each other over the head, never agreeing and polarizing entire parties against each other.