jaywalker

Using Farage as your emissary for such a mission seems oddly poetic.

I got flamed for being a cosmopolitan-liberal Guardian reader earlier so I think I might steer clear of engaging with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Don't think I can compete somehow. Except that it is a thoughtful article, highlighting the perils of being misread :-). My post was only about the dangers of the category 'poor' that you used, not about immigration. And the word itself is perfectly useful; just not good as a classification. I get a lot of flack for using esoteric language; but sometimes it seems to me to be the most familiar words that are the most problematic. (yes of course DaveR can then say this sentence literally makes no sense - because the familiar words are the ones that are self-evident). As for May, her view is that a 'citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere' - here I strongly suspect, however unintentionally, she has managed to align herself with Trump.

Well here is another one from my sociology textbook (I just can't help it). Whilst I'm sure the Archbishop (if he said it) would not fall into the trap, as with the Victorians the category 'the poor' may be recruited in ways that make people who are disadvantaged in many different dimensions seem a single entity. This may then be used to justify the status-quo - after all, if they exist as-such then they can be tarred with some single explanation of why they are poor; and the multiple circumstances of disadvantage (many to do with past government policies and future ones like grammar schools) can then be safely ignored.

widescreen

I disagree with most of this (too many thesauruses and philosophy textbooks, no doubt). Mainly because I do not see ameliorism as a credible strategy here. There was no point aiming for this in, say, the early 1930s. Of course, the MAJORITY of people then did feel this was what might save us (and they were wrong). It is absolutely the right response in normal times (those times when people are willing to adjust to good argument). But now (as then), the issue is whether or not this is a phase change (like water switching from liquid to boiling). I believe we now have boiling. So only discursive (I cannot countenance any other) attack seems appropriate. Of course this may be self-fulfilling: the human ship may well sink.

I want a CONGA - from ED station to the Library and back, as a circuit. Just let me know time. I will be holding placards: - No to Ruritanianism - No to Trumptown - Yes to Victoria Line extension to the most civilised village in London

Otta, reading back on your posts we have so much in common I am intrigued why we are so far apart. I'd be the first to say I am not the brightest cookie in the box, that what I write is derivative and often uninspired. My only mitigation is that this topic means a lot to me - I had a truly visceral reaction to the Mail headline so have continued participating in this thread despite my better judgement: how else is an argument against populism going to be taken by those who, unlike you, support it than as patronising, or indeed puke? Of course we can define things like 'centre-right' until we are blue in the face. If I must use the category I'd see Ken Clark and Nick Clegg as centre-right, not middle England. I do not think a majority occupying a position makes something 'centre' or we would have to label supported totalitarian governments 'centre'. My violent reaction to May is of this kind - she is trying to redefine the centre on the basis of orthodoxy. I also think 'left/right' is an impoverished way of thinking - see the wonderful politicalcompass.org site where you can build your own map in MORE than one dimension (for what it is worth I turn out close to Gandhi - strongly economically interventionist, almost completely laissez-faire on most non-economic matters (not all)). So it comes down to the unease about a campaign against a newspaper. I do really agree that there is something to worry about here. Clearly, if, say, big advertisers sought to influence content to their own agenda this would be a disaster. I do, however, see this as different. The campaign is bottom-up, not top-down. It is directed at a nasty and reactionary headline (we are both agreed about this) that caused great offence being on public display. You yourself say the Mail does not reflect the values of its readership (although I am less certain about this). It is a tremendously difficult area: if there was a grassroots campaign to close a newspaper because it was (for example) anti-abortion then I'd be on the same side of the fence on this as you - trying to defend the freedom of the press. My guess is that it is the nature of the material that justifies the action: I see the DM as closing down democratic process (here by arguing for the heteronomy of the judiciary); so am happy to see campaigns against it.

Well, Otta, I really hope you do some further 'rethinking'. For a start you might consider the idea that aligning yourself with orthodoxy (well, as you perceive it) is not in itself anything more than conformism - it is not an argument (reason) or an ethic (value) that deserves any consideration. And to describe all this as 'centre-right' truly takes my breath away.

But it would be good if the DM had to shut because it had no readers/therefore-advertisers/sponsors! Good for civilised values, for the autonomy of the judiciary and government (particularly the latter in the current climate, the judiciary is still doing pretty well), for children who might conflate the gift of toys with the values of the newspaper, for buyers who are too ill-educated and/or stupid to see what the DM stands for (reactionary populism). Where there are publications that (legally) publish this kind of trash then it is good that they might one day disappear through lack of support. Otherwise one has to make some ludicrous claim that they somehow have an abstract right to continue to publish.

Otta, I think you have got this so wrong. It looks from TV news that Lego are pulling out of the DM gifts. You like "common sense" according to your earlier posts. The decision was in response to a father who had children he did not want to become entrained to the DM for Lego gifts, given the DM's appalling headline. That is good sense. This has nothing to do with censorship or gagging (those can only be done by the state, and certainly the state should not do so unless the law has been broken so government should never have anything to do with this sort of decision, only the judiciary (as in libel)). Your response suggests that any decision not to advertise/sponsor/buy a publication is gagging?!? I'm really glad about the Lego decision. It has media traction. It will snowball.

DaveR Wrote: > NB to call this 'aporetic' literally makes no > sense at all. Increasingly jaywalkers posts feel > like someone has swallowed a philosophy textbook, > a thesaurus and a few copies of the Guardian and > then picked through the resulting vomit to > construct a paragraph Not sure why it 'literally' makes no sense? Is the idea of aporia not useful? One can always google it: "an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory". That would seem to have some grip here? That is, some people invoke 'freedom' in ways that when examined involve an internal contradiction? That it is possible to find oneself arguing for freedom in a way that reveals the freedom of which you dream impossible (as I tried to put forward in my post)? And absolutely not, as I argued, for philosophical reasons but for those to do with the realities of our social life together? Of course, if this argument is false you can point out why? But not sure that describing it as 'vomit' is all that effective (although it is strangely appropriate because that is how I felt when I saw the DM headline on judges) - and indeed its even at risk of being a little aporetic :-) as it sounds like you are in danger of mimicking the action you decry - what combination of reading makes up your stomach contents here ?(since I can't see an argument) - not 'literally' of course.

I think our shouting match in this thread is very cathartic: those reading the DM should know just what others think of it. Those who would like the DM to wither because everyone has been dissuaded from reading it (this has nothing to do with banning it) should know just how strongly its readers identify with its messages. I think there is a confusion about types of freedom here. The concept of liberty of 'freedom to do or say or publish what I want' is aporetic. Humans find freedom in doing things with others: action is made possible in the social (the family, the sports-club, the pub). We are enabled as well as constrained by the recognition generated in our action with others. It is a necessary part of this that some expression (of action or words) should be excluded to enable the maintenance of the recognition (even if this is individually deeply held). We do this all the time in the maintenance of our alliances (which we might quickly lose if we acted like an open book). To provoke what is unsaid or done into visibility is to risk freedom in this sense. The horror of the DM's headline on judges was of this kind for many. Unfortunately, the forms of recognition involved when we go shopping (clearly a social activity involving countless people, most of whom are not present) are rather proceduralised and reduced. In this sphere, 'saying what you want' seems to have no consequence; but then the newspaper is taken home.

btw, I see there are rumours that the EU may seek to destabilise brexit by offering voluntary EU citizenship to Europhile UK citizens. Free movement and right of abode, and a vote in EU elections. If the majority of Londoners took this up (with Scotland, and almost certainly Bristol, Manchester and Oxford) that would be quite a force. The London mayor would have, for example, to seek ways of offering reciprocity on labour movement and residency - i.e. seek a very welcome quasi-independence from the reactionary inhabitant of Downing Street. No doubt a pipe-dream but it would be an astute move by the EU and tell May something. It is interesting, isn't it, that Trump has no interest of any kind in the UK as a trading partner: he does not believe in trade deals, only protectionism. So I wonder just where we think we will be in two or three years time having rather burnt our boats with India last week and been looked at with mild derision by China. However, no doubt Ruritanians will take heart that we can still beat Scotland at football.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think this is a massive over-reaction. Sure some > media outlets (like the DM) publish complete > rubbish, which can be inflammatory. Those smart > enough to see it for what it is just choose not to > read it ... so you think it is ok to publish "inflammatory" material that will ignite those who are not "smart enough to see it"? what a truly strange post. as if there was no history of newspapers and auto-da-fe. Suggest look at Berlin 1900, a great book on the subject.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm beginning to wonder ... but not I fear to think.

