For Agonistic Respect on the Left

[babylonsister]

https://www.thenation.com/article/presidential-election-2020-agonism/

For Agonistic Respect on the Left
More than ever, we must embrace the ability to be sharply critical without being destructive and hostile.
By Jeffrey C. Isaac

snip//

Buttigieg is no savior. But given the state of things, it strikes me as foolish for people on the left to dis him or what he represents as a new “outsider” with intelligence and integrity.

There will be red-baiting in the coming months. And there will be Democrats who capitulate to it. In some ways, the despicable recent attacks on Ilhan Omar are a kind of red-baiting by proxy. (There will also be many Democrats who, when pressed, will note that they are not socialists; I do not regard this as a form of red-baiting). But there will be very few Democratic leaders who will discuss this with the seriousness and integrity exhibited by Buttigieg.

When asked recently on ABC about Trump’s red-baiting, he declared: “The President is adopting a tactic that takes us back to the darkest days of the ’50s when you could use the word ‘socialist’ to kill somebody’s career, or to kill an idea, but that trick has been tried so many times that I think it’s losing all meaning. The Affordable Care Act was a conservative idea that Democrats borrowed and they called that ‘socialist.’ So it’s kind of like the boy who cried wolf. It’s lost all power I think, especially for my generation of voters.”

When asked on CNN whether he supported the Green New Deal, he registered unequivocal support for the idea, on the basis of an explanation that could well have been offered by AOC; he then proceeded again to contest Trump’s red-baiting:

I think he [Trump] is clinging to a rhetorical strategy that was very powerful when he was coming of age, fifty years ago. But it’s just a little bit different now …[in the 50’s] the word socialism could be used to end an argument. Today I think a word like that is the beginning of the debate, not the end of the debate. Look, America is a democracy, and it’s a market-based economy. But you can no longer kill off a policy idea by saying that it’s socialist …If someone my age or younger is weighing a policy idea, and somebody comes along and says, ‘you can’t do that, it’s socialist,’ I think our answer is going to be, ‘OK, is it a good idea or is it not?’

Of course this is not an ideological endorsement of “socialism.” But Buttigieg—like most Americans—is not a socialist. What he is, though, is a Democratic mayor of a Midwestern city who publicly and unabashedly declares that he deplores red-baiting and regards the idea of socialism as “the beginning of the debate, not the end of the debate.”

Such a declaration should be welcomed.

We need serious debate. About ideas, policies, and strategies. Those who consider themselves socialists will surely have disagreements with those who consider themselves liberals or progressives or feminists. Such disagreements can bridged through coalition-building around commonalities. But such bridgework is often difficult. For ideological differences involve emotional investments and styles of communicating and ways of being. There will be misstatements and overstatements, fights and hurt feelings and the reopening of old wounds and