First off, I indicated I wanted to take out a 1 yr sub for $25 - but didn't see how I am suposed to pay for it. Please let me know.
I liked this essay a lot...but..1) I think you should have been clearer about the fact that Michael Kazin wrote a VERY similar essay (which I read at the time) some time ago. 2) Stressing how many Democrats are ok with socialism is all well and good ...but you didn't come close to truly capturing how in a real campaign against an "avowed socialist", Dem. candidates in a primary -a lot more attractive than Cuomo - could successfuly - and reasonably - argue that simply by describing oneself as "a socialist" means that Republicans will have a far easier time defeating him/her than a candidate who esentially supports most of the same policies - without foolishly (imho) - labeling themselves with the "S" word.
I also think you are being far too optimistic about such a candidate peeling away any significant support from registered Republicans and to a lesser extent, of course, wining over independents. Republican attacks - in all their ferocity and effectiveness - would, I am afriad to say - do such a thorough job on any Dem candidate who identifies themselves as a socialist that it is just a very foolish and unnecesary risk to take. And at the risk of coming acros as a sexist pig, I would say the same thing and then some if AOC runs for president in '28. I hope and trust (sort of) that she will realize how big of a risk that would be given the ENORMOUS stakes involved. But for that reason, if she were to run, I "hope and trust" enough Democrats would realize that and nominate another candidate whose positons on key issues are very close to hers to begin with. Although, I do think a woman could be elected president in 2028. After all, if it wasn't for Comey and Putin and about 10 other non-sexist reasons, Hilary Clinton would have won - and maybe the criminal/moron now sitting in the White House just might be where he belongs - in a federal prison...or maybe even in a prison in El Salvador! But all things being equal, I'm sad to say that I hope the Dem nomine in 28 is a man...why take any chances with the deeply embedded sexism in the American electorate?
I thought your comments about how popular Bernie is were very misleading. If he were to run for president again (and I don't think he will) and more importantly if he were to actually be the Dem nominee...that across the board popularity you cited would be cut down very quickly...all they would have to do is - to cite only 3 things...show and explain his dispute (which was on live tv) with Elizabeth Warren; show photos of Bernie and his wife honeymooning in Moscow and also photos Bernie practically hugging Daniel Ortega at an "anti-American rally." ....along with many, many other clips they could get mileage out of.
But apart from the crticism that I just laid out, I think Nathan's essay refreshingly avoids the kind of dogma in content and tone that is all to common on the Left. And I think his main point - as I take it...that Dems of all stripes have a lot more in common than both "moderates" and "progressives" tend to realize is a very important one and if it is internalized and more widely understood, we can more effectively get on with (to use a once sectarian phrase) building a united front against - very real - fascism!
I think I linked to the Kazin essay; I’m adding evidence to a line of thought that goes back a while through Harrington-type socialists for decades, although arguing for a stronger shift to the left in the last couple decades.
Not sure how optimistic I am - caveats are “If” we can defeat Trumpism, we have a more unified party on a more solid social democratic/socialist base than in the past moving forward.
Not that I could see or find..I'm not very good with technology...but I looked all over and couldn't find it...I guess I missed the link to the Kazin essay...but you sound somehwat uncertain if you did link to it...so maybe you should look again to be sure.
I assume, but am not sure...you saw my later comments about why I decided not to subscribe...as I said, I really liked that post...even if it wasn't an orginal insight...and scrolling back, I thought your discussion/expose of the Socialist Liberation Party/Worker's World was excellent - but you really lost me with your advocacy for the Blue States to secede and in another post where you argued for AOC to run for president....which I think (if she were to be the Dem nominee) would result in a landslide defeat and further solidy Trumpism. So...for me at least,.. I don't feel that I can trust your basic political judgment because even with your excellent analysis of the diff tendencies within the DP, the two posts I cited above were - imho - SO ..off base...that I lost interest - esp since I have a hard time keeping up with all of my regular reading, I try to be very careful not to take on any more unless I really think it will provide me with info/analyses that would be worth the investment in time. But I wish you all the best.
He makes a valuable point: "All of which leaves the Democratic Party with a simple arithmetic fact: you can call the programme socialism, or you can call it common sense, but you can’t win national elections without the voters who like it." Yes, this became apparent when Iowa polls in 2020 show that, increasingly, voters equate the Democratic Party with some version of socialism. But what version? That is certainly important to ponder. I am looking forward to Nathan's study of what the polls show.
