Discussion about this post

User's avatar
D. Malcolm Carson's avatar

Well . . . maybe.

I find myself asking similar questions about a lot of what I would call the "dissident left", a group with which I fundamentally disagree philosophically, but pragmatically find myself often aligned with. The "ruling-class left" (if I can use your framework) controls a massive network of indoctrination camps (higher education) from which they then strategically press their advantage to extend that indoctrination across a range of other institution, from public schools to corporate media. The question for everyone who would seek to oppose their rule then has to start with the mechanisms that might be employed to "un-indoctrinate" people.

In my view, the process begins with the basic question that deBoer seems to be posing: what are the actual effects of left-wing activism on the putative beneficiaries of that activism? In other words, yes, "pragmatic leftism" is actually an oxymoron, but for that very reason, adherents to it are likely at step one in the deprogramming process. If ruling-class leftism is an ideological construct designed to fool the masses into accepting "bourgeois class rule", the antidote to that has to be the reality of the impact that bourgeois class rule has on people who are not part of that class.

Maybe deBoer is already past the point in his life/career where he might be willing to take the red pill, but I'm not sure that he and others like him are obscuring the true nature of the left so much as illuminating it via the contradictions in their own thought processes. In other words, it's not hard to imagine that there's a fairly straightforward path from critiquing the left "from within" to critiquing the left from "without", however ideologically diverse that next place might be.

Expand full comment
boomer's avatar

There's a pipeline theory of intellectual development. A smart person on the fringe of a dumb discourse may yearn for something more, and fail to find it, but later find it in someone who can bridge them from point A to point B. And then when they find themselves stuck at point B, there's another person who has been through that who will lead them to point C. And so on.

Suppose someone is stuck in a sandtrap of dreadful liberal pablum. And not just "someone" in particular, but most people. Liberal pablum is the default of the mainstream, it seems. There will be many people trying to engage with something deeper. They won't find a readily available exit, but they'll latch onto someone who at least appears to be carving a tunnel out of Shawshank.

DeBoer makes no tunnel. Or, he makes a half-tunnel at best. He's stuck in the prison that he spends his days criticizing, as this article establishes, while rhetorically trying to redeem the prison. But for the desperate and insightful onlooker, he drills enough cracks in the wall for the smart ones to start to crawl their own way out.

The end game of DeBoer is going to land back in the same conversation as the year 2014. But the audience there is wide enough where a savvy critic of DeBoer could drag his readers into a deeper conversation.

I hope the tactical benefit there isn't lost, even if he has reached his ceiling as a writer.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts