politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The old left, as Rorty describes, is the leftist group that demonstrates the willingness to build bridges. In Achieving Our Country he provides accounts or examples of willingness and trust to create precarious political movements with groups that do not have 100% alignment or common views on all issues to effect change. This requires compromise, pluralism, and willingness to collaborate with people that may have some viewpoints you disagree with in order to achieve common goods.
And again, I am not saying old left and new left is a generational distinction. There are plenty of young folks that fall into the old progressive left category. This article highlights that "18% of those aged 18-34 said the same [of being proud of country]."
Also took some time to open the book again, I think the terms he used were "Cultural Left" and "Progressive Left" but the description was the cultural left was a relatively newer position in Leftist politics. That newness of the cultural left had a lot do with response to things like the Vietnam war that were widely televised, and works by intellectuals like Michel Foucault that impacted how people reflect on their culture. Rorty's heroes of the progressive left go back to Walt Whitman, John Dewey, James Baldwin. The Baldwin quote he borrows the book title from "If we- and now I mean the relatively conscious whites and the relatively conscious blacks, who must, like lovers, insist on, or create, the consciousness of the others- do not falter in our duty now, we may be able, handful that we are, to end the racial nightmare, and achieve our country, and change the history of the world."
I know that’s the argument but Framing it as ‘the new folks on the block don’t want to build bridges’ isn’t a very good way to build bridges.
Basically I think this whole analysis is a lazy way to dismiss the new left. Not that they’re perfect or anything, but I think there is an equal responsibility for both groups to work together.
That's the point. The Cultural Critical left in Rorty is characterized as the spectator engaging in cultural commentary (which may be insightful), but do little in terms of action. A theme in spectatorial left is often a sense or POV of a country being beyond repair. The Progressive left is what attempts to be side of action. It's love of country and national pride that instill a sense of duty to navigate paths of change and national improvement. If you are working towards reform you would be categorized and have that degree of social left, you are more inline with the old left or progressive left. The whole point is the "group" of new left or cultural left are those commentators that do little to enact change or hope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achieving_Our_Country
Idk Still sounds to me like this is mostly a clever way to denigrate and dismiss people who aren’t doing things the “right” way.
And I also don’t buy that patriotic duty is the only motivation to work on improving things
But if it works for you then good on ya