Blogging & Strategizing Posted by Oaktown Girl, 02 Apr 2007 04:28 am

Against Centrism

By Heraclitus (Jeff)

Of course we want our efforts here at the shiny new WAAGNFNP blog to be appreciated by as many readers as possible (all hail the effortless efforts of our glorious Minister of Justice!), and what better way to signal to readers that this isn’t just a one-joke blog than by writing that most quintessential and automatically engrossing of blog posts, a navel-gazing meditation on the nature and purpose of blogs and blogging. So although my title, “Against Centrism,” suggests that I’m going to say something of some wider interest and utility to our political life, I’m really just going to kvetch about some commenter somewhere who said something that irritated me six months ago. But of course I’m going to be as bombastic and self-inflating about it as possible, and carry on in these broad, general terms. Dismal, no? Just another reason to do everything in your power to hasten the arrival of the sublime Giant Nuclear Fireball, which will cleanse us all of our pedestrianism.

So, although the people I’m discussing no doubt manifest these traits in meat space as well, I’m thinking particularly of a certain kind of internets personage, who bemoans the “extremism” of a blog post that will “alienate the center” or “the majority” (and who can forget those always excellent admonitions about driving away “people who should be your allies”?). What probably annoys me most about these self-styled “moderates” or “centrists” is the way they manage to combine such a sanctimonious, school-marmish tone of pinched moral superiority with such excruciatingly banal opinions (although some of them are more rude and abusive). How have they managed to convince themselves that simply adopting whatever the majority position is, or letting the two extremes dictate their opinions to them, is some kind of intellectual and moral virtue? There couldn’t be a lazier or more cowardly way of arriving at a set of (most likely completely incoherent) convictions, yet these people are forever engaged in the most grating and stultifying ritual of self-congratulatory finger-wagging imaginable.

Before veering this drunken rant off in the general direction of criticizing this notion of centrism, I should stop and note the context in which this objection is almost always deployed. By definition, of course, the centrist or moderate is criticizing “extreme” positions, but there are all sorts of contrarian musings and “innovative” suggestions that will escape the dread scourge of your friendly neighborhood moderate. I don’t really have any data on this, reliable or otherwise, but the vast majority of times I’ve seen this objection or criticism crop up, it’s used to dismiss or silence the concerns of marginalized groups (feminists, folks of color, teh gays, etc.). These people’s concerns are fine as a garnish to the “serious” issues of tax cuts, middle class entitlements, and which country we’re going to blow up next, but they get chucked overboard at the first sign of trouble (I’ve mixed so many metaphors here that I no longer know what I’m saying). Bloggers, and real life people, too, I suppose (but what would I know about them?), are instantly chided when they treat these concerns as essential elements of a just politics, rather than as ontologically inferior afterthoughts to be shrugged off if they make the wrong people uncomfortable.

But are the centrists just talking turkey? Insufferably and suffocatingly banal and smug as they might be, are they just telling commie bastards like myself a few home truths? I think not. Political or electoral centers are constantly being reshaped or rewoven, which makes this argument almost as specious as it is tiresome. Look at gay marriage. Just ten years ago, in the heady days leading up to Clinton’s impeachment, no one outside of a few activists had even heard of the idea. Now opposition to gay marriage is a liability for the Republican Party, and it’s already a reality in several states (ah, activist judges, where would we be without you?). Or look at our neighbors to the north. No one does consensus politics like the Canadians (well, okay, except for that Quebec thing), but the political center was completely redefined by Preston Manning in the 1990’s. There are, of course, countless other examples (what kind of weirdo recycles? Or won’t let you smoke in his house?). So the exhortation to slavishly submit to the majority or “center’s” position is not just boring and irritating, it’s based on the false assumption that this center actually exists.

Still, don’t these douchebags have some kind of point? Shouldn’t blogs facilitate debate and discussion between opposing viewpoints, rather than just being echo chambers that serve only to deepen and intensify the rifts in our sadly fractured body politic? This question assumes, first, that everyone enters the series of tubes with their opinions already completed set in stone. In fact, many people learn and are influenced by blogs; why shouldn’t they be influenced by blogs that make principled arguments rather than playing pretend power broker? Moreover, the divide in comments at a blog like Pandagon, between relatively “centrist” Democrats and people to the left of them (often well to the left), is much greater than that between a slightly left-of-center Babbitt and a slightly-right-of-center Babbitt. Again, why should the “center” be given some special consideration?

(There is one caveat I’d like to make here, and I will elegantly place it inside of one long parenthesis in the hopes of nestling more than half of this post in the warm, maternal embrace of these nuzzling little punctuation marks. {Mmmm…snuggly.} I’m certainly not suggesting that it’s not worth considering what sorts of positions are considered centrist or mainstream and seeing how they’ve come to be regarded as such. Likewise, I’m not suggesting that the political center is so unstable or transient that there’s no point in trying to talk about it. I’m just saying that arguing against a position because it seems “radical” at present is dishonest as well as cowardly. Of course, people will still make short term tactical decisions to avoid this or that topic or to frame debate in this or that way. Of course I think that’s valuable and worthwhile, and I have nothing against pragmatic approaches to political debates—e.g., forcing the Republican candidate(s) in 2008 to repudiate, publicly and vehemently, the wing of the party that wants to limit access to contraception, rather than arguing about abortion. The GOP has drifted so far to the right, and often has simply become so unhinged, that it will be much easier and more effective to force them to either defend their wackier ideas or scandalize their base. So I see the wisdom of focusing a campaign on the opposition’s radical positions rather than on advancing one’s own. But in general or abstract discussions, I don’t think the centrist objection holds much water.)

Trackbacks

Responses to “Against Centrism”

  1. on 02 Apr 2007 at 6:53 am 1. christian h. said …

    I’ll have more to say later (yeah, that’s a threat), but right now let me just note that it seems to me centrism is the new revisionism. Sort of the all-purpose accusation hurled by leftists at other leftists. That’s not to say I don’t agree with some - most, actually - of what Hercalitus writes.

  2. on 02 Apr 2007 at 9:20 am 2. christian h. said …

    To be a little more precise, I of course share Jeff’s disgust with those who oppose a progressive or radical position because it might “alienate the majority” (often qualified as “silent”) or who claim that moderation is a virtue. This sort of passive-aggressive centrism is just a form of conservatism.

    However, I would not agree that a tactical disagreement over which issues - out of many possible ones - to prioritize is necessarily a sign of centrism or moderation. In particular, an attack on identity politics - while it may be misguided - is not centrist as such.
    My personal opinion is that the emphasis the left - in its professional class and academic incarnation - puts on identity politics over class struggle is helpful to ruling class interests. I don’t mean to say that some issue - like gay marriage or abortion - shouldn’t be important, or the most important one, to any given person; I just sometimes wish that as a group (”The Left”) we didn’t loose sight of the larger goal of undermining the power structures in our society, instead of being content with becoming part of those power structures. That doesn’t look like a radical agenda to me - in fact, one might even go so far and call it centrist.

  3. on 02 Apr 2007 at 10:07 am 3. The Constructivist said …

    christian, why isn’t class struggle a kind of identity politics? doesn’t the Communist Manifesto call on “workers of the world” to recognize themselves as such and act on such recognition?

    the reason I ask is that I worry that the class struggle/identity politics debate within “The Left” (and yes, norbizness is schizophrenic) starts from a flawed premise. but what do Stuart Hall, Angela Davis, and Wahneema Lubiano know?

    Kenneth Mostern’s Autobiography and Black Identity Politics: Racialization in Twentieth-Century America and Jeff Tucker’s A Sense of Wonder: Samuel R. Delany, Race, Identity, and Difference get to where I’m going here from very different places on The Left, but I don’t have the energy to try to summarize their arguments (esp. in KM’s Du Bois chapter and JT’s intro)….

    even though I agree with your points about the value of strategic and tactical debate (and here’s a golden oldie I helped facilitate that does just that), I find, say, Todd Gitlin’s analysis of U.S. politics since the ’60s profoundly unhelpful, repeating in progressive garb an argument that could have been drafted by the RNC. (compare it with, say, Christian Parenti’s work on the prison system in the U.S. and you’ll see what I mean.) but I suspect you agree with me on that example, as with the Walter Benn Michaels twist on the Gitlin argument. maybe I’m wrong.

    so what I’m wondering is who in your view does a better job of advancing the class struggle argument than those two? (feel free to ignore the middle 3 paras and focus on the framing qustions….)

