I think Eric's right that "the whole point" of that side of the fascism argument is "its polemical utility." Which explains the ferocity of those who argue against my side of the argument: it's not that we're wrong; it's that we're perceived as not enlisting for the battle. Which https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1350212474704977933
doesn't make much sense since there are no actual anti-fascist steps or policies that those who claim Trump is a fascist are recommending that I, who dispute their analysis, would argue against. I include here the idea of allying with Democrats or never-Trumpers, since I never
thought that was the problem w/the analysis. The problem with the analysis is that it's wrong. If that puts me out of step with the perceived mobilizing needs of politicians or activists, whether centrist, liberal, or left, so be it. Being in synch with those needs is not my job.
Though I don't see my work as ivory tower writing removed from politics, my conception of the relationship between my work and politics is not dictated by people's perceived sense of immediate political need. I say perceived and immediate because I'm old enough to have seen how
often and how quickly people's sense of political imperatives can change. I'm not writing to mobilize those people for today's rally but to get them to think about tomorrow's. I think the former is an important job, and I'm glad that there are writers who do it, but it's not how
I see my job. I'm still working out my ideas on the latter, but here are some texts, where I set out my ideal conception of the relationship between writers and politics. This is the first text: https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-intellectuals-create-a-public/
You can follow @CoreyRobin.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.