Nathan's first column suggests an approach to socialism we might call common sense socialism--or more precisely pragmatic socialism--an approach which distinguishes itself from utopian socialism. Pragmatism is a uniquely US philosophy. Perhaps it also helps to have a basic understanding of common human needs, the title of a book by Charlotte Towles which was actually a human behavior in the social environment without any serious theory of human needs. Its plates were destroyed by the federal government on the grounds it was socialistic, by virtue of using phrases like "socialization."
But it appears that both socialism and human needs are concepts that strike fear in the hearts of reactionaries everywhere. But what kinds of reactionaries? I count five forms of ideological trends on the right, including social conservatives, libertarians, pragmatists, authoritarians, and patrons of patrimonialism. Each have their own basic value system and approaches to the exercise of power. But guess what the same is true of those on the so-called center. And I find it valuable to distinguish between two trends on the left: progressives of five kinds as well as socialists of five kinds, making 20 ideological tendencies which seem to me important to understand.
My taxonomy can be found here on the Other Works link from my substack https://michaelalandover.substack.com and here: https://tinyurl.com/FromRightToLeft, based on 20 years of work to development a better way of conceptualizing the traditional right, center and left. It introduces an original pragmatist principle: minimum necessary social intervention and stresses the reality that all modern economies are mixed economies. The main political question is what is the best mix of the public, nonprofit, and market sectors--and varying roles for individual and familial responsibility--within any one policy domain, in order to successfully address human needs in a way consistent with human rights and democratic social participation.
In other words, which of my 20 identified ideological types and associated state and civil society formations can best do so? This seems to me to help frame public debates, if properly informed by a solid understanding of the nature of human needs, as most recently outlined here: https://tinyurl.com/humanneedsoverview.
Together, pragmatic liberalism, progressive pragmatism, and democratic socialism of the pragmatic variety seem to be the most viable sweet spots for winning a majority of voters not only in the US but in Chile, South African, Western Europe and elsewhere. Utopian versions of liberalism, progressivism and far-left approaches to socialism will not be capable of forging such a stable majority in my view.
First off, I indicated I wanted to take out a 1 yr sub for $25 - but didn't see how I am suposed to pay for it. Please let me know.
I liked this essay a lot...but..1) I think you should have been clearer about the fact that Michael Kazin wrote a VERY similar essay (which I read at the time) some time ago. 2) Stressing how many Democrats are ok with socialism is all well and good ...but you didn't come close to truly capturing how in a real campaign against an "avowed socialist", Dem. candidates in a primary -a lot more attractive than Cuomo - could successfuly - and reasonably - argue that simply by describing oneself as "a socialist" means that Republicans will have a far easier time defeating him/her than a candidate who esentially supports most of the same policies - without foolishly (imho) - labeling themselves with the "S" word.
I also think you are being far too optimistic about such a candidate peeling away any significant support from registered Republicans and to a lesser extent, of course, wining over independents. Republican attacks - in all their ferocity and effectiveness - would, I am afriad to say - do such a thorough job on any Dem candidate who identifies themselves as a socialist that it is just a very foolish and unnecesary risk to take. And at the risk of coming acros as a sexist pig, I would say the same thing and then some if AOC runs for president in '28. I hope and trust (sort of) that she will realize how big of a risk that would be given the ENORMOUS stakes involved. But for that reason, if she were to run, I "hope and trust" enough Democrats would realize that and nominate another candidate whose positons on key issues are very close to hers to begin with. Although, I do think a woman could be elected president in 2028. After all, if it wasn't for Comey and Putin and about 10 other non-sexist reasons, Hilary Clinton would have won - and maybe the criminal/moron now sitting in the White House just might be where he belongs - in a federal prison...or maybe even in a prison in El Salvador! But all things being equal, I'm sad to say that I hope the Dem nomine in 28 is a man...why take any chances with the deeply embedded sexism in the American electorate?
I thought your comments about how popular Bernie is were very misleading. If he were to run for president again (and I don't think he will) and more importantly if he were to actually be the Dem nominee...that across the board popularity you cited would be cut down very quickly...all they would have to do is - to cite only 3 things...show and explain his dispute (which was on live tv) with Elizabeth Warren; show photos of Bernie and his wife honeymooning in Moscow and also photos Bernie practically hugging Daniel Ortega at an "anti-American rally." ....along with many, many other clips they could get mileage out of.
