Comments for YDS: The Clare Spark Blog

Comment on Ralph Bunche and the Jewish Problem by Connecting vs. connecting the dots « YDS: The Clare Spark Blog

Connecting vs. connecting the dots « YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:50:42 +0000

[...] such “economic determinists” as Ralph Bunche in his late 1930s memoranda to Gunnar Myrdal (see http://clarespark.com/2009/10/10/ralph-bunche-and-the-jewish-problem/). Lipset and Raab’s most important revision of class analysis was to redefine class altogether. [...]

Comment on Touch me, touch me not by Connecting vs. connecting the dots « YDS: The Clare Spark Blog

Connecting vs. connecting the dots « YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:50:38 +0000

[...] who did “connect” with Pennsylvania coal miners, because, he stated, it was in his blood. (See http://clarespark.com/2012/04/02/touch-me-touch-me-not/.) This emphasis on a vaguely stated blood and soil “connection” should scare us, for it [...]

Comment on Unity and utopia: the case of David Horowitz by Erik Anderson

Erik Anderson — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:26:19 +0000

The key to being a radical is not only a strong belief in the justness of your cause, but also the confidence that your struggle and sacrifice will eventually prevail. Mr. Horowitz is probably a more serious social critic than any of his New Left brethren. When his views changed, his intensity and lust for combat did not. He comes across as a broken man because his confidence in the success of his struggle against lies and criminality has proven illusory. I admire him for his integrity–he deserves better than to be publicly ridiculed by an untried smart ass. There is nothing quite so irritating as being lectured to by a twenty-something moron. Let the young man think through a moral issue and change sides to his personal detriment before he calls anyone else a fool.

Comment on Unity and utopia: the case of David Horowitz by clarespark

clarespark — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:35:33 +0000

I tend to be skeptical of arguments that rest on “human nature” (or the search for power, a supposedly demonic impulse). What we do know is that human beings are adaptable and have adapted to drastically different environments and challenges. Their differing life experiences push them toward explanations that make their world comprehensible. Alien explanations are treated with scorn and often fear and loathing. I am not minimizing the capacity for social destructiveness or self-destructiveness. I just don’t like the Manichean good versus evil explanation for historical events and change. We need explanations that more fully reconstruct the past and present, and how different individuals and groups view that history, which is not easy to discover.

Comment on Unity and utopia: the case of David Horowitz by harryschell

harryschell — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:25:50 +0000

Human nature will never catch up to all the information in the world or be able to use it, so that useful idiots and useful thinkers will always be with us. Sometimes for the most petty of reasons will someone decide to ignore obvious information and contradictions in their heated defended positions (Mike Bloomberg decrying sodas one day and the next celebrating National Donut Day is my recent favorite). It’s inexplicable except that we are humans and flawed, capable of goodness and evil. That is one overriding consideration for limited government. When the resources of government are turned to efforts that suppress individual freedom, “coerce people out of their cars” and “force you to think”, evil has the farthest reach and the most impact.

Comment on Moderate Men Falling Down by Unity and utopia: the case of David Horowitz « YDS: The Clare Spark Blog

Unity and utopia: the case of David Horowitz « YDS: The Clare Spark Blog — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:19:29 +0000

[...] For a blog that treats disunity within ourselves, see http://clarespark.com/2010/11/06/moderate-men-falling-down/. shoebox sculpture Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Comments [...]

Comment on Unity and utopia: the case of David Horowitz by clarespark

clarespark — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:27:15 +0000

I wasn’t trying to justify Gottlieb at all, but was protesting his piece. He is too young to comprehend the phenomenon of a David Horowitz or neoconservatives in general. Mostly the piece was about the desire for unity, that encompasses all individuals of all societies. It is very hard to stand alone, and especially to be a combative Jew, whose tradition is filled with challenges to the written text, especially when most other belief systems are authoritarian in one way or another.

Comment on Unity and utopia: the case of David Horowitz by anna

anna — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:09:10 +0000

You are trying to justify Gottlieb and the like, but I will be less kind. I believe one can be born privileged and still be able (or at least try to be) compassionate and decent. We don’t live in the Middle Ages when kings lived in isolation (and without the Internet), were told that they were divine and it was easy to believe then. There is no justification for modern kings (and much smaller “privileged). I will never understand the Gottliebs: I will never understand Ronda (a red diaper “Jew”) who went to Iran on Iranian TV to denounce …. you guess it … Israel; I will never understand Sarah (a 22 year old graduate of Columbia who babbles on the pages of Dissent about … Jewish power). All these people have access to all the knowledge in the world. Instead they have chosen convenient posturing, convenient catering to the crowd, they wish accepts them. Yes, they are and they will be accepted as long as they remain useful idiots, or more correctly useful scoundrels.

Comment on Progressive uplift vs. “New Left” nihilism by clarespark

clarespark — Mon, 28 May 2012 14:41:59 +0000

We got here because the Constitution was newly interpreted by Progressive judges, like Brandeis. His view of an activist Court was further developed out of fear of another working class revolution after years of mobilizing by worker and their allies.

Comment on Progressive uplift vs. “New Left” nihilism by Torn Halves

Torn Halves — Mon, 28 May 2012 07:38:18 +0000

Thanks for that clarification, and let me say that I share most of the values you espouse. Yesterday I was re-reading some pieces about art by Walter Benjamin (after first reading them in the 1980s) and had a horrible sense that the texts had died. I feel the same in relation to the comparatively rational programme that you juxtapose to the thuggery of the protesters. There is no space here to develop the response that is needed but let me pick up on the traces of the Enlightenment that I detect. The references to the light are interesting. We the educated and the disciplined are in the light, while the lower strata are in the dark. The light is one, just as Reason is singular. The educated and disciplined will agree on how to form the Parliament of Man. When everyone is able to step out into the light, their differences will cease to matter.

I am not an existentialist, but from the beginning the Enlightenment discourse has struck me as both true and untrue, and as time goes by, it seems increasingly important to keep that untruth in view. The challenge is to find a way to think beyond the Englightenment without falling into the trap of PoMo nihilism (a bad relativism of anything goes).

Your post reminds me of Neil Postman’s book “Building a Bridge to the 18th Century”. I nodded all the way through that book, saying to myself: “Yes, those 18th century values were so much sounder than the ones that have gained hegemony now.” But then there is the obvious question: How did we get here? And the obvious answer is: We got here from the 18th century.