Übertrolls – Leftwing Edition

blocked by deboer too

“You are blocked from following @freddiedeboer and viewing @freddiedeboer’s Tweets.”

Yesterday, Fredrik “Freddie” deBoer was tweeting out his newly pixeled attack on liberalism on behalf of leftism, and, quite in keeping with that posture, went from lashing out against self-styled “paleoliberal” Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute – for “not being interested in economic justice… really”1 – to Twitter-blocking Mark R. Yzaguirre, who had, inconceivably, insisted on arguing the merits of realized liberal democracy or social democracy vs. deBoer’s wish for something certainly much better (if not anywhere ever existent). I turned out to be next in line for the virtual executioner, apparently for my impertinence or impudence while taking notice – unless the real point for Mr. deBoer was satisfaction of sadistic or narcissistic compulsion, or psychological compensation, or imaginary validation of status perception, or all of the above.

One might fault Yzaguirre and Konczal for tweeting under the pretense of seeking serious discussion on Twitter, but the mistake is a common one. The Bonsai version of a political conversation between the two of them and deBoer had, predictably, as little new to offer a reader as deBoer’s re-seasoned polemic: Anything beyond the old leftier-than-thou thrust and counter-thrust in its barest form would exceed Twitter’s parametersStill…

What I was trying to force into 140 characters above, before Mr. Yzaguirre’s quite prescient reply, is that deBoer’s dismissal of Konczal and then especially of Yzaguirre (as at last, tragically, of me) struck me as an unconscious, exquisitely between-the-tweets exposition on what is lost – dignity, humanity, intellectual humility, open-mindedness, civility, and all of the other gentlepersonly virtues- in the paradoxically moralistic reduction of political philosophy or simply politics to morally unreflective ideology.  The ideological Left can generally be distinguished from its social liberal and neo-liberal sometime allies by the resolutely blinkered refusal to acknowledge anything in the older liberal idea that is not to be deemed a hypocritical charade on behalf of oppression, or that is to be taken as in any way representative of some even potentially valid position. Only “justice” as the Left narrowly defines it is justice at all: Alternatives are and must remain utterly unthinkable: blocked.2

Not that only leftists block, or ideologically block – even if, as a matter of personal fact, it is still a complete mystery to me why some major minor tweeps who happen to be well to deBoer’s right have also in the past reached out and annihilated me. In deBoer’s case, I at least have the cause, or very “pre-” pretext, before me:

I confess: Not my best work either. In any event or non-event my exile from the Freddieverse followed immediately, denying me future access to exchanges like this one:

I expect I will also have to get by without clarification as to what question Mr. deBoer believed had already been answered, but the words, in context, evoke for me the Bolshevik functionary or Cultural Revolutionist explaining “shut up” to yesterday’s ally, today’s objective class enemy, tomorrow’s non-person: These questions have already been answered by dialectical materialist science of history, comrade. 

By next week or sooner, deBoer may well again be putting on his “last reasonable person” costume before chastising colleagues for their own re-echoey insularity, but, if he does so and convincingly, I will have to rely on some source other than my Twitter feed to find out. Or I may simply counter-ignore all things deBoerian for now on, content to savor the perfection of the last glimpse: The intellectual mounting the barricades in his mind and shouting down all within hearing – moving, in undeniable if also undeniably trivial form, by sheer necessity, from the denunciation of competing perspectives to the proscription of those about whom, as he avers with conspicuous pride, but disproves in acting to prove, he could not possibly care less.


  1. []

  2. The problem was also central “Chait’s Insanity,” discussed at this site in 2014. []

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Posts in this series

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins