Talking fascism, the Constitution, and history with Jamelle Bouie
Last week, as I was losing my voice, I had a really fascinating conversation with Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times, moderated by Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation, about the state of American democracy. You can watch it here. It was a wide-ranging discussion: we talked about whether fascism is a good model for understanding the contemporary American right, the helps and hindrances of the Constitution, the virtues and vices of returning to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for insights into current events, and more. Bouie is one of those rare political writers who really knows his history; it’s almost never that I read one of his Times columns without learning something I didn’t know about the American past. I strongly encourage you to read his work at the Times, and enjoy watching this video of our conversation. And apologies for my voice: my wife said I sounded like Brenda Vaccaro.
6 Comments
-
Good discussion. Thanks for alerting us. I learn from Jamelle too, including in his twitter feed. How many regular NYT columnists can one say that about? (One, I think).
I think the guy who asked the question about Freedom was thinking of Liberty rather than Freedom. Such words are such clanging boilerplate, so empty in use, that it’s easy for non professionals to lose track of what they mean.
I found the answers to the question “why does the Right have balls and the Left not” unsatisfying. First, the ‘left’ was perhaps too conflated with the Democrats (although I agree with CR that the party is finally turning). And then JB came with what seemed an inapposite response about the two parties seeing each other as equally ruthless – true, but only trivially, IMO. The Republican Party *is* relatively bold – or reckless, perhaps because they have to be, as I think Corey said. The big ugly joke is that the constitution of the conservatives is also a living one, no matter what Nino et. al. ever said. Conservatives morph and mold it to their advantage; they jettison norms, and make new ones. I don’t know that they have ‘balls’ so much as – to put it positively, – that they are dynamic in ways the Dems have not been in a long time. The Clinton Dem party can’t be said to be ‘timid’ about achieving things they don’t actually want to achieve! Jamelle called the historical, normal Democratic Party (I think) “managerial”; I think ‘careerist’ is a good word for the current batch. They patently care more about their careers than the chaos and mayhem swirling around them. I know some won’t agree, but the visceral hatred many feel for them – for good and obvious (to everyone but them) reasons – is a significant and entirely optional impediment to overcoming counter-majoritarianism. Everything at the margin matters.
The “Brenda Vaccaro” joke made me laugh, but I’m sure all of us hope you are ok, Corey.
Cheers
-
It was an enjoyable discussion, partly because it’s so rare to hear two well informed people having a reasonable dialogue. I don’t think I previously heard of Jamelle, as I’ve been ignoring news media in recent years, specifically avoiding big biz operations like the NYT. But maybe I’ll go look for some of his writings and follow him on Twitter, just to see what he is all about.
About your comment, you wrote that, “I think the guy who asked the question about Freedom was thinking of Liberty rather than Freedom. Such words are such clanging boilerplate, so empty in use, that it’s easy for non professionals to lose track of what they mean.” I agree with you. People do mix the two up, as was happening by the 1700s. English inherited the two terms from separate linguistic sources (see David Hackett Fischer & Colin Woodard).
Liberty, in the Roman Empire, was primarily about the legal status of individuals in not being enslaved while others were. It’s what some call negative freedom, which isn’t really freedom at all. Freedom, instead, is cognate with friendship; and so indicates being among friends. It means to belong to a community of free people, where one’s right of freedom is guaranteed and protected. It has nothing directly to do about the individual’s legal status as owned by others or potentially an owner of others.
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/02/18/cultural-freedom-legal-liberty/
Next, you said that, “I found the answers to the question “why does the Right have balls and the Left not” unsatisfying. First, the ‘left’ was perhaps too conflated with the Democrats (although I agree with CR that the party is finally turning).” That always frustrates me even more, as it doesn’t require knowing either history or etymology. All one has to do is open one’s eyes to present reality to know that the Democratic Party doesn’t represent the Left. And if one digs a bit into polls and surveys, it becomes obvious the majority is to the left of the DNC elite.
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/07/american-leftist-supermajority/
That relates to the second part of that comment: “And then JB came with what seemed an inapposite response about the two parties seeing each other as equally ruthless – true, but only trivially, IMO.” I always push back against false equivalence arguments. The two ideological sides of left and right are not equal, nor are the two main parties. First off, it’s a one-party state with two right wings. And one of those right wings is extremist while the other is center-right, neither representing the American public. To be honest, I can’t recall in my lifetime the DNC elite being truly and fully ruthless, other than in punching left. Not to say they don’t sometimes like to spark up some spectacle for distraction, so as to appear like they’re doing something. Here is how I previously described false equivalency:
“There is an understandable attraction to visually simplistic metaphors that capture the imagination. And there is inspiration to be taken from the wing metaphor, since two wings are part of a single bird, often used as a symbol of nobility and natural freedom, such as the bald eagle being the primary symbol of the United States. As elegant and inspiring as it might be to think of society like a great feathered creature requiring a linked pair of wings moving in balanced unison to gain lift and soar through the sky, it becomes readily apparent where the metaphor of a ‘left’ wing of egalitarianism (i.e., non-rigidly non-hierarchical authority) and a ‘right’ wing of authoritarianism (i.e., rigidly hierarchical authority) fails us.
“In the world we actually live in, a small ‘right’ wing ruling elite controls both ruling parties and has come to dominate all of society through plutocratic and kleptocratic, corporatocratic and oligarchic capitalist realism (fungible wealth of ‘capital’ etymologically as head; related to ‘cattle’ and ‘chattel’; hence, chattel slavery was part of early capitalism and still is). The metaphor in question would only describe reality if a stunted ‘right’ wing had somehow become bloated and cancerous, grown a monstrous demonic mouth-hole with razor-like teeth, began beating to death the massive but paralyzed ‘left’ wing, futilely struggled to detach itself from the body, and then sado-masochistcally attempted to devour the rest of the bird. The metaphor breaks down a bit at that point. Hence, the problem with false equivalency between ‘left’ and ‘right’. I hope that clears things up.”
https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2021/04/04/in-the-spirit-of-our-people/
-
-
It was a great discussion. And I have one major compliment. But one minor complaint.
I was glad to see you and Jamelle repeat so many Anti-Federalist arguments. Yet disappointed that the Anti-Federalists were never mentioned by name.
-
Jamelle Bouie said he had concluded intuitively that Trump would not be indicted. (Ironically, I watched the video yesterday, Trump having been indicted Thursday). You sort of acquiesced . You both appear to believe that in the the bigger more important picture of how democracy is to be protected and secured for the future, the legal plays a less important role than the political.
I would ask you to consider that legal consequences, by which I mean indictments, trials, convictions, and RESULTING PUNISHMENT IN THE FORM OF IMPRISIONMENT, may be, and in my view are, the most reliable way to insure consequential political change. I, for one, am not overly worried about violent protests that were predicted upon an indictment nor do I fret about that if there is conviction and inprisionment. My judgment is based on the simple proposition that Trump sycophants have seen that rallying to their cause or leader violently entails (and has resulted in) JAIL TIME! That means more than a finding of guilty, an agreement not to seek elective office again, or whatever. Not only deplorables but the hierarchy are more likely to be deterred by such real world consequences.
My point is not to undervalue the role of the legal in the political
-
The political is always legal. If the political is not understood correctly as legal, then that opens the door to the weakening moral potential of both the political and the legal. Politics inevitably follows from our conception and practice of the law. It was out of debates over law, not only as a system but as an ideology (e.g., natural law as natural rights), that the American Revolution was incited.
-
-
Great discussion, but Trump has been indicted. And the fascist threat is real. The synergy between mass violence and elite maneuvering today’s seems real. Or at least as evidence suggests.