This is about as interesting as a disagreement between David Brooks and George Will.
It is a sad little fight between two wealthy men who are more invested in their identity as public intellectuals than they are in doing any sort of nuanced or original thinking.
And for his part, Charles continues to show worrying signs of early-onset dementia, unable to focus on the topic at hand, helplessly drifting away from the conversation and instead falling into a fugue of mumbling the same old special words to himself, over and over again.
1) There's no such thing as economic theory that doesn't include markets.
2) Thanks for the push-back on the overuse of "neoliberal" which has come to mean nothing
3) Cornel is a theoretical political philosopher. But politics can never be theoretical.
I guess disagreeing with Coates = "hating" on him? Muede is like any number of self-deluded Liberals who like to claim that everything bad that's happening right now started with Trump. They ignore how hopelessly corrupt, right-wing, and war-mongering the democrat party was under Obama and previous administrations.
Since Muede's chosen in SLOG to ignore the meat and potatoes of Cornel West's op-ed, here's heaping helping:
Unfortunately, Coatesâ allegiance to Obama has produced an impoverished understanding of black history. He reveals this when he writes: âOssie Davis famously eulogized Malcolm X as âour living, Black manhoodâ and âour own Black shining prince.â Only one man today could bear those twin honorifics: Barack Obama.â
This gross misunderstanding of who Malcolm X was â the greatest prophetic voice against the American Empire â and who Barack Obama is â the first black head of the American Empire â speaks volumes about Coatesâ neoliberal view of the world.
Coates praises Obama as a âdeeply moral human beingâ while remaining silent on the 563 drone strikes, the assassination of US citizens with no trial, the 26,171 bombs dropped on five Muslim-majority countries in 2016 and the 550 Palestinian children killed with US supported planes in 51 days, etc. He calls Obama âone of the greatest presidents in American history,â who for âeight years ... walked on ice and never fell.â
I do appreciate seeing a Slog post that goes for understanding the mixture of what's in a person, rather than picking out what you hate and railing against it.
As soon as I see or hear the term "neoliberal," I know I'm the speaker has nothing worthwhile to say. It's a meaningless term that translates roughly as,"The person being described has positions that aren't at the farthest left extreme of the spectrum," and also I know that the speaker would rather have Republicans win every election than support an imperfect left-wing candidate. Feh. A pox on their houses.
I think you need to note that the Neoliberals such as Friedman/"the now repentant" Sachs were bastards who inflicted their "free market" ideals upon much of the world starting in the 70s via war on the third, the recovering second world, and even more discretely the first world; be it via mass killings, torture, and massive economic deprivation. This was done at a rapid, blitzkrieg of a pace. People, unlike economies, are not something that just magically "snap back".
Obama, for all his many faults, is more of an incrementalist and nudger - a.k.a. a Behavioralist. Something a guy just won a Nobel economics prize for this year. It can be bad too. But you can't just lump him in with those I list above.
It's not even controversial that what one doesn't say is as significant as what someone says. Coates not criticizing Obama's neoliberal economics and empire building is very significant and West is correct to point out that is probably the reason why Coates is the darling of corporate media.
Charles Mudede doesn't like Cornel West for some reason; according to his own psychobabble analysis, it must be because Charles is jealous of Cornel West.
In the socio-political environment of today, when just about any public figure is found to engage in horrid behavior (i.e. sexual harassment/assault, borderline or outright racist comments, nationalism, etc...) They are fully condemned and any attempt to mention any positive achievements they have made is seen as some sort of apologism. However when Obama presides over an astronomical level of deportations and the wanton bombing/murder of civilians oversees and someone uses this same logic to criticize those who continue to champion him it's petty?
People could at least standardize their logic. It's great that America came to a point where we elected a black man as president, even if there's plenty of work to go yet in terms of racial equality. But we can still admit that Obama had some real POS tendencies that cannot be swept under the rug or be separated from who he was as a whole. We don't need to deify the man.
Democrats/liberals will continue to pretend they're not nationalists while they continue to ignore horrid US foreign policy and practice as long as their politicians enact liberal social policies at home. Go ahead and support Israeli apartheid as long as you can be assured of getting a cake for your gay wedding.
(Of note, I fully support the right of individuals the marry whom they love and be unobstructed in this pursuit. Just saying that that's a very low bar for the deification of any political figure or party.)
@22 I'll have to check to be entirely sure but I don't think that West "calls" Coates a neoliberal. I think West is merely saying that neoliberal media uses Coates (as in blackwashing by using Coates image?) because Coates isn't fundamentally challenging neoliberal capitalism.
It is a sad little fight between two wealthy men who are more invested in their identity as public intellectuals than they are in doing any sort of nuanced or original thinking.
And for his part, Charles continues to show worrying signs of early-onset dementia, unable to focus on the topic at hand, helplessly drifting away from the conversation and instead falling into a fugue of mumbling the same old special words to himself, over and over again.
I suppose, but I think Charles is a wino, not a pothead.
2) Thanks for the push-back on the overuse of "neoliberal" which has come to mean nothing
3) Cornel is a theoretical political philosopher. But politics can never be theoretical.
Since Muede's chosen in SLOG to ignore the meat and potatoes of Cornel West's op-ed, here's heaping helping:
Unfortunately, Coatesâ allegiance to Obama has produced an impoverished understanding of black history. He reveals this when he writes: âOssie Davis famously eulogized Malcolm X as âour living, Black manhoodâ and âour own Black shining prince.â Only one man today could bear those twin honorifics: Barack Obama.â
This gross misunderstanding of who Malcolm X was â the greatest prophetic voice against the American Empire â and who Barack Obama is â the first black head of the American Empire â speaks volumes about Coatesâ neoliberal view of the world.
Coates praises Obama as a âdeeply moral human beingâ while remaining silent on the 563 drone strikes, the assassination of US citizens with no trial, the 26,171 bombs dropped on five Muslim-majority countries in 2016 and the 550 Palestinian children killed with US supported planes in 51 days, etc. He calls Obama âone of the greatest presidents in American history,â who for âeight years ... walked on ice and never fell.â
Obama, for all his many faults, is more of an incrementalist and nudger - a.k.a. a Behavioralist. Something a guy just won a Nobel economics prize for this year. It can be bad too. But you can't just lump him in with those I list above.
Charles Mudede doesn't like Cornel West for some reason; according to his own psychobabble analysis, it must be because Charles is jealous of Cornel West.
People could at least standardize their logic. It's great that America came to a point where we elected a black man as president, even if there's plenty of work to go yet in terms of racial equality. But we can still admit that Obama had some real POS tendencies that cannot be swept under the rug or be separated from who he was as a whole. We don't need to deify the man.
(Of note, I fully support the right of individuals the marry whom they love and be unobstructed in this pursuit. Just saying that that's a very low bar for the deification of any political figure or party.)