  4. on 02 Apr 2007 at 10:49 am 4. christian h. said …

    I have to admit that I haven’t read most of the people/works you are referencing, so I can’t really answer your questions very well. I certainly don’t agree with people who oppose identity politics because it costs the Democrats elections (like Gitlin seems to be doing?) - after all, actual class struggle - as opposed to mainstream liberal social democratic reformism - is a surefire way to lose in the current political system.
    I want to insist, however, that class is not an “identity” - by which I mean a cultural entity - in the sense race or gender or sexual orientation is. Maybe someone like Terry Eagleton would be more agreeable to you than Gitlin, or Michaels (who seems to have, to paraphrase the Nation review of The trouble with diversity a propensity for all-or-nothing arguments).

    The “identity politics” I object to is the politics aimed solely at cultural change, either for lack of interest in economic/ social transformation or because of a (I think mistaken) belief that cultural change will in itself lead to economic/ social/ political change (please feel free to tell me that this is a strawman). That is not to say cultural change can’t possibly have a profoundly unsettling effect on the power structure, merely that much of what’s put forward doesn’t. To address one of the examples in the original post, I’d say it would be radical to object to the institution of marriage as such - abolishing it would certainly shake up society - but urging its expansion to homosexual unions isn’t. It may be right, but it’s reformist all the way, utterly non-threatening to those in power. Likewise, it is certainly a noble goal to put more women, or minorities in positions of power (and I support affirmative action, and in fact quotas to the hilt) - but it doesn’t really threaten the class structure of society at all; it just co-opts excluded groups and includes them into the power structure, thereby weakening their revolutionary potential.

    So, I say, go ahead and push for gay marriage, or pressure media into using pc language, etc. - it’s all good - but don’t think that is what it takes to bring about radical change. You can change the culture all you want, in the end it is only superstructure.

    Well, this doesn’t make too much sense - I hope you can glean from it where my objections lie. Not that I have the solution, of course - I don’t know how to raise “revolutionary class consciousness” either.

  5. on 02 Apr 2007 at 12:25 pm 5. spyder said …

    we didn’t lose sight of the larger goal of undermining the power structures in our society, instead of being content with becoming part of those power structures.

    I now, without too much hestitation, paraphrase from three posts that seem to have encouraged others to shoot me with incredible flaming textual arrows. (Disclaimer {in snuggling parentheses} Alas, the views are mine and mine alone, and should not reflect those of any others with whom i may or may not be associated, whether in or out of this specific blogsphere.)

    a) Political assassination is an extremely efficient and effective method for enacting substantive political change in the short term. It is so useful that most powerful political forces, corporate security apparati, and others, find themselves drawn to it on a regular basis (our own local law enforcement have been retrained to use head shots rather than center of mass shots to bring down suspected felons). It is my view that such tactics would facilitate necessary and fundamental change in the US, both at the governmental, and at the private corporate level (the Hydra notwithstanding).

    b) Ted Kaczynski was a crappy strategist who misused his talents by targeting unimportant individuals, and inflicting (given say the US military in Fallujah, or Afghanistan) minor damage when all is considered. His considerable skill at packaging woulda/coulda/shoulda been better used to interdict at key structural points in the financial and utility stream. Not being specific (yes that might trigger threat alerts wouldn’t it, which would be bad for centrist thinking types), the list of those who charismatically lead organizations that are pathologically dangerous to the soul of America is not long nor obscure.

    c) The PDF (you all know the correct acronym, but it automatically triggers one of those special tags leading this thread to “them” who want to violate our constitutional rights) wastes inordinate resources on trivialities; they could much more impactfully have chosen targets that would make profound substantial differences. Car dealerships, housing developments, a few miscellaneous pieces of equipment—these just don’t carry the message, nor the import, of something deeper and more direct. Wayback in my Mr. Peabody machine when i was in the Navy (late 1960’s deskjob, as i was already considered a troublemaker–hey the Navy paid for me to go to the Monterey Pop Festival, not my fault i ran into that Senator’s son there), i did a little work on developing plans to protect US infrastructure from internal attacks. To this day, the systems are ever more vulnerable to casual malicious and vandalizing attacks, and not at all secure from potentially deeper, more-focussed threats.

    complete aside, but why in the hell is it snowing outside right now?? This sucks; i thought it was supposed to be Spring?

