10/1/2016

American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar

Navigation

American Elections: A Dialogue on
the Left between Arato & Fraser
D E M O C RACY

ELECTION FORUM

F E AT U R E

Nancy Fraser and Andrew Arato — September 26, 2016

2

6

 

Back Camera © double : zanzo |Flickr

Arato: Nancy we have had a conversation about the elections a week ago in Great
Evremond, Mass, and one thing you said really struck me. If I can paraphrase you, you
said something like ” the worst thing about this election is that because of Trump’s wild

http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/

1/15

It’s the calculated e ort of the Clinton campaign to run out the clock and truncate the political agenda.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar claims and assertions.” and the future of NATO. Arato:  I certainly agree that the discussion of most important issues. Podemos. etc) that they are fed up with the present order and ready to contemplate the possibility of changing it. we are now completely neglecting the genuine issues that have merged with his candidacy. What exactly did you have in mind? Can you outline what these issues are or were? Fraser: Yes. I nd this both demoralizing and infuriating. which has shut down all such questioning under the guise of the need to combat the “grave danger” represented by Trump.” the social costs of neoliberal “free trade” and nancialization. They are whipping up moral outrage over Trump in order to ensure that there is no space to talk about the “rigged economy. I am struck by the sharp contrast between the invigorating debates of the primary season.  You rightly say that there was such a discussion during the primaries.  Trump I think correctly discovered that the other Republican politicians did not represent the needs and interests of perhaps most of their voters. of course. or in some cases both. It is true. and US foreign policy. and with that of Sanders previously. I would add as in most American type media dominated campaigns. the extreme maldistribution of those costs. But almost all the important issue areas were raised either by Sanders or Trump.” not the stu on campuses that exercises conservatives. and very cleverly used trade. Whether anything principled was involved I http://www. which challenged the reigning neoliberal commonsense.” the need for a “political revolution.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 2/15 . and the attacks that focus on these. But it’s the reaction of the political class and “right-thinking” elites that most upsets me. This is the real “political correctness. and the lockstep moralizing of the present. and providing the defenders of the present order with an inexhaustible supply of pretexts for evading the issues that surfaced during the primary campaign.publicseminar. including “regime change. that Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. is what is really getting my goat right now. far more than Trump himself. you’ve captured my point exactly. And they are shutting down all talk of such things at just the moment when people all over the world are proclaiming in various ways (Brexit. each more outrageous than last. This. perhaps aside from immigration has now stopped. serving up an unending series of provocations.” “the war on terror. the rigged political system and foreign policy to appeal to those on their side who were left out or even felt to be victimized during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

And you raise an interesting question about what lies behind Sanders’s decision to mute the themes that inspired so many people throughout the primary season. precarizing work and sucking value from households through predatory debt. in part by destroying unions. plus the DNC gave her some needed help. and thus has to go easier on trade. unfair taxes. You may be right that he has opted to forgo pursuit of the “the best” in hopes of avoiding “the worst. into Clinton’s camp. discussion went out with his campaign. as Democrats and Republicans conspire to squelch every proposal for serious structural reform. That is in my view why the earlier discussion you refer to was cut short. Those conditions include what Sanders succinctly called “the rigged economy. But I have doubts about that strategy. of conniving to mute the whole problematic of redistribution while loudly engaging that of recognition. http://www. rigged politics. and even foreign policy unless he must revive the issues against Clinton. On my part. Have you no great fears in that regard? Fraser: You make some good points about the process that led to the current shutdown of critical debate. above all the Clinton campaign. But Clinton was not as weak as the Republican “stars”. also very e ective. Trump now needs to appeal also to more conventional Republicans. a Trump victory. The trouble is.” I really don’t know what he is thinking. while driving many others.” which has been redistributing wealth and income upward on a massive scale for the last 30 years. There were such principles behind Sanders’ discourse. If things are as you have it. But now the lid is o . in any case. except to the extent that Clinton incorporated a few of his ideas. rather than the politically correct coordinated media blackout on behalf of several vested interests. Why does Sanders himself not renew his earlier arguments. In any case it was primarily the vote of African-Americans that led to Sanders’ defeat. it doesn’t address the conditions that have enabled the rise of Trump. Here is my question. It also includes the rigged political system that supports and protects that economy.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar tend to doubt. So. I very much admire his “ethic of responsibility”. he must see and understand the same thing. And what has emerged is a populist rage that frightens liberal elites and their supporters. and direct them mostly against the Clinton campaign and Clinton friendly media as you do? He could dominate the discussion in the blogs. personally. however reluctantly. has worked surprisingly well until very recently. if not in the mainstream media that also could not a ord to silence him altogether.publicseminar. even as their other battles saturate the public sphere and suck up all the oxygen there.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 3/15 . Ok. That strategy. But let us assume you are right concerning all that. perhaps because I also fear what he seems to fear most of all. that are in that form no longer challenged on the Democratic side.

On the contrary. That was precisely how I understood the project of the Sanders campaign. is to validate it and try to redirect it to the systemic predations of nance capital.publicseminar. And I think you are making interesting theoretical as well as strategic points. The proper response. as to what should be our long term goal. I do not think that the distinction between recognition and redistribution well captures what is involved. And I am disappointed that that project has apparently been shelved. Infrastructure for example. even if Polanyi’s historical typology of reciprocitymarket and redistribution remains interesting. It is a “pull-no-punches” strategy that looks beyond November to the ongoing struggle to build a new American left. when economic development does not have a zero sum character.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ nanced through 4/15 . Especially since there is another. I don’t think this is so much the function of anyone’s grand strategy. “neoliberal” economic consensus has made it much more easy to win “recognition” rather than “redistribution. I think.” In fact. As to the theoretical diagnosis. Equally important. under modern economic conditions the last category captures what egalitarians should and do demand only partially. First of all the line between them is not sharp. the rage felt by many Trump supporters is quite legitimate. indeed adversely a ected as you say. whatever the right claims. improvement of economic position and bargaining power enhances status. support for Clinton simply rati es and further entrenches the “redistribution/recognition” scam as the “right- thinking” people close ranks against “the deplorables. Recognition of legitimate identity demands logically. Arato: I agree with the last sentence. even if (much of) it is currently mal-directed toward immigrants and other scapegoats. and equalization of economic position as well as political power have been neglected.  Also. Critical support means coupling a recommendation to vote for that candidate in swing states with vociferous criticism of her policies and explicit campaigning for Sanders-type alternatives. with which I agree but only in part. http://www. it is true that in the last epoch struggles for status equality played the major role. far better option: I mean the longstanding leftwing tactic of critical support for a candidate who is deeply problematic. and probably empirically demonstrably. Rousseau has already warned against equalization through con policies do not mean con scation or expropriation. as of the rise and proliferation of identity oriented movements and initiatives.” More importantly however. leads to the economic improvement of the status that is enhanced.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar But that rage will not go away by defeating Donald Trump at the polls in November– especially since Hillary’s close ties to Wall Street ensure continuation of neoliberalization under her Presidency. Social democratic scation. because they have a developmentally positive dimension. It is true.