DaveR Wrote: --------------------------------------------------- > The point about the rust belt states and the white > working class is not that they are the poorest - > the poorest states are in the Deep South and the > poorest people are disproportionately black - but > that they are the ones whose fortunes have > declined most precipitously, both in terms of > income and status. Just as with the former UK > industrial heartlands it is not just that jobs > have gone but that they were well paid jobs that > sustained whole communities, and across > generations, which supported a strong sense of > identity. There are undoubtedly race and class > issues as well ... I just love this post. What is the 'as well' doing here? How is identity formed, if not in opposition to others? What is the significance of finding your income falling 'precipitously' in relation to those of other ethnicities in the deep south if not a matter of race and class? This is why this expression of populism (the vote for Trump) is deeply racist, and why many cosmopolitan liberals are rightly protesting about the anti-democratic nature of this populist vote.

solution

I am now going to give my steak Dianes a good bashing - have Monica's eyes somehow internalised. Scary.

I think it is a mistake only to look at socio-economic classifications to determine voting patterns. What after all are such classifications an artefact of? It seems unlikely, as with Brexit, that the binary trump-rejoice : trump-despair division is determined in that way (of course there are many factors certainly including decline of traditional industries but they affect only some voters and do not catch at the complexity). I think one has to think about the reasons why there is an upsurge in populism more generally. What might one mean by this term? Not 'having a majority in an election'. And certainly not 'democracy' - which should only have one meaning in my view: Chantal Mouffe's state of open discursive (not physical) antagonism (or Ranciere's state of dissensus). That is, a recognition that none of us has the same interests and that it is good to have these expressed. Populism is the CLOSURE of this as an expression of collective will (thus the interests of the good - in Trump's case, those who are citizens - are all the same). (The establishment does a similar closure - which makes populism look superficially attractive - by, for example moving towards heteronomy with regard to potentially antagonistic institutions such as parliament, the judiciary). Populism as general-protest is fermented and reflected as legitimate by a commodified press, and resistance to it is greatly weakend by a commodified education system (and that process began decades ago). Populism can be expressed in an election but this does not make it democratic in this sense. Of course populism collapses what one might mean by democracy to populism as part of its closure. Sometimes such closure is warranted. For example in cutting of the head of a tyrannical king, or in a protest against the commodification of the education system: one comes together to express outrage, and this must be on the basis of the same (i.e. the good of democracy is exchanged for the good of protest) until everyone goes home. Cromwell's mistake was to believe that he could express a general will in government rather than (quite rightly) in revolution (hence the settlement in the Glorious Revolution that the High Court referred to contra May). There is a recognition of this in the regrexit phenomenon: the protest gives way to the return to the reality of antagonistic interests (these have to be expressed in the resulting negotiations! It is impossible for the expression of general will - brexit=brexit=brexit - to express the particulars that were given up in the populism). The real evil is when those who have the responsibility of government cannot see that it is wrong to try to implement that will, and take it on themselves to express it. Almost certainly Trump (not Putin) knows this - certainly, one prays so. (It is also of course the reason that May has for trying to keep negotiations secret, hoping to be able to suture the varied interests in a new expression of will after achieving agreement - but this is a mistake: parliament is there to be an expression of dissensus that works towards democratic rather than populist government). As a cosmopolitan liberal I tend of course to pigeon-hole this particular populist protest (as with Brexit) as a phenomenon of ressentiment (economic, few opportunities for social inclusion etc). This must partly be the case I think - and the tragedy is that to the extent that either brexit or trump's promises are implemented they will disadvantage precisely those who were crying out in pain. It is dismaying when this ressentiment is expressed against ethnic groups or migrant workers. But this is an expression of my personal socio-economic and cultural-education privilege I think and so a little particular. I wonder if we should think much more broadly and take Trump's strategy seriously (as a serious protest about something that appealed well beyond the economically disadvantaged). I find it difficult to express what that is. But it has something I think to do with the nature of subjectivity in a commodified world - that it cannot be properly expressed. Trump exposed a kind of suffocation that is implicit in heteronomous political correctness. It was expressed as claims of 'corruption' but I don't think that should be taken literally. I realising I am struggling for coherence here.

That is so grim ianr. The aporia of 'freedom of the press'.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is sobering. That is terrifying. It is not that the government is conspiring or sinister - it is that it is sleepwalking.

