"It seems to me that to organize on the basis of feeding people or righting social injustice and all that is very valuable. But to rally people around the idea of modernism, modernity, or something is simply silly. I mean, I don't know what kind of a cause that is, to be up to date. I think it ultimately leads to fashion and snobbery and I'm against it."
Jack Levine: January 3, 1915 – November 8, 2010
LEVEL BILLIONAIRES OUT OF EXISTENCE
I came across an article today that tried to argue that Dersh didn't change, the whole country did. Which is kind of like arguing "I'm not wrong, the world is wrong!" Arrogant and delusional in equal portions. Except the author was serious; which is just sad (or rhetorical; which would be even sadder).
This reminds me Dershowitz was never anything other than arrogant and delusional. Eventually we call become what we always were; if we're not careful, or at least more deliberate about it.
I look at him as the kind of 1960s-70s era secular-liberal who thought that letting the media (not to mention the porn industry that funded a lot of their legal arm) lie with impunity was more worth while than keeping the millionaires and billionaires who owned the lying media from lying us into Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II and now Trump. The 18th century secular style of liberalism that is going to produce this because it never was about equality but freeing the rising middle-class and the upper class to enjoy their wealth without any moral obligation and restraint, the kind of liberalism that could champion the depravity of de Sade, just as a start. Once I saw the distinction between that and the liberalism such as John Winthrop laid out as the basis of the new Puritan government, what actually did produce the abolition and women's suffrage movements, prison reform, etc. a lot became clearer to me. I haven't had the chance to look into it but there was a radical faction of the mid-19th century abolitionist struggle which saw wage-slavery as in need of abolition as chattel slavery, I'm sure the likes of Dershowitz wouldn't have anything to do with that, in a more up-to date version of it, he'd be too busy arguing for the privileges of pornographers, liars and of rich guys to get away with murder. I think that distinction is one of the most important because the phony-enlightenment style-liberals will always turn out to be like him, to one degree or another. Harvard liberals have got to prove to me that they're not like that, after seeing so many examples of his type.
I think it was Michelle Obama who said that power doesn't corrupt, but it does expose who we are. The corollary is that age also exposes who we are, our ability to mask ourselves from others drops. If Trump has a super power, it's that being near him has people show their true selves.
I came across an article today that tried to argue that Dersh didn't change, the whole country did. Which is kind of like arguing "I'm not wrong, the world is wrong!" Arrogant and delusional in equal portions. Except the author was serious; which is just sad (or rhetorical; which would be even sadder).
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me Dershowitz was never anything other than arrogant and delusional. Eventually we call become what we always were; if we're not careful, or at least more deliberate about it.
I look at him as the kind of 1960s-70s era secular-liberal who thought that letting the media (not to mention the porn industry that funded a lot of their legal arm) lie with impunity was more worth while than keeping the millionaires and billionaires who owned the lying media from lying us into Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II and now Trump. The 18th century secular style of liberalism that is going to produce this because it never was about equality but freeing the rising middle-class and the upper class to enjoy their wealth without any moral obligation and restraint, the kind of liberalism that could champion the depravity of de Sade, just as a start. Once I saw the distinction between that and the liberalism such as John Winthrop laid out as the basis of the new Puritan government, what actually did produce the abolition and women's suffrage movements, prison reform, etc. a lot became clearer to me. I haven't had the chance to look into it but there was a radical faction of the mid-19th century abolitionist struggle which saw wage-slavery as in need of abolition as chattel slavery, I'm sure the likes of Dershowitz wouldn't have anything to do with that, in a more up-to date version of it, he'd be too busy arguing for the privileges of pornographers, liars and of rich guys to get away with murder. I think that distinction is one of the most important because the phony-enlightenment style-liberals will always turn out to be like him, to one degree or another. Harvard liberals have got to prove to me that they're not like that, after seeing so many examples of his type.
DeleteNot to say that there weren't problems with Winthrop's liberalism, either. But he got that part of it right.
DeleteI think it was Michelle Obama who said that power doesn't corrupt, but it does expose who we are. The corollary is that age also exposes who we are, our ability to mask ourselves from others drops. If Trump has a super power, it's that being near him has people show their true selves.
Delete