publicseminar. and we do not know if many would co-operate. Voting for Stein even in safe states. She may be ready to abandon some of these planks. Andrew. enhances the status of a spoiler given the character of American electoral rules. as I understand it. Clinton more and more tries to appeal to “moderates?!” within the Republican party. we should support Clinton by emphasizing her recent adherence (genuine or not) to several of the Sanders themes: high minimum wage. by ghting for more Democrats to be elected to both chambers of Congress. infrastructure spending. We should recall Nader and not only in Florida in 2000. That minimally should allow the all-important choosing of liberal SC justice(s). not just the poor. but could also block a center right from setting policy as it chooses. Fraser: We agree on many points. if you mean by redistribution social policy and political regulation. I agree with your stress. Attacking Clinton in battleground states. But there are di erences. And certainly. So. The only way we can avoid the formation of a new center right is to change the balance of at least one Chamber.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar taxation bene ts all. But since a Clinton landslide is pretty unlikely now. by enhancing consumption and limiting predatory behavior with irrational consequences for capital as well as labor and consumers.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 5/15 . and this can add to her totals even in battleground states. We should start working for it now. and not simply taking from the rich to give to the poor. appointing judges who will reverse Citizen United and protect a rmative action and the freedom of choice. and we must be equally ready to hold her to them now or later. such a full re-orientation may be possible only in 2018. we should do exactly what Sanders and Warren are doing. More generally. Admittedly. and given the increasing closeness of the election we should choose a di erent strategy. and re-negotiation of some trade deals. because given the likely closeness of the election. but I think a di erent category should be used. that have had even in the last epoch dramatic consequences for the lives of many of the mobilized identities. She may try to govern later by relying on them. along with her own stress on a new immigration policy. As to your strategy. that admittedly you did not argue for. Equally important. Your interpretation. only if both chambers were democratic could a renewed left use its in uence to positively steer policy. taxation and social policy can mean and often does mean a positive sum game. In my view. we of all people should not criticize the supposedly only liberal struggles for recognition. student support. This is especially important. I have one concern. even if we announce our “critical support” is bound to hurt her vote totals. focuses simultaneously on defeating Trump and on “pushing her to the http://www. and these seem to me to turn on what is meant by “critical support” for Clinton.

By the 1960s those populations were actively mobilizing against a bargain that required them to pay the price of others’ relative security and prosperity. as I already said. What should frame leftwing thinking. but also some gains for women and minorities. That project. and a massive rise in inequality and precarity. the current one authorizes global nance to discipline states and publics in the immediate interests of private investors. I nevertheless consider it inadequate. statemanaged capitalism represented a creative new synthesis of the two projects that Polanyi considered inherently antithetical: marketization and social protection. in my view.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar left” on issues like the minimum wage. In any case. “free trade. But the political aspect is less well understood. which unfolded in parallel over the course of the subsequent decades. And rightly so! But their struggles intersected fatefully with another front of struggle.” and student debt.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 6/15 . once the most powerful base of support for social democracy. bent on liberalizing and globalizing the capitalist economy. I would characterize it in quasi-Polanyian terms. an exacerbation of global warming.” and on the racially motivated exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from Social Security. against declining labor movements in the countries of the capitalist core. that should be the starting point for e orts to de er by the two-party ne a new left politics. Aiming to foster growth through a nexus of mass production. I prefer to be guided by a long-term objective that is grounded in a critical analysis of the present conjuncture. but now http://www. mass consumption. because the whole edi ce rested on ongoing (neo-)imperial predation of the Global South. Although that approach is certainly honorable. I propose that we take our bearings from the epochal transformation of capitalism that began in the 1970s and is now unraveling. although many of the latter are more symbolic than material for all but the professional-managerial classes and far less substantial than the gains that an egalitarian social order would deliver. because it allows the pitiful electoral choice that has been put before us to de ne the terms of left politics.publicseminar. is the faltering (if not yet collapse) of the neoliberal project and its overt rejection by signi cant strata in the US and elsewhere. brought not only a near-meltdown of the global nancial system. and public provision. never mentioned by Polanyi. on the institutionalization of women’s dependency through “the family wage. it is the prospects opened by this overall situation. But they teamed up at the expense of a third project. which I call emancipation. That second front pitted an ascending party of free-marketeers. The structural aspect of that transformation is well understood: whereas the previous regime empowered states to subordinate the short-term interests of private rms to the long-term objective of sustained accumulation. hegemonic since the 1970s. and not the options now on o system.

