...continued:
Fareed says fear, very much like Northern Republican racial fear, rejection, and dislike of negroes leading up to the Civil War, and doubt Fareed says about one's very identity (whites queered by migration, Midnight cowboys), explains why Westerners are voting populist right, rather than what he characterizes as their economic progressive best liberal or left interests.
Let's just stop here for a moment and say what might also be wrong with Fareed's picture here, a little over 10 minutes into his subtle lacework account.
The core sleight of hand is the one that evades scrutiny as he slides through his account of why the West has moved right culturally but ostensibly has moved that way against its own best economic interests lying in the other liberal and progressive direction economically.
How is that? He has simply begged the question of (assumed that) the best economic interests of the mass of the white West are liberal and left progressive. They are not, but no time to go into all of that; this blog is filled with arguments against that.
He goes from begging the question of populist economic interests, to using the begged economic inference to then pyramid a further false inference of populists privileging their cultural interests over their Fareed falsely inferred economic ones. This is what you might called a pyramid of false inference.
His example is that a lot of rich people will vote for tax increases that will raise their taxes because they are ostensibly privileging their liberal left cultural interests over their economic ones.
But I thought he had said that people's economic interests are best served by liberal and progressive economic policies, implying that this is the case in liberal societies regardless of relative income, whereas their cultural interests, rich or poor, are more rightist now with massive immigration.
But now it seems he reasons that rich people's economic interests are more closely congruent with their cultural interests, except for the minority of rich liberals who act against their cultural interests.
So, what has his account done so far?
It has tended to leave out political, ideological, interest, as a distinct interest, either right left or centerist, out.
Secondly, it has tended to implicitly identify all political interest with economic interest.
Thirdly, it implicitly identifies rightist political interest with cultural interest, also implicitly restricting cultural interest to rightist political interest only.
So, on his remarks, it seems that political liberalism cannot clearly comprise either a unity with and among, or resolve sharply into conflict between and among, political, economic and cultural interests.
This seems to be an inconsistency, the leaving out of political interests as interests, ideological interests if you will, in the mix, and then engaging in pretzel logic for his other two categories of interests.
Its absence gets glossed over in discussing cultural versus economic, but can be thought to illuminate why rich folks can act against their economic interests in favor of cultural ones and vice versa, and brings him to a discussion of class.
He asserts that Americans venerate their founding fathers in a way that many other countries might find a little bizarre. He has a hard time with that. They still have the Caste System in places like Bombay.
He would, presumably be in favor of removing all countries' founding fathers' monuments, but especially ours, apparently on general Zakaria principles, without regard even for Black Lives matter negro racist reasons at all, but rather because for him and those like him, venerating founding fathers is a bizarre social and cultural behavior!
Rooskies venerate Lenin (not me), a fact Fareed would find quite bizarro too I suspect. There is a lot of basic stuff he just can't seem to figure out or find the right words for here.
The core sleight of hand is the one that evades scrutiny as he slides through his account of why the West has moved right culturally but ostensibly has moved that way against its own best economic interests lying in the other liberal and progressive direction economically.
How is that? He has simply begged the question of (assumed that) the best economic interests of the mass of the white West are liberal and left progressive. They are not, but no time to go into all of that; this blog is filled with arguments against that.
He goes from begging the question of populist economic interests, to using the begged economic inference to then pyramid a further false inference of populists privileging their cultural interests over their Fareed falsely inferred economic ones. This is what you might called a pyramid of false inference.
His example is that a lot of rich people will vote for tax increases that will raise their taxes because they are ostensibly privileging their liberal left cultural interests over their economic ones.
But I thought he had said that people's economic interests are best served by liberal and progressive economic policies, implying that this is the case in liberal societies regardless of relative income, whereas their cultural interests, rich or poor, are more rightist now with massive immigration.
But now it seems he reasons that rich people's economic interests are more closely congruent with their cultural interests, except for the minority of rich liberals who act against their cultural interests.
So, what has his account done so far?
It has tended to leave out political, ideological, interest, as a distinct interest, either right left or centerist, out.
Secondly, it has tended to implicitly identify all political interest with economic interest.
Thirdly, it implicitly identifies rightist political interest with cultural interest, also implicitly restricting cultural interest to rightist political interest only.
So, on his remarks, it seems that political liberalism cannot clearly comprise either a unity with and among, or resolve sharply into conflict between and among, political, economic and cultural interests.
This seems to be an inconsistency, the leaving out of political interests as interests, ideological interests if you will, in the mix, and then engaging in pretzel logic for his other two categories of interests.
Its absence gets glossed over in discussing cultural versus economic, but can be thought to illuminate why rich folks can act against their economic interests in favor of cultural ones and vice versa, and brings him to a discussion of class.
He asserts that Americans venerate their founding fathers in a way that many other countries might find a little bizarre. He has a hard time with that. They still have the Caste System in places like Bombay.
He would, presumably be in favor of removing all countries' founding fathers' monuments, but especially ours, apparently on general Zakaria principles, without regard even for Black Lives matter negro racist reasons at all, but rather because for him and those like him, venerating founding fathers is a bizarre social and cultural behavior!
Rooskies venerate Lenin (not me), a fact Fareed would find quite bizarro too I suspect. There is a lot of basic stuff he just can't seem to figure out or find the right words for here.
No comments:
Post a Comment