But if you're a socialist and part of the real version of the left, is the real problem discrimination against people who can't get mortgages, or should housing be a public good? If you wanted to make housing a public good, the fact that you couldn't get a mortgage wouldn't be a problem. The minute you're committed to the mortgage market, you're committed to making that market more efficient and function more fairly. That's fine if you're committed to neoliberal markets. If you're committed to restoring public housing and making that along with health care and education a public good that everyone should have access to, it's a different story.
You have to think about what it means to be on the left. What it means to be on the liberal left is a commitment to making markets run more efficiently and more fairly. What it means to be on the socialist left is to be committed to the idea that we should to try to minimize markets and take essential things like housing, health care, and education and make it public.
That's why when I go down to speak at the University of Chicago, it's like talking in completely enemy territory. All those universities exist as private institutions and are committed to the things that make it possible to be fair and open private institutions, not to the idea of what they should be doing is public. Charter schools are part of the same deal. What we're talking about is a massive withdrawal of the state from its responsibility to serve the public good.
What the neoliberal left is at the core is an attempt to make sure that as the state [withdraws], people have an equality of access to what's left behind. This is the passage that ends your book: It would be interesting to see how many of them showed up for elections that hinged on the meaning and importance of equality in America. You have a lot of working-class people that don't think there's much at stake for them in voting.
In theory, that's not a problem for GOP, but it is for Democrats—or would be if they were aiming for a working-class movement. It's important to not turn the election into a morality test; it's hard to get people to vote for you if they don't see that they have some interest, something at stake.
If they're convinced from the start that there's nothing you're going to do for them, then they're not going to want to do anything for you. It seems to me whatever comes out of this from the perspective of the left—it's something that begins with the idea of taking the working class as you find it, not trying to sort out its morality. Find ways in which you can propose things to benefit them and show them their interests are in alliance with other members of the working class across race and gender lines.
I mean, what good have the Democrats been to poor black people? Democrats have been great for the relatively small—but larger than it used to be—black middle class. But it's not like things have gotten better for poor blacks over the last 30 years. Since deindustrialization in the 70s, things have gotten worse for them. And you keep saying, "It's discrimination, it's discrimination!
And black people, being disproportionately poor, take the disproportionate brunt of the indifference to the working class and poor. If you just do race-blind redistribution of wealth downwards, the people that will benefit most will be minorities. Because they're disproportionately poor—there's not even any math to it. In your book you say that the redistribution doesn't happen because so many liberals are obsessed with diversity and representation in the upper echelons of society.
It's [considered] a mark of justice when you have the right proportions of people—women, minorities, et cetera—in the upper echelons. But that's not a critique of the upper echelons. It's true that women are vastly underrepresented as CEOs of American companies, but it's also true that CEOs make an ungodly amount of money more than the average worker—something like or times as much. So what is social justice? Making sure that instead of 5 percent of CEOs are women, 50 percent of them are part of the group making times more than the average worker.
Social justice should say that whether the CEOs are men or women—they should make way less money and their workers should be making way more. If you have diversity politics, which is equal representation, it has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. Applying that to Clinton and Sanders—some of Clinton's support stemmed from the trickle-down effect her presidency could have on women versus Sanders, who would have potentially done more materially for a greater percentage of women.
The most creatively destructive politician in terms of the left of the last 30 years was Margaret Thatcher. No one thinks that being a woman guarantees virtue, including no feminist. But why you'd care about whether or not a woman was president more than you'd care about someone who was actually committed to doing something about economic inequality is a mystery.
Walter Benn Michaels on how liberals still love diversity and ignore inequality
Except that you're more committed to diversity rather than equality. That part of the book is still true—how we learned to love diversity or identity. We haven't stopped finding new ways to learn to love identity and ignore inequality. Or in this case, to be committed to a vision of inequality anchored to identity.
Doesn't Bernie Sanders's success give you hope that Democrats will reject neoliberalism and people will be more open to socialism while maintaining a commitment to antiracism? The Sanders campaign was very antiracist. In the wake of the Trump catastrophe, it's almost hard to remember. We're in for a rough four years. But one of the few ways in which we could produce a true left is through unions—and one of the problems has been the deevolution of the unions, partly because the state has used very powerful weapons against them.
Organizing could be much, much harder under a Trump administration. It's hard enough just to overcome legal obstacles. The Friedrichs [ v. California Teachers Association ] case, which basically got decided in favor of public unions because Scalia died, proved that it's possible there is a god. But then with Trump elected, maybe there isn't a god after all. God might just be fucking with us. Anyway, some version of that case may come back, and a Trump Supreme Court may rule that fair share—which is the way unions pay for themselves—is illegal.
That will be a huge battle over the structures on which a real left could build on as opposed to running around in the city streets mad because Trump got elected. Maybe Trump's election will act as enough of a shock to the system that people will turn to more left politics as a welcome alternative to the failures of Clintonism. I'm not a political scientist.
Republican Like Me: A Lifelong Democrat's Journey Across the Aisle
Last week, half of what I heard was: It's the racism we have to overcome. It's just going to turn the left into what it wants to be—the moral czar of the country who says these people have the correct moral position, these people don't, and we want to get rid of the people that don't have the correct moral position.
That kind of politics is doomed to failure. In the ten years since you wrote the book, it's interesting how certain academic terms have been—in some sense—stripped of their class connotation. A lot of the academic stuff comes out of the elite universities, and one of the things that make them elite is that they're largely populated by rich kids.
So what are the issues? At Harvard, Yale, and the U. That's what universities are for. They're for putting people into positions where they can make a lot of money and gain power—many of them the children of those who make a lot of money and have a lot of power. What you get is an entire discourse of equality that is cut loose from the question of money. That's the tyranny of the microaggression and various forms of privilege amongst people who all have a lot of money.
That's the cultivation of the safe space. You had the dean with his famous letter saying , "This is not a safe space, we want a fierce ideological debate. That's what the University of Chicago is for. But the thing is, the University of Chicago is one of the safest spaces in the whole world.
You can't get spaces much safer than elite university campuses. What you get is fantasies of unsafeness. You have administrators' fantasies of unsafeness where you have the battle of ideas. Then you have the students' fantasies: People who are genuinely unsafe are the people who are not getting anywhere near the University of Chicago or Princeton or Yale. The election this year was held on the same day of the French Revolution calendar as the coup of 18 Brumaire.
Republican Like Me: A Lifelong Democrat's Journey Across the Aisle by Ken Stern
Marx wrote a famous essay called The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon about it, in which he talked about how everything in history takes place twice—the first time is tragedy, the second time is farce. Well, we've had tragedy, we've had farce, what comes after that? To me, the whole discourse of microaggression and safe spaces is what comes after farce.
It's a pantomime performed of theorizing inequality among people who are the beneficiaries of the fundamental inequality and structures of our society. And it's probably more useful to the right than the left. People often say that having faculty and students of people of color is really important because they represent their people.
- The History of Don Quixote, Volume 2, Part 32.
- Dragen Mankinds Struggle.
- Deindustrialisierung und Umgang mit dem industriellen Erbe: An den Beispielen: Ruhrgebiet, Glasgow und Bilbao (German Edition).
- A Slice of Luck!
- See a Problem?.
- Books by Charles Edwards;
- Popular Stories.
But I don't think there's any poor white person or lower middle-class person who see the rich kids at Harvard and think they're there because they represent me. No, they think, These rich kids get to go to Harvard, and people like me don't. When you see that kind of pantomime on campus, what you see is a fuck-you to everyone else that is suffering. I was struck by a part of the book where you label the modern liberal as conservatives and Republicans as reactionaries. Yeah, that was in the version. The more sophisticated way of saying that now is to say liberals are like conservatives in that they wanted a better-functioning market.
They're committed to the market ideology. Obama famously said, "I love markets! And he did totally love markets.
That's how you're a conservative: Whereas the real right-wing guys, they love markets but are also committed to racism or preserving whiteness or social values that matter more. So you've had liberals as conservatives and right-wingers as reactionaries. We have a complicated sense of how that works out now—it's all up for grabs this minute. It's ironic that six months ago we all thought the Republican Party was going to split apart. Now we think the Democratic Party will vanish tomorrow. What's going to take its place? But if there's a way going forward for the left, it has to be committed to organizing a working-class party.
Showing 1- 8 of 8. Switch to the mobile version of this page. Showing 1- 8 of 8 Add a comment. For those coming into our church congregations in order to distort the Gospel and lead people away from Christ, they are already condemned by God. The stealthy are trying to sneak in, so Jesus also warns us in Matthew 7: The Enemy plants these false Christians in ministries and churches, and when not everybody in church leaderships is a Christian, the church has a major problem.
We live in a time period when we are seeing many old denominations collapse. They are losing members and sinking like a boat leaking water. They are collapsing because they have replaced the true Gospel of Jesus Christ which saves with man-made philosophies. You see people being put in charge of churches that are totally unbiblical, like gay pastors, or pastors involved in adulterous relationships.
We see churches that are focused so much on a Social Gospel that they forget the spiritual lives of people and why we are here as Christians, which is to fulfill the Great Commission to lead people to Jesus Christ. We are seeing churches, especially in the West, falling apart because they let these false converts creep into leadership. These ungodly people are put into positions of authority, and they will eventually lead the church away from Jesus Christ. There are so many individuals who are being put into positions of church leadership and pastoral ministries that really should never have been put into those pulpits.
See that I have before you an open door no one can shut, for you have little strength, but I kept my word and I am not denying my name. Vic, you bring up a good point. We can recognize these wolves pretty quickly by how they abuse the grace of God. They say with grace you can live in whatever way you like and you can do whatever you want to do. That is the first method. The second method used in identifying a false Christians is that they deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
They will get up into the pulpit and claim that Jesus was just a good teacher, or that he was merely a prophet. Pulling people away from who God truly is as described in the Bible is satanic. What an awesome salvation that we can have when in repentance we put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior. Salvation is something that is available for all those who want it. Tell us how they can grab hold of the grace of God. How someone can start a relationship with Jesus. Maybe a prayer they can pray today to come to Jesus? Jude calls those who are believers in Jesus Christ sanctified.
In other words, believers are cleansed of their sins and therefore are preserved by Jesus Christ for all of eternity. They are protected by Jesus from the wrath of God against our sins. God wants to cleanse you of your sins. He made that possible by giving His own Son, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice in your place. Once we have accepted in repentance Jesus as Savior, we are preserved in Him. No one can snatch us out of His hands, not even Satan.