on the one side. the Left ght! Rather than accepting the terms presented to us by the two-party system. Is it any wonder that partisans of social protection. I am using this expression to clarify the political dynamics of the contest between Clinton and Trump. Far from proposing to take from the rich and give to the poor. The collision of these two fronts of struggle produced a new political constellation: proponents of emancipation joined up with partisans of marketization to double-team social protection. now threatened by the “cosmopolitanism” of the new nancialized. who rightly sense themselves outgunned by this new alliance. “race”-ethnicity. while placing our longterm objectives on the backburner. we should be focused on forging a new alliance of emancipation and social protection against runaway marketization. if not wholly defeated. they ned emancipation in truncated. The fruit of that alliance is a “progressive” neoliberalism.” aiming to overturn hierarchies of gender. and entrenching widespread precarity. which in turn justify further deferments–and on and on.) So I interpret the idea http://www.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 7/15 . sex. in a vicious circle. and religion. market-friendly nd a voice of sorts through Trump.publicseminar. In this context “progressive new social movements. Personally. Hillary Clinton is the very embodiment of this constellation. And we cannot do that by working to defeat Trump and to elect Clinton. expropriating hard-won workingclass savings. postindustrial economy. on the other. we should be working to rede ne them by drawing on the vast and growing fund of social revulsion against the present order. Far from “pushing her to the left.” that “honorable” interpretation of “critical support” only reinforces the current constellation. Now here is my bottom line and the core di should not take sides in this erence between us: In my view. in my view.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar on the defensive. are hopping mad? Abandoned by those who have rede terms. It is a contest. between a “reactionary” party of social protection.” meritocracy and “emancipation” while dismantling social protections. found themselves pitted against populations seeking to defend established lifeworlds and privileges. (And that is not even to mention that what is supposed to save us from the worst this time around may itself be worse on foreign policy. and a “progressive” party that covers an orgy of debt-fueled marketization with a truncated. What I referred to earlier as the “redistribution/recognition scam” is shorthand for this analysis. I am unwilling to see left objectives backburnered every four years out of fear of a Bush or a Trump–all the more so given that what is supposed to save us from the worst only fertilizes the soil that germinates new and ever more dangerous bogeymen. which celebrates “diversity. with accents of ressentiment and chauvinism. meritocratic version of emancipation. In a nutshell: rather than siding with marketization-cum-emancipation against social protection.

hoping that this would contribute somehow to the building of an imagined left. perhaps. even though I did not think them “vulgar”. He seems to you better on protection. The stage model you suggest is not without interest: market and protection. But this is not the main point. support for university tuition. market and emancipation third stage. Sorry. You are I know a vociferous reader of Károly Polányi and rightly so. thus you see a normative draw.  I myself never believed in such theories of history. Clinton wins advocating raising minimum wages. Even in these terms. Clinton better on emancipation. And I guess that is our principal disagreement. a di erent approach to trade.  Is that a stake in this election?  Indirectly. The argument is not very persuasive. I could support this if the choice were between two equally bad alternatives. even when in uenced by Marx and Lukacs. not because Clinton is so good.  I seemed to advocate something like this in the last round. assuming that the choice is between equal bads. plus forms of “recognition” that have “redistributive” implications. who already feature prominently among her supporters and in her ads. Arato: I think it is time to end this interesting discussion. So try to recall what he describes as the historical outcome of the crisis and collapse of the rst globalization. and then the imagined next one: protection and emancipation (without markets?). But it is not.publicseminar. and because of his support among the victims. Even without much hope in the latter prospect. second stage. since we are making longer and longer statements.  You don’t and cannot see this. and relying on the now unlikely prospect that enough Democrats can be elected to end divided government.  Must we choose between two strategies? The rst enthusiastically supports Hillary. but I must confess without any optimism. I do not. Trump is part of a veritably international movement to reverse the democratization processes that began in the 1970s and continued into our time. I have no problem with a movement aiming at emancipation. because I think you are taken in by the themes of anti-globalization that he occasionally plays with. on the premise that she is more likely to be open and being in uenced by strategies and initiatives of protection and emancipation than Trump. de nes critical support as not making the choice at all. The New Deal (and the Keynesian state) was http://www. given the likely reliance of a President Clinton within a divided government on the Republicans. and protection as long as we do not imagine we can in modern society eliminate the fundamental economic role of markets. but because Trump is so dangerous. The second argument. as opposed to defeating Trump.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 8/15 .10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar of critical support in a way that prioritizes the project of building a new American left by allying the forces of emancipation and the forces of social protection.

the refusal to really make choices. making the argument for proportional representation. and if Trump wins he will be indisputably their leader with two chambers and. radical lefts strongly co-operated in these two outcomes. ruining the economy and requiring subsequent repression. with Brexit and various strong right wing populist movements in between. as well as developing plausible programs for new parties. Importantly. nor even Mussolini. abolishing the current form of redistricting in most states. soon enough. or not making the choice between Trump and Clinton will only con rm it. the Supreme Court behind him. and who remains too close to the interests we should weaken and control. a very unattractive candidate who with her husband used status and power to become incredibly wealthy. each of which by the way combined left and right dimensions. Obama’s explainable weakness as president should not make us think that the American president is without power. like ghting for well organized new candidacies on the state level. for removing money from politics. Thus I could not have written an http://www. The common element in each case was the refusal to support democracy (because of hatred of liberalism). There are things however one can do. You say you refuse to accept the terms of the American two party system. Trump is not Hitler. We must avoid all forms of left populism on our side. that even Sanders did not have. that is exactly the problem with all populisms. I mean reformed. intellectually. Throwing the vote to Stein or Johnson is voting for Trump within the existing system that will be the system until it is changed. Trump is part of all that. Orban. But the historical movement against liberal democracy is very real: from Correa and Maduro to Putin.publicseminar. whether in the case of the party loyalty of the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union (see Victor Serge’s Memoirs) or the KPD’s “social fascist” line in Germany. mobilizing option. Voting for Stein or Johnson.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 9/15 . the line between right and left populism is easy to transcend. as in Laclau’s oating signi er. and. The Republican party is in shambles ideologically at least. History of course does not repeat itself. though it is in crisis. but there were two others much more dominant and likely at the time: Fascism and Stalinism. because the concept of political revolution introduced by Sanders is either nonsense or is equivalent to signi cant reform.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar one outcome. I am not in the least enthusiastic about Clinton. Would the formation of a new “new left” under his presidency be a likely prospect? I seriously doubt it. What you and others very confusingly call the “neo-liberal order” has not collapsed.  But there is a very good chance that he would opt for a right wing. We do not know how he would govern. Erdogan and Sissi.

Yet. social protection. unregulated markets). Okay. which trash the world by subordinating nature. but that’s because the discussion is deepening and the issues sharpening. you are right. Andrew.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar enthusiastic piece in her support. but a symptom or epitome of a world-wide wave of social and political movements that are bent on destroying (neo)liberal globalization. and given the softness of Clinton’s support on the left. this being politics.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 10/15 . my concern is not the existence of markets per se. You think. and human beings to the dynamics of runaway capital accumulation. Against that sort of marketization. although I agree we should wrap this up before we settle in to watch the debate this evening. the other two poles must have their due. Rather. that Trump is not just a bad US Presidential candidate running against a less bad one. I am no more committed to abolishing markets than he was–no more  than I am to abolishing social protection or emancipation. that these movements are at bottom http://www. Let me begin with two smallish clari cations before joining the main argument. Second. I was introducing an analytical device for parsing social con e ict in capitalist societies. by continuing to use Polanyi’s term “marketization” to name one pole of this triple movement. So I can’t resist one last comment. You also think. and my warnings about Trump are not likely to discourage leftists bereft of historical knowledge to vote for the dramatically much lesser evil. Your language of not making the choice would help Trump. society. Fraser: Yes. Let me summarize. rst. Now to the main issue: I understand you to be making a bold historical argument with global implications. That is the “normative content” of my call for a counterhegemonic alliance of emancipation and social protection against (neoliberal) marketization.publicseminar. second. In ect. I was transforming Polanyi’s idea of the double movement into a triple movement. As a supporter of democratic market socialism. First. when I spoke of historically shifting alliances between the forces of marketization. The latter device better clari es the making of hegemony through various alliances of two-against-one. that may very well be the kind of piece we should write if we assumed that what we wrote actually mattered. I was not o ering a “stage theory” of history. but rather the inherently destabilizing character of “self-regulating” markets (which is really to say. But it does not imply any dialectical sequence through which history must necessarily unfold. Our replies are indeed getting longer. and emancipation.

