I like Liberal Currents. I see it more as a place where people can say their ideas for reconstruction. Hence, there will naturally be pieces in contradiction with each other, which is actually a plus in their favor, for me. They provide a valuable forum for discussing positive visions for the future of liberalism in America, when we’re otherwise always on the defense and reactionary. I suspect that it is the small l liberalism that you are not as sympathetic to as I am. While the China piece was bad and I totally disagree with it, I don’t think we shouldn’t look at the past just because good and bad were intertwined.
Whether Liberal Currents is actually doing this or not, I think the oft-perceived-as-juvenile attitude of“why don’t we just do the good parts” is actually fine, even if there’s some disagreement over what the good stuff is. Some disagreements are not trivial, such as whether it’s good to start a new Cold War lol, but I think a lot of good-bad evaluation is pretty straightforward. For example, I actually kind of admire the funding for the arts and humanities that the Cold War spurred. It generated a lot of interesting stuff, like abstract art. We should do that, again.
I don’t disagree. I just think that engaging with the liberal tradition in America requires a clarity and level of editorial discernment. And *that* process is what broke down in the china hawk pieces imho
I’m saying nobody should have Cold War nostalgia at all if we’re doing the work of really engaging American history. At least not of the variety that calls for great powers competition with china
I agree. It’s probably an unfortunately not all that unpopular view though. Given that, hopefully we have more Johnson type pieces to beat it out of the public psyche.
I like Liberal Currents. I see it more as a place where people can say their ideas for reconstruction. Hence, there will naturally be pieces in contradiction with each other, which is actually a plus in their favor, for me. They provide a valuable forum for discussing positive visions for the future of liberalism in America, when we’re otherwise always on the defense and reactionary. I suspect that it is the small l liberalism that you are not as sympathetic to as I am. While the China piece was bad and I totally disagree with it, I don’t think we shouldn’t look at the past just because good and bad were intertwined.
Whether Liberal Currents is actually doing this or not, I think the oft-perceived-as-juvenile attitude of“why don’t we just do the good parts” is actually fine, even if there’s some disagreement over what the good stuff is. Some disagreements are not trivial, such as whether it’s good to start a new Cold War lol, but I think a lot of good-bad evaluation is pretty straightforward. For example, I actually kind of admire the funding for the arts and humanities that the Cold War spurred. It generated a lot of interesting stuff, like abstract art. We should do that, again.
I don’t disagree. I just think that engaging with the liberal tradition in America requires a clarity and level of editorial discernment. And *that* process is what broke down in the china hawk pieces imho
Are you saying that editorial discernment about a proper liberal tradition should have stopped the China hawk piece from being published?
I’m saying nobody should have Cold War nostalgia at all if we’re doing the work of really engaging American history. At least not of the variety that calls for great powers competition with china
I agree. It’s probably an unfortunately not all that unpopular view though. Given that, hopefully we have more Johnson type pieces to beat it out of the public psyche.