![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo, about a month ago, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
enders_shadow talked, among other things, about academic Cornel West and Occupy Wall Street. After I pointed out that I had never heard of West, enders recommended West's book, Democracy Matters, to me. Since this was easily available from my library, and I was looking for some different points-of-view, so why not.
This will be all over the place (sort of like the book) and maybe of interest to only one or two people, so I'll put the rest behind a cut. Don't expect greatness from this - I'm thinking more generally and I bookmarked a few areas of interest.
So I have to say, I did finish the whole thing. That it took him 60+ pages to actually get to his thesis ("A strong democratic vision and critique") after really meandering from idea to idea without even as much as a coherent thread didn't leave me much. Thankfully, there were a few takeaways for me.
1) His criticism about the US's inconsistency in supporting democracy and democratic movements, while not necessarily rooted in solid ground, has plenty of merit. The cynical (he'd say nihilistic) viewpoint that it all comes down to resources and/or race is a bit much - in my mind, that gives the US viewpoint too much credit in terms of having some sort of master democratic plan.
2) He's extremely pessimistic and negative about the one thing that really pushes democracy into a movement, the purest democracy there is - the market. He spends a good deal of time obsessing over "market morality," which ultimately means he absolutely and completely misses out on the positives markets bring, up to and including more choice and more value to societies on a whole. He actually associates that nihilism with markets starting on pages 26 and 27, which were some of the more puzzling passages in the book.
3) It was strange to see him complaining about not enough support of democracy and being cynical of the Bush administrations attempts to help democracy along in the Middle East. It almost feels like he wants it both ways here: deny the support Bush has given to the Middle East while saying that the US isn't doing enough to support democracy, especially in the Middle East. He refers to it on 104 as the "American imperial tradition" even though we, by definition, haven't been imperialist in generations. This sort of attitude is a lot of the reason why we're as polarized as we are, I think.
4) Page 111 was another puzzling passage. He goes into the so-called hypocrisy in our support of democracy, but his only stances on hypocrisy seem to be not so much the support of democracy in Israel and Iraq, but more that we don't do what he would prefer in those places. There is room for criticism in our dealings with Iran, with the Palestinians. I'm not sure this is the right one.
West is also extremely misled on the Israel/US relationship. He doesn't spend much time on the Cold War, he completely ignores that we supported the Israeli state very early on, and instead ascribes more nefarious motives to much of the dealings. Not great, and that he's only willing to largely wave away the problems Israel has had with the leftist tropes of unequal response only makes it worse for me. This was not a convincing passage for me - some more equal dealing may have ended up putting me on his side.
Further along these lines, West later asks about having to choose between Israel and oil on page 128, as if some other nation might "serve our interests" better. This, I believe, is incredibly cynical, and misses the point of the support of democracy that he thinks we're uninterested in.
For someone who complains about nihilism...
5) I found his take on the American Christian right to be a lot misguided. He lost me in particular with his allegations of antisemitism amongst the Christian right as well as his criticisms of Christianity in general in regards to social justice (or at least his version of it). This was written in 2005, so he had no idea how laughable his citing folks like Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright as worthwhile voices. enders warned me about the liberation theology stuff, and that didn't bother me as much as his citing of certifiable types as people who should be leading the charge. It tells me that he's either a) unserious about what he believes or b) truly doesn't understand the nation he lives in and the need for more moderate voices as opposed to louder extreme voices.
6) I found his second to last chapter a lot of back-patting before his story of his dealings with Larry Summers at Harvard. I haven't read up on that story, so I'll keep my opinions in check until then, but I don't think those who are picking up this book need to know every little credential along the way, either. Kind of bad form for the type of book this was, I thought.
So I'm glad I read it, I suppose, although I didn't get what I was hoping for out of it. In terms of normalizing the OWS group, making them sound less extreme? Absolutely not. If anything, this book should be required reading for anyone who wants to have an opinion on the group, if only to hear one of the voices leading the charge in his own word. It was a good example, at least for me, as to the limited coherence of some of the more extreme voices on the left and a great indicator for me as to why such viewpoints don't carry a ton of weight in the discourse.
enders_shadow talked, among other things, about academic Cornel West and Occupy Wall Street. After I pointed out that I had never heard of West, enders recommended West's book, Democracy Matters, to me. Since this was easily available from my library, and I was looking for some different points-of-view, so why not.This will be all over the place (sort of like the book) and maybe of interest to only one or two people, so I'll put the rest behind a cut. Don't expect greatness from this - I'm thinking more generally and I bookmarked a few areas of interest.
So I have to say, I did finish the whole thing. That it took him 60+ pages to actually get to his thesis ("A strong democratic vision and critique") after really meandering from idea to idea without even as much as a coherent thread didn't leave me much. Thankfully, there were a few takeaways for me.
1) His criticism about the US's inconsistency in supporting democracy and democratic movements, while not necessarily rooted in solid ground, has plenty of merit. The cynical (he'd say nihilistic) viewpoint that it all comes down to resources and/or race is a bit much - in my mind, that gives the US viewpoint too much credit in terms of having some sort of master democratic plan.
2) He's extremely pessimistic and negative about the one thing that really pushes democracy into a movement, the purest democracy there is - the market. He spends a good deal of time obsessing over "market morality," which ultimately means he absolutely and completely misses out on the positives markets bring, up to and including more choice and more value to societies on a whole. He actually associates that nihilism with markets starting on pages 26 and 27, which were some of the more puzzling passages in the book.