  6. on 02 Apr 2007 at 1:03 pm 6. James Killus said …

    One notable dispenser of magic market fairy dust is Dinesh D’souza, a fellow at the Hoover Institution whose books include Illiberal Education, about how intolerant American universities are of conservatives, and The End of Racism, about how there isn’t any racism in America anymore, except among blacks and liberals.

    D’souza’s work on racism is almost entirely a matter of seeking mechanisms for individual racist attitudes, then claiming, because there is a mechanism involved, it doesn’t represent racism. For example, he notes that in the rebellion against slavery, the “bad nigger” became a symbol of defiance and a hero to his people (see, for example, the legend of Stagolee). This rebellious attitude then became part of the norm, to the detriment of black integration into (now without racism, remember) white society.

    Of course, rebellion against authority is a generally attribute of American culture generally, and suburban white kids are big fans of Ice T and 50 Cent. But the suburban white kid can simply put on a suit and tie and speak normally at the job interview. No matter what the black kid does, he’s still going to be black.

    D’souza’s argument becomes even more stark when he writes about cab drivers failing to pick up blacks, a “rational” judgment, he suggests, given the higher crime rates among blacks.

    Here is the magic market fairy dust in its starkest form. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Suppose someone were to take a dislike to some author/speaker, Dinesh D’souza, for example. Suppose that someone were a handy sort of fellow, maybe like Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and this fellow set about planting bombs in places like bookstores that carried D’souza’s books, auditoriums where D’souza would speak, maybe even the Hoover Institution.

    Would D’souza still get $10,000 per speaking engagement, and would he get as many as he gets now? Let’s assume that he would not, that bookstores and speakers bureaus would make the “rational” judgment that it was not worth the risk, so some bookstores wouldn’t stock the book, and some speaking engagements would simply go away.

    Would this be okay with D’souza? Would he consider it fine because the market was the one making those decisions? Or would he, just possibly blame the guy who was setting the bombs?

    From http://unintentional-irony.blogspot.com/2007/02/magic-market-fairy-dust.html

    Because I am lazy and didn’t want to rewrite something I’ve said before.

    It bears noting that dear old Dinesh and all his brethren, do not seem particularly worried about seeming “centrist.” And Karl Hess’s slogan for Barry Goldwater, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. … Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue” is actually true; it was just adopted by hypocrits and scoundrels.

  7. on 02 Apr 2007 at 1:22 pm 7. The Constructivist said …

    Heraclitus/Jeff, what do you think of Sifu Tweety’s response to Lance Mannion on electability?

    christian, I agree with most of what you say on the limits of purely cultural politics and the dangers of incorporation/cooptation, but would recommend Stuart Hall’s essay in Wahneema Lubiano’s The House That Race Built as a strong argument that there is more to identity than culture (in fact, the entire collection is worth exploring as one attempt to radicalize identity politics). another example would be Mahmood Mamdani’s analysis of the Rwanda genocide in When Victims Become Killers. or to invoke a bloggy example, what did you make of Berube’s take on Williams and Hall on the base/superstructure distinction you’re invoking? (I’m too lazy to follow up on this search for it on LBB by going back to the monthly archives, much less read the comments again right now…)

    to get into one of your examples, you’re not convinced by the argument that there’s a fundamental civil/human rights issue in the “gay marriage” culture war? or that marriage is a great example of a cultural/legal/social/economic institution (a la feminist work following Gayle Rubin)? doesn’t the Right hysteria that “gay marriage undermines the entire institution of marriage” suggest that there’s more at stake than inclusion/privilege/normativity? clearly it’s threatening some elites, right? and sowing divisions between them and other elites who agree with you it’s no big deal. certainly not the be all and the end all–and not in my personal top 5–but fairly effective, it seems to me. that “dangerous supplement,” indeed!

    spyder, can you email me the links to the posts you are paraphrasing? (I want to get a taste of what it feels like in advance of my own post being posted post-today…) thanks!

  8. on 02 Apr 2007 at 1:42 pm 8. christian h. said …

    spyder, I’m on a non-immigrant visa, so I won’t comment on a), b) or c). Let me just make the totally unrelated remark that I’m in the process of reading Jon Lee Anderson’s Che biography and find myself agreeing a lot - with Che, that is.

    TC, I think I disagree with your contention that elites are threatened by same-sex marriage (to make this very clear, if it came up for a vote, and I had one, I would of course support it), or that the issue leads to serious factional infighting in the ruling class. I see no sign of this. All I see is the more reactionary ruling class party feeling obliged to throw their culturally conservative base a bone now and then, and the slightly less reactionary one feeling forced to prevaricate on the issue.

  9. on 02 Apr 2007 at 2:05 pm 9. Zeus said …

    I think an important observation is missing here:

    Namely, the present “centrism” is probably one of the most alarming present-day forms of extremism, a virulent emporium of crawl-back-in-the-womb idealism and fantasy. Whether it be McCain “strolling” through Baghdad under heavy guard saying, “things are getting better all the time” or Tom Daschle “compromising” on 1 trillion (down from 1.8 trillion) dollar tax cuts for the rich, “centrism” has come to mean comfortable denial of reality and/or capitulation to mendacity.

    When conviction and courage is required, when the world needs us to squarely and effectively address its realities and opportunities, “centrism”, as it is presently constituted, represents an attack on sanity. “Centrist gameplaying” involves compromising with ultra-insanity to pull it into (and validate) merely absurdly ridiculous insanity. There can be no denying (unless one is the capitulatory centrist) that centrism is a potentially catastrophic and extreme form of denial.

    This recalls for me the rosy-cheeked nostalgia for 1950’s syle Americana (where all the white boys with their neatly rolled-up jeans are playing good-ole American baseball, while the Suzys on the sideline, attired in flowery dresses, are clapping for their heroes, nary a black face in sight or in imagination).

    This “Brave New World” shininess is not what any decent person or society should strive for in the name of moderation. Moderation in extreme times does not mean compromising with insanity; it means challenging insanity, providing an affirming and effective alternative, and refusing to be cowed or even slowed by charges of extremism.

    There seems to be some confusion here between the “fine middle” of ancient religious and philosophical requiring judgment, restraint, and courage, and the “centrism” meant to avoid engagement altogether. These are opposite, not equivalent. In Ancient Greek philosophy rashness [unthinking bravado] is the opposite of cowardice [unthinking flight]. Both are vices. Courage [reasoned willingness to put oneself in danger] is the “middle” virtue, akin to the “middle path” of Buddha, and the moderation and/or rejection of material impulses advocated by Jesus.

    So when we engage triangulating Hilary Clinton, or a trying-to-prove-I’m-a-friend-of-conservatives-too, Barack Obama, or a falling-over-myself-to-prove-how-centrist-evangelical-I-am-by-rejecting-progressive- theology-that-might-not-be-politically-expedient Jim Wallis, let us communicate to them we want them to embrace the timeless virtues and habits of a sound and seasoned mind, a broad and deep heart which requires an imaginative and visionary alternative to “centrism” and not image fabrication and game playing. Our world doesn’t have that kind of time.

    Citizen Zeus

  10. on 02 Apr 2007 at 5:00 pm 10. Heraclitus (Jeff) said …

    Thanks for the great comments, everyone. Just to be clear, by “centrists” or “moderates” I meant people trying to split the difference between, say, Ted Kennedy and Sam Brownback, or maybe between John Edwards and Chuck Hagel. The Sifu Tweety post TC mentioned is interesting in this regard, because it suggests “electability,” one of the mantras of this type of centrist, isn’t just an unprincipled concern but a largely illusory commodity.

    I agree with much of what you’re saying, Christian, although I think I’m more sympathetic/attached to many of the institutions and practices of liberal democracy than you may be (or maybe I’m just less convinced that there are any viable alternatives). I completely agree that cultural or identity politics can easily be assimilated or subsumed into the present unjust economic/political order (e.g., more black lawyers voting for tax cuts). But I think the reverse is also true: positions centered on economic justice can ignore or be complicit in the oppression of traditionally marginalized or subjugated groups. Not having any clear theoretical orientation, I’m open to both arguments. And, as someone who’s been described as “whiter than Kevin McHale” (which isn’t really true, but still…), I’m very willing to listen to members of these groups when they argue that their experiences or concerns aren’t adequately addressed by this or that approach to progressive politics. In other words, I’m not sure that this is all simply superstructure.

    Since I’v already come out in favor of more reformist approaches, I suppose it won’t be a surprise if I also say that I can’t support political violence, certainly not assassinations (industrial sabotage may be different; in any case, I can’t help but think a lot full of SUVs set on fire is very funny). But putting that aside, I can’t imagine a coordinated series of assassinations producing anything but a severely reactionary crackdown in the US at this time, a crackdown that would have wide popular support. Of course, I could be wrong, in any number of varying degrees, but I don’t see much of anyone prepared for anything like that. I don’t know much about the history of revolutions, but my understanding is that in some of the more well-known successful revolutions of the 20th century (Russia in 1917, Iran in 1979), there was a whole panoply of opposition groups pushing against the current power structure. (Of course, most of these groups were then rounded up and liquidated by the most powerful and ruthless segment of revolutionaries, one of the chief reasons I’m not a big proponent of political violence.) I just don’t the US as primed for anything like that to happen, and, in fact, my guess (but, seriously, what do I know?) would be that the working classes would be among the most reactionary, since they have grounds to be the most economically and socially anxious.

    Oh, and finally, Zeus made my point much better and more concisely than I did:

    “Moderation in extreme times does not mean compromising with insanity; it means challenging insanity, providing an affirming and effective alternative, and refusing to be cowed or even slowed by charges of extremism.”

  11. on 02 Apr 2007 at 5:40 pm 11. Jams said …

    I think the centrist argument draws strength from an inherently short-sighted political mechanism for enacting change.

    Change can be described as a journey from point A to point B over time. The difficulty with change is that the faster that distance is traversed, the more unstable, dangerous, and generally risky the change is. It’s wise to avoid distant changes over a short period of time.

    This becomes a real problem in a political system (lets call it a system for implementing change) with a set time frame for change to occur within. If a change is too distant, it can’t be decided upon, so one probably shouldn’t bother discussing it, and one certainly shouldn’t take it too seriously. This is where centrist framing comes in.

    The width of the center is exactly as wide as the distance a reasonable change can be made considering the time frame within which changes occur. Everything outside the center is wishful or reckless thinking - which often translates into “wrong”.

    I would proscribe ten, twenty, fifty and one hundred year plans to weaken the centrist argument. Or, at least, an effort to frame more radical plans across a timeframe that feels achievable.

  12. on 02 Apr 2007 at 6:10 pm 12. spyder said …

    My motto for the last 40 years has been: “Moderation in the extremes of excess is intelligent!” Of course that had more to do with the sixties than anything else, but over time it lent itself to ever more expanded realms and connections in my life.

    That said, my point regarding political violence is that unless one is prepared to do it, mentally and physically, they will not be prepared when the police states manifest there own version (and they do so all the time as we are doing so as a nation against other nations). Those on the other side usually end up in cattle cars heading down the tracks to the next reservation. State-sanctioned political violence is still political and violent, and considerably more deadly. The US has historically been a nation bent on using political violence to achieve its agendas, especially quests for territory and resources. Kent State and Jackson State were not anomolies in the long run of the use of physical force to instill coercive order. Corporate use of violence is also a mainstay of this great nation; we need only revisit attacks on mine workers and their families for that one (and too many other such events sadly said). I always keep this short list handy to remind me of just how often the tactic of political assassination is used. Perhaps knowing so many families of disappeared in Chile and Argentina has twisted my thinking.

    The US is the number one purveyor of physical violence on the planet, we sell more weapons to more people than the next 12 nations combined (and that ratio is becoming even more unbalanced); large purchasers include China, Egypt, and India. The far right, right, and most of the center, seem to have no problem with this. Indeed, they embrace it as part and parcel of their version of what is patriotic and righteous. From where they view, it is great for business, great for the economy, and great for the country.

    It has always been the nature of the advocates for liberal democracy and human rights (the left) to oppose this. The essential problem in opposition is that the right has no problem using weapons to defend their use of weapons. Most of the center and most of the left refuses to do so. As a population, this country is excessively innured to violence; witness MSM entertainment programming that celebrates it. That in and of itself seems to me to be a form of political violence.

    Indeed the left tolerates all manner of coercive threats and behaviors, particularly in our public education environments and in our law enforcement/criminal justice system. When i moved away from LA in the late 1970’s, my friends and i already understood that the streets of that cosmomegapolis were merely a battleground between gangs, some in blue or khaki uniforms, others in red or blue bandanas. It would not be too far off the mark to suggest that had the gangs in uniform acted less like gangs and more like civil servants, less gangs would have been developed. Recent FBI and DHS studies say LA County has more gangs per square mile than any other metropolis.