” Until very recently. (neo)liberalism and fascism are not really two di erent things. (neo)liberalism is its partner in crime. the maelstrom of capitalist “development” can only generate liberal forces and authoritarian counterforces.” that the only way to avoid a fascist outcome today is to deprive those movements of the shot in the arm a Trump victory would provide them by siding with the proponents of (neo)liberal globalization. Andrew. even though they parade as strands of populism.10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar neofascist. I believe that you are closer to this stance than you may think. in other words. You are yourself unable to muster the sort of enthusiastic support for Clinton that you say would be required “if we assumed that what we wrote actually mattered. Andrew. You are right. bound together in a perverse symbiosis. at least performatively. Why not take another small step and reconcile your real view of her with your public position? http://www. those sentiments fuel authoritarianisms of every sort. while glossing over the rage and pain associated with the second. Syriza. bringing in its wake both individual liberation and untold su ering. drawing on the calamitous experience of the “ rst globalization. but disagree deeply with the second and third. so su ocatingly hegemonic was the redistribution/recognition scam I described before. liberatory side of this process. The problem is that. both are products of unrestrained capitalism. Liberalism expresses the rst. but two deeply interconnected faces of the capitalist world system. Thus. such a project could not even be glimpsed. The Left must seize this moment and resist the McCarthyite pressure to close ranks with the neoliberals. far from being the antidote to fascism. Left to fester in the absence of an alternative. even while commending her candidacy to others. Corbyn. third. But the real charm against “fascism” (whether proto or quasi or real) is a left project that redirects the rage and the pain of the dispossessed toward a deep societal restructuring and a democratic political “revolution. And I disagree above all with your underlying assumption that the only alternative to fascism is always and ever (neo)liberalism and globalization. seen analytically.publicseminar.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 11/15 . And you think.” And so you o er a devastating portrait of her defects of character and position. if not ideologically. which everywhere destabilizes lifeworlds and habitats. Interestingly. I agree with the rst point. Although they are by no means normatively equivalent. Without a left. But thanks to Sanders. left and right. including those that really deserve the name fascism and those that emphatically do not. one of which is good and the other bad. that the stakes are global. Podemos–imperfect as all of them are–we can again envision an expanded set of possibilities.

10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar Why not couple your critical support for her in swing states with a full-throated critique of neoliberal predation in the name of an independent left? 6 Comments  Recommend Public Seminar ⤤ Share 1  Login Sort by Best Join the discussion… Lindsay Parkhowell • 5 days ago This was wonderful and much-needed. she would vote for her (within a duopoly) in a given state if it was really a toss-up. "Our Revolution". and rightly so. She says that performatively. Spare me the lectures. based on plurality first past the post elections. let alone the condescension http://www. Thanks for your interest. the history of US elections. but not the off the cuff (or rather off the wall) reply. Perhaps you should also consider the sad story of Nader's role in the 2000 elections. I am "with her". and the rules of relatively simple logic usually followed by the rational voter. thank you both. Note that Fraser at least did not contest this part of what I said. I. How horrible! It would be good neverhteless if you would inform yourself about the nature of fptp electoral systems.e. et al. Theoretically she is against Clinton. Arato is thinking within the terms of the reality that we find ourselves in.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 12/15 . △ ▽ • Reply • Share › SocraticGadfly • 5 days ago Ugh on Arato still thinking inside the duopoly box. △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Andrew Arato > SocraticGadfly • 5 days ago Ugh.publicseminar. But the reverse is the case. rather than Clinton. I hope the discussion continues in the form of debate debriefings or further debate analysis △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Rich Jensen > Lindsay Parkhowell • 4 days ago Or inform the discourse within the nascent post-Sanders organizations. but performatively she is giving her critical support. Ask yourself seriously what the point is of imagining a triopoly where you clearly have a two party system. 1△ ▽ • Reply • Share › SocraticGadfly > Andrew Arato • 5 days ago A: I'm a newspaper editor.