3) It was strange to see him complaining about not enough support of democracy and being cynical of the Bush administrations attempts to help democracy along in the Middle East. It almost feels like he wants it both ways here: deny the support Bush has given to the Middle East while saying that the US isn't doing enough to support democracy, especially in the Middle East. He refers to it on 104 as the "American imperial tradition" even though we, by definition, haven't been imperialist in generations. This sort of attitude is a lot of the reason why we're as polarized as we are, I think.
4) Page 111 was another puzzling passage. He goes into the so-called hypocrisy in our support of democracy, but his only stances on hypocrisy seem to be not so much the support of democracy in Israel and Iraq, but more that we don't do what he would prefer in those places. There is room for criticism in our dealings with Iran, with the Palestinians. I'm not sure this is the right one.
West is also extremely misled on the Israel/US relationship. He doesn't spend much time on the Cold War, he completely ignores that we supported the Israeli state very early on, and instead ascribes more nefarious motives to much of the dealings. Not great, and that he's only willing to largely wave away the problems Israel has had with the leftist tropes of unequal response only makes it worse for me. This was not a convincing passage for me - some more equal dealing may have ended up putting me on his side.
Further along these lines, West later asks about having to choose between Israel and oil on page 128, as if some other nation might "serve our interests" better. This, I believe, is incredibly cynical, and misses the point of the support of democracy that he thinks we're uninterested in.
For someone who complains about nihilism...
5) I found his take on the American Christian right to be a lot misguided. He lost me in particular with his allegations of antisemitism amongst the Christian right as well as his criticisms of Christianity in general in regards to social justice (or at least his version of it). This was written in 2005, so he had no idea how laughable his citing folks like Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright as worthwhile voices. enders warned me about the liberation theology stuff, and that didn't bother me as much as his citing of certifiable types as people who should be leading the charge. It tells me that he's either a) unserious about what he believes or b) truly doesn't understand the nation he lives in and the need for more moderate voices as opposed to louder extreme voices.
6) I found his second to last chapter a lot of back-patting before his story of his dealings with Larry Summers at Harvard. I haven't read up on that story, so I'll keep my opinions in check until then, but I don't think those who are picking up this book need to know every little credential along the way, either. Kind of bad form for the type of book this was, I thought.
So I'm glad I read it, I suppose, although I didn't get what I was hoping for out of it. In terms of normalizing the OWS group, making them sound less extreme? Absolutely not. If anything, this book should be required reading for anyone who wants to have an opinion on the group, if only to hear one of the voices leading the charge in his own word. It was a good example, at least for me, as to the limited coherence of some of the more extreme voices on the left and a great indicator for me as to why such viewpoints don't carry a ton of weight in the discourse.
(no subject)
Date: 9/11/11 23:20 (UTC)2) Markets only offer choices to a few, like Communism capitalism on an international scale is one giant kleptocracy that survives on looting and pillaging the many. The Communists just do this to support a Party, the capitalist system does this to enrich individuals. Both alike loot and pillage, unfortunately there are no other options and I'd much prefer the capitalist version to any totalitarian system.
3) This is because the USA, like the EU states, only likes democracy when it works for our interests, otherwise we want and prefer to prop up dictators easily controlled.
4) Israel is only democratic relative to most of the rest of the Middle East, its political system is deeply flawed to the point that a political party with five people can control the whole thing even if it's only got five people, it relies on a mass conscript army, and its army primarily spends time with deciding its occupations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is or isn't a war as suits it. Relative to everything else, this is very much mild and democratic, but this says more about the rest of them than it does anything *for* Israel.
Israel's better than Assad or what Mubarak and Gadaffi's dictatorships were, it hasn't had military coups every few years like Turkey, and it's not a totalitarian state with a religious Comintern-expy like Iran. If that's all that Israel has going for it, I'm rather underwhelmed as that's like saying that one is not kicking puppies every five seconds and expecting to be rewarded for it.
(no subject)
Date: 9/11/11 23:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/11/11 23:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 00:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 00:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/11/11 23:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 00:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 07:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 12:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/11/11 23:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 12:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 00:24 (UTC)2) Err, I would be. In the market, our choices aren't between two diametrically opposing view points but between two folks who happened to set up shop against each other. There's no guarantee that the market does correct itself morally.
3) Muddled, but so was the Bush administration's foreign policy.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 00:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 01:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 01:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 01:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/11/11 03:38 (UTC)That's why I neither recommend or read recommended books that are highly biased ideological opinions.
I will form my own political opinions based on a wide variety of sources and experience without having it spoon fed to me.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/11 22:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/11 22:47 (UTC)No. I just choose to steer clear of your bias, which seem to indicate that there is absolutely no objectivity in journalism whatsoever. How convenient.
No longer imperialist?
Date: 10/11/11 19:13 (UTC)I suppose you have a definition of imperialism that excludes actions that others consider to be imperialist.
Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 10/11/11 19:46 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 11/11/11 03:10 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 11/11/11 03:11 (UTC)the philosopher in me is disappointed i missed such an obvious and necessary qualifier for the statement to remain true
Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 11/11/11 03:54 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 21:33 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 21:50 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 21:54 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 22:06 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 21:31 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 21:49 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 21:55 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 12/11/11 22:07 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 13/11/11 21:09 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 13/11/11 21:20 (UTC)Re: No longer imperialist?
Date: 13/11/11 21:58 (UTC)