There is no politics under neoliberalism, only tactics. As ever, the people who make these decisions or police the way we discuss them rarely have to concern themselves with safe spaces, or sanctuary, as they only experience terror in anomalous circumstances rather than everyday life.
Patrick, Excellent essay. Thought-provoking on many fronts. I loved the Canetti reference about money being a crowd symbol, something I had never considered but so insightful, and Sontag's prescient comment about the impending downfall of communism being due to its loss of credibility, something one definitely sees all around us today relating to US and other democracies. The distinction you make between the US as a nation and America as myth is also very useful.
Regarding that myth, the capitalism in Europe with its social democracies, seems quite different from the brutish indifference to others that we have here. Those places aren't perfect, of course, but I'm not sure if the desperation is so widespread there as here.
Your use of the trope of sanctuary seems somewhat suspect to me, however, a space carved out of a violent place for safety. The *whole country* ought to provide such sanctuary to all its citizens, it shouldn't be a carve-out for the poor and underemployed. "Give me your tired, your poor, etc."
I was also surprised that your essay ended with a way out through our legislators. Everyone of them will say they are responding to "the people," empowering their views. They have no clue.
And then I was unsure about your claim that "For each person, one can ask, “Do they add or subtract?” In fact the government itself did ask this question for the first time in its history under the Trump administration." All the way back to the Immigration Act of 1882, immigrants had to have a sponsor in the U.S. so they didn't become a public charge. This seems to conform with your argument about adding or subtracting from the nation's wealth. Immigrants were clearly rejected if they subtracted from it.
Finally, I am unsure about the relationship between a Christian medieval "ora et labora" doctrine (the merging of contemplation and the active life, the Mary/Martha dilemma) and capitalism. Now, I suppose it hinges on the relationship between work and reward, whether we work as part of our humanity and in support of others (partially altruistic), or whether we work to gain money, prestige, and things (totally selfish - with my apologies to trickle-downers - a prerequisite of capitalism). Whether we might be working for others, who are benefiting from our labors, or for others, who are exploiting our labor to heir personal benefit. Work remains a huge unsolved mystery to me.
At any rate, I loved your essay. Stimulating, as always. But, as you write, one must move from "stimulating" to action in a manner appropriate to the problem.
Patrick, Excellent essay. Thought-provoking on many fronts. I loved the Canetti reference about money being a crowd symbol, something I had never considered but so insightful, and Sontag's prescient comment about the impending downfall of communism being due to its loss of credibility, something one definitely sees all around us today relating to US and other democracies. The distinction you make between the US as a nation and America as myth is also very useful.
Regarding that myth, the capitalism in Europe with its social democracies, seems quite different from the brutish indifference to others that we have here. Those places aren't perfect, of course, but I'm not sure if the desperation is so widespread there as here.
Your use of the trope of sanctuary seems somewhat suspect to me, however, a space carved out of a violent place for safety. The *whole country* ought to provide such sanctuary to all its citizens, it shouldn't be a carve-out for the poor and underemployed. "Give me your tired, your poor, etc."
I was also surprised that your essay ended with a way out through our legislators. Everyone of them will say they are responding to "the people," empowering their views. They have no clue.
And then I was unsure about your claim that "For each person, one can ask, “Do they add or subtract?” In fact the government itself did ask this question for the first time in its history under the Trump administration." All the way back to the Immigration Act of 1882, immigrants had to have a sponsor in the U.S. so they didn't become a public charge. This seems to conform with your argument about adding or subtracting from the nation's wealth. Immigrants were clearly rejected if they subtracted from it.
Finally, I am unsure about the relationship between a Christian medieval "ora et labora" doctrine (the merging of contemplation and the active life, the Mary/Martha dilemma) and capitalism. Now, I suppose it hinges on the relationship between work and reward, whether we work as part of our humanity and in support of others (partially altruistic), or whether we work to gain money, prestige, and things (totally selfish - with my apologies to trickle-downers - a prerequisite of capitalism). Whether we might be working for others, who are benefiting from our labors, or for others, who are exploiting our labor to heir personal benefit. Work remains a huge unsolved mystery to me.
At any rate, I loved your essay. Stimulating, as always. But, as you write, one must move from "stimulating" to action in a manner appropriate to the problem.
Brilliant, fearless, and unsparing, as always. Maybe one of your best essays that I've read - and that's saying something. Thank you.
Loved this. Printed it out to read later.