I present the Chicago Trib: http://www. He won't demure. Or wasted.10/1/2016 Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar A: I'm American a newspaper editor. 1△ ▽ • Reply • Share › Rich Jensen > Andrew Arato • 4 days ago The reality we find ourselves in is widely detested and empirically unsustainable as a biospheric matter. if one is straight (me--. Spare me the lectures. Republicans: When Is Enough Enough? Antifascism as Political Passion in the Life of Cristina Luca 1 comment • 2 months ago• Avatarlaslanian — It has been clear for a while that Trump will never be controlled. B.publicseminar. Second. One way or another it will not last. Or anything else...chicagotribune. By this I mean. △ ▽ • Reply • Share › ALSO ON PUBLIC SEMINAR Queer Reflections On A Summer Of Violence: Surviving Orlando Without Alibi Willful Ignorance: Why Facts No Longer Matter 3 comments • a month ago• 6 comments • 18 days ago• Avatarlaslanian — Perhaps we need an ethics of silence built into the ethics of witness. it's not off the cuff.straight and I have … AvatarSanford Schram — Thanks.com/. let alone the condescension about what you assume I don't know.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 13/15 . He won't even fake it for more than a few … 1 comment • a month ago• AvatarRadu Stern — EXCELLENT!Professor Tismaneanu's article is very fine example of what the micro-history has to offer for the … PREVIOUS POST  Africa contra Hegel NEXT POST Borders and the  Politics of Mourning Nancy Fraser Elections http://www. I agree wholeheartedly with this perspective and also really like Michelle Lamount's work.

American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser · 3 days ago SocraticGad y A: I'm a newspaper editor..publicseminar...10/1/2016 American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar neoliberalism the Left Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton Polanyi (Karl) Trump (Donald) Discussion Chiara Bottici I agree that having a woman president is an important step forward.. American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser · 3 days ago Rich Jensen Or inform the discourse within the nascent post-Sanders organizations. "Our.. let alone the condescension.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/ 14/15 . I’m With Her. American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser · 4 days ago http://www. even in very.. Not just Against Him: Hillary Clinton for President · 2 days ago Rusty Wray AS long as black on black crime goes ignored the whole BLM movement is a sham. Spare me the lectures. End... Black Lives Matter: The Politics of Race and Movement in the 21st Century · 2 days ago Rich Jensen The reality we nd ourselves in is widely detested and empirically unsustainable...

using the broad resources of social research. we seek to provoke critical and informed discussion by any means necessary.10/1/2016 Contact American Elections: A Dialogue on the Left between Arato & Fraser | Public Seminar Inquiries to info@publicseminar. Following The New School's 'University in Exile' tradition and Public Seminar's mission.net Copyright © 2014–2016 The Editorial Board of Public Seminar.publicseminar.org Newsletter Full Name Email Address SUBSCRIBE P.S.org/2016/09/american-elections-a-dialogue-on-the-left/    15/15 . All Rights Reserved.endangeredscholarsworldwide. we support: www. Confronting fundamental problems of the human condition and pressing problems of the day. http://www.