I think there is a more general phenomenon of interest here (for what it is worth, I can see Hilary being more terrifying in foreign policy even than Trump given that she suffers, in a rather similar way to May, from the self-mirroring legitimation of having to her certain knowledge a belle ?me not available to her opponents). Trumps one saving-grace, perhaps, is that he is self-parodic. The general interest is the way that the loose connotations of who we take ourselves to be (in normal people these are quite fragmented, uncertain, fragile and thus induce a certain modest diffidence that is wholly to be commended) are being crystallised by populism into self-certainties (think of May for what she no doubt thinks is a benign version of this - one free of cynicism, just pure of soul; so the courts are just a perspective, the people's view is paramount, the popular press quite right to have their say). So brexit=brexit=brexit is quite interesting. That is, it reduces a loose and pragmatic engagement with a hard and certain value. This is then translated into policy. In the USA for some time there has been a myth. It is that freedom is against slavery (oh the irony) and this is like democracy is against tyranny (so launch the drones) and this in turn is like the USA against the enemy. So the USA becomes whole, a certain value, a myth (well ask some of the doubters who live there): it becomes obvious that freedom=democracy=America. Of course on our side of the pond this means we think we can deport UK citizens with a good conscience to buttress the 'special relationship'.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pure speculation, but what do people think will > happen? Yes, this is fun. The trouble is that there are an infinity of potential bifurcations, so this is certainly wrong! 1. May is too frightened to hold a general election. Far too many signs of a Lib-Dem renaissance - she would lose as many seats as gain and her majority is already wafer thin. What would she do then if no majority? A coalition with the Lib-Dems?! :-). 2. The Supreme Court will not over-rule the High Court. They will say the irrevocable nature of article 50 must be assumed given government's own case in High Court that it is irrevocable (:-)). Attorney General is replaced. Government then appeals to Europe - but this will take months/years and make May a laughing-stock (she is too brittle to back down). They may try a 'vote without amendments' but I think that in turn would be challengeable in the High/Supreme court :-) as certainly the High Court said there had to be primary legislation (i.e. amendments must be allowed and then the process takes over a year). 3. The EU are confirmed in their existing belief that the UK government is not serious about Brexit (they may be wrong about desire or intention but it is by now obvious that this is the real politic). They offer no negotiations of any kind. May refuses to put article 50 to parliament saying that would reveal negotiating hand. So deadlock. 4. May becomes lame duck PM. Unable to trigger 50 and with only supply cannot enact any significant legislation until 2020 election. Labour party meanwhile becomes a more credible public voice: this is already happening with the hyper-competent Kier Starmer now in charge of most public policy discussion. 5. At General Election Lib-Dems win 90 seats. There are swathes of 'remainers' who will vote for them in good conscience (and me). UKIP will enjoy a minor resurgence (with Evans if they have any sense as on the le pen daughter model). But it won't be enough for significant seats (and no way Tories would join them in coalition), which with Labour's revival will leave the Lib Dems with a massive say in the new government. Probable split of the Tory Party as the swivel eyed ones depart to UKIP. 6. At which point we go for either the softest brexit imaginable or no brexit at all as Lib Dems will (rightly) say the GE over-rules the Referendum in the light of the continuing chaos caused by the latter (and this will be their manifesto commitment). No doubt all a pipe-dream, and with Trump on the cards we may not be around to see it, but only now opening a bottle I promise.

They are now backtracking fast over article 50. It was agreed BY BOTH SIDES, as part of the government's defence in the High Court, that article 50 was irrevocable (once triggered no way back). But High Court said that entailed the equivalent of legislation as would change rights established under EU law. Hence court found against government. Now they are putting it about that article 50 is NOT irrevocable so no rights are affected so no legislation necessary (oh joy of governmental duplicity) despite having argued the opposite assumption to the High Court. So, they now hope, the Supreme Court will say its not irrevocable so there is no need for a vote. Not sure how impressed the Supreme Court will be in an argument that contradicts the one put before the lower court - but who knows. I see Truss has now made a statement in which she does not mention the issue that has outraged so many: the attack by the popular press and some members of parliament on a fundamental aspect of the constitution.

So we are still waiting for the Justice Secretary to say something ... Full marks to Kirsty and Newsnight yesterday for putting the man from the Mail on view (who seemed to me to be presenting mauvaise-foi in pretty much its pure form) and for allowing the excellent Dominic Grieve to explain the principles at stake.