    I don’t think there is any real answer at the moment. It will come down to the battles over water, safe havens from climate disrupted environments, access to food and energy, and the struggle to make it to another day. And all that will be happening in the US, as it will across the planet.

  13. on 03 Apr 2007 at 8:23 am 13. The Constructivist said …

    Why do I have the overwhelming urge to go back and reread Leslie Marmon Silko’s Almanac of the Dead, Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower, Alan Moore’s The Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and Miracle Man, and Warren Ellis’s The Authority? Ah, maybe I’ll just settle for buying Ellis’s Black Summer when I get back to the States. Too hurting to link to any of the above now–or participate in any comments on my WAAGNFNP premiere for awhile. Carry on.

  14. on 03 Apr 2007 at 12:10 pm 14. The Constructivist said …

    Centrist Feminism or not? I link, you decide!

  15. on 03 Apr 2007 at 11:52 pm 15. opit said …

    Musing on your admittedly mixed perspective, I’m reminded to quip “If you’re not confused, you haven’t been paying attention !”
    Internet dialogue is not carried on by a random segment of the population. Participants self-select for qualities of extroversion ( in an anonymous environment )and exploration. That this interaction is particularly unrestrained and vigorous should be no surprise.
    Psyops are likely only hindered by the fact that interactions are diverse : the problem being one of multiplicity resisting a simple control mechanism. The Chinese are showing the way around that problem. Meanwhile the ‘framing’ process reallocates peoples’ sense of relative priorities, literally subverting ethics. It is that twisting of good sense that is the greatest danger to common cause.
    http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4088
    http://www.public-i.org/wow/default.aspx
    http://fraudwasteabuse.wordpress.com/2007/02/
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20070312&articleId=5058

    Snowing you - and the spam filter - under.

  16. on 04 Apr 2007 at 12:34 am 16. Oaktown Girl said …

    opit:
    duuuuuuuudde - we love you for the shout-out you gave us last week. But ease up on the links!

  17. on 04 Apr 2007 at 5:00 am 17. Jams said …

    Centrist Feminism or not? I link, you decide! - The Constructivist

    It’s more of a straw man argument. The article lumps all critics of feminism into the same pile, and then gives them the characteristics of the least credible population within that pile. An old trick, but a good one. If I was to return the favour, I would characterize that article as a typical feminist article.

    No doubt, I’m only pointing this out because I long to be “denigrating, attacking or maligning feminism”.

  18. on 04 Apr 2007 at 6:51 am 18. christian h. said …

    I agree with what I gather to be Mr. Shakes central point, namely, that women’s liberation cannot be separated from the dismantling of the power structures in general (one might say that this radical approach to feminism is one I can definitely get behind) - though not surprisingly, I am sceptical about the inference that the way to dismantle those power structures is through feminism, or identity politics in general (I should add that TC and Jeff are right to point out that conversely, a reductive view of identity as merely cultural and derivative of material relationships, and the consequent reduction of all struggle to class struggle - as W. B. Michaels seems to do, for example - is also unhelpful).

    However, I also have to agree with Jams in that the post doesn’t work for me as an attack on critics of feminism. Both the feminism and the criticism described are too abstract. Plus, I see it as a warning sign if you defend your point of view by denigrating the opponents motives via mindreading.

  19. on 04 Apr 2007 at 9:34 am 19. spyder said …

    This is almost too perfect a synchronicity; but regarding class warfare, identity politics, critique, and most of all “centrism,” how can this story just not be too-well timed??? (reported one hour ago)
    Call Made to Abolish Elite French School

    A centrist candidate for the French presidency has called for the abolishment of an elite finishing school many French politicians have attended.

    Francois Bayrou made the call in Paris on Tuesday, contending the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, or ENA, is responsible for a caste system in France, a Times of London correspondent reported.
    The school is based in Strasbourg, and was founded in 1945 by Gen. Charles de Gaulle. Each year, 100 graduates move directly into high posts in civil service and government, and many then migrate to senior corporate positions.

  20. on 05 Apr 2007 at 5:45 am 20. christian h. said …

    They do have a different understanding of centrism in France. And ENA should be abolished. As should ENS. And all the other Grand Ecoles. Higher education in France really flies in the face of egalité.