I was struck in reading this article in today's NY Times mag (I'm not finished yet) b
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/78a92/78a92128f945385f926a45a1a88c4e845273deb7" alt=""
Note how Clinton took the Democratic party in a centrist direction and compare it to how the UFT moved from a classical union to a broker between the business interests and the union members - selling the business roundtable line to the members rather than being a strong advocate for the membership. Kahlenberg spends oozes of time talking about the affinity between Clinton and Shanker. We hope to get into some of these ideas at the forum on Thursday (see post below this.)
Definitions in the Times article: "old liberals" are now defined as "progressives."
"Progressives" call Clintonists "Neo-liberals" and look at the practitioners as being not far from neo-cons, with which many share the same roots (loads of examples cited by Kahlenberg.)
Kahlenberg calls "old liberals" "neo-liberals" and uses "tough liberal" to define Shankerism which in many respects is really Clintonism which is really neo-liberal which is in many of its doctrines (other than union rights) a form of neo-con.
Capiche?
Though I see the Times article and the promotion of the Kahlenberg book as part and parcel of an attack on the left, including left-wing Democrats, there's a lot more thinking through of these issues to do.
But Giant football is coming up and we've got lots of chips and dip to attack and then heading off to MSG for Rangers hockey tonight, preceded by hot dogs at Nathan's. Urp!
More later.
NY Times article is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23clintonism-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print
No comments:
Post a Comment