At The New Republic, Sarah Jones writes—There is no such thing as the “alt-left.” (Republished by permission).
But in a piece for Vanity Fair, James Wolcott pretends otherwise:
Disillusionment with Obama’s presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton, disgust with “identity politics,” and a craving for a climactic reckoning that will clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created a kinship between the “alt-right” and an alt-left. They’re not kissin’ cousins, but they caterwaul some of the same tunes in different keys.
Wolcott admits the left “can’t match” the alt-right “for strength, malignancy, or tentacled reach”—then proceeds to make just such an argument. This is bad writing in service of a bad argument: “People say things I don’t like” is not the same thing as “people advocate for a white ethnostate.” This is precisely the false equivalency Wolcott makes by using the phrase “alt-left.” It is a disingenuous characterization designed to undermine leftist claims.
His terminology—e.g. “dude-bros”—skips over women and people of color on the left, individuals who might as well not exist when it comes to this type of critic and who happen to be particularly vulnerable to alt-right violence. The aim of socialism is liberation for all, which is to be accomplished via the redistribution of wealth. The aim of the alt-right is white supremacy. There is no similarity here.
And there is little similarity between the rhetoric of leftists and the rhetoric of the alt-right. Leftists do not send Jewish journalists photos of ovens. Leftists have not called in SWAT teams to harass feminists they do not like. Leftists have not used racial slurs to intimidate journalists online, nor have they called for any restrictions on the freedom of the press.
Absent any real similarity between the left and the alt-right, smears are all some liberals have:
• Coming up on Sunday Kos:
• A Women's History Shero: Ida B. Wells, by Denise Oliver Velez
• The buck stops with the President, by Mark E Andersen
• We’re your neighbors (not enemies): Why I couldn’t be prouder of our Steve Chabot protest, by David Akadjian
• Obama's America vs. Trump's America: Divisive demagoguery on immigrants and crime, by Ian Reifowitz
• Fascism doesn't come cheap, by Susan Grigsby
• Sniveling idiots: The media, a teleprompter, and the toxic bigotry of sycophantic desperation, by Laurence Lewis
• GOP Obamacare ‘replacement’ is a 25-year old straw man, by Jon Perr
• The cracks in Trump's Kremlin cover-up appear to be collapsing, by Frank Vyan Walton
• Hey media: People under 30 don't trust you, by Sher Watts Spooner
• Liberals, pundits, and press gullibility on President speech a disservice, by Egberto Willies
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
”Political convulsions, like geological upheavings, usher in new epochs of the world’s progress.”
~ Wendell Phillips, 1871
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
At Daily Kos on this date in 2003—The logistics of a one-front war:
There has been much hand-wringing from various quarters about Turkey's decision to deny US troops overland access into Iraq. While many have argued that Turkey's decision will lead to higher American casualties, in reality it shouldn't make much of a difference.
Turkey's decision has presented the US with several tactical problems (we already know the political damage the decision wrought). For one, it makes it difficult for the US to secure the northern oil fields. It also prevents the US from trying to stabilize the region before it is sundered apart by fighting between seperate Kurdish factions, Turks, Shi'ites and god knows who else.
But the biggest problem of a one-front war is logistical -- and could ultimately lead to a longer war.
HIGH IMPACT STORIES • TOP COMMENTS