But apart from the crticism that I just laid out, I think Nathan's essay refreshingly avoids the kind of dogma in content and tone that is all to common on the Left. And I think his main point - as I take it...that Dems of all stripes have a lot more in common than both "moderates" and "progressives" tend to realize is a very important one and if it is internalized and more widely understood, we can more effectively get on with (to use a once sectarian phrase) building a united front against - very real - fascism!
I think I linked to the Kazin essay; I’m adding evidence to a line of thought that goes back a while through Harrington-type socialists for decades, although arguing for a stronger shift to the left in the last couple decades.
Not sure how optimistic I am - caveats are “If” we can defeat Trumpism, we have a more unified party on a more solid social democratic/socialist base than in the past moving forward.
BTW when you click on subscribe, it didn't have the option to pay?
Not that I could see or find..I'm not very good with technology...but I looked all over and couldn't find it...I guess I missed the link to the Kazin essay...but you sound somehwat uncertain if you did link to it...so maybe you should look again to be sure.
I assume, but am not sure...you saw my later comments about why I decided not to subscribe...as I said, I really liked that post...even if it wasn't an orginal insight...and scrolling back, I thought your discussion/expose of the Socialist Liberation Party/Worker's World was excellent - but you really lost me with your advocacy for the Blue States to secede and in another post where you argued for AOC to run for president....which I think (if she were to be the Dem nominee) would result in a landslide defeat and further solidy Trumpism. So...for me at least,.. I don't feel that I can trust your basic political judgment because even with your excellent analysis of the diff tendencies within the DP, the two posts I cited above were - imho - SO ..off base...that I lost interest - esp since I have a hard time keeping up with all of my regular reading, I try to be very careful not to take on any more unless I really think it will provide me with info/analyses that would be worth the investment in time. But I wish you all the best.
Ken Brociner
It's okay- lots to subscribe to out there :)
It frustrates me how smug you are in your foolishness
Not even sure which part you think is smug and which part is foolish.
Nathan Newman's important series in his substack Left Future, "AOC, Bernie and Zohran Are Socialists but so are Kamala and Joe,” is valuable to follow here: https://nathannewman.substack.com/p/aoc-bernie-and-zohran-are-socialists.
He makes a valuable point: "All of which leaves the Democratic Party with a simple arithmetic fact: you can call the programme socialism, or you can call it common sense, but you can’t win national elections without the voters who like it." Yes, this became apparent when Iowa polls in 2020 show that, increasingly, voters equate the Democratic Party with some version of socialism. But what version? That is certainly important to ponder. I am looking forward to Nathan's study of what the polls show.
Nathan's first column suggests an approach to socialism we might call common sense socialism--or more precisely pragmatic socialism--an approach which distinguishes itself from utopian socialism. Pragmatism is a uniquely US philosophy. Perhaps it also helps to have a basic understanding of common human needs, the title of a book by Charlotte Towles which was actually a human behavior in the social environment without any serious theory of human needs. Its plates were destroyed by the federal government on the grounds it was socialistic, by virtue of using phrases like "socialization."
But it appears that both socialism and human needs are concepts that strike fear in the hearts of reactionaries everywhere. But what kinds of reactionaries? I count five forms of ideological trends on the right, including social conservatives, libertarians, pragmatists, authoritarians, and patrons of patrimonialism. Each have their own basic value system and approaches to the exercise of power. But guess what the same is true of those on the so-called center. And I find it valuable to distinguish between two trends on the left: progressives of five kinds as well as socialists of five kinds, making 20 ideological tendencies which seem to me important to understand.
My taxonomy can be found here on the Other Works link from my substack https://michaelalandover.substack.com and here: https://tinyurl.com/FromRightToLeft, based on 20 years of work to development a better way of conceptualizing the traditional right, center and left. It introduces an original pragmatist principle: minimum necessary social intervention and stresses the reality that all modern economies are mixed economies. The main political question is what is the best mix of the public, nonprofit, and market sectors--and varying roles for individual and familial responsibility--within any one policy domain, in order to successfully address human needs in a way consistent with human rights and democratic social participation.
In other words, which of my 20 identified ideological types and associated state and civil society formations can best do so? This seems to me to help frame public debates, if properly informed by a solid understanding of the nature of human needs, as most recently outlined here: https://tinyurl.com/humanneedsoverview.
Together, pragmatic liberalism, progressive pragmatism, and democratic socialism of the pragmatic variety seem to be the most viable sweet spots for winning a majority of voters not only in the US but in Chile, South African, Western Europe and elsewhere. Utopian versions of liberalism, progressivism and far-left approaches to socialism will not be capable of forging such a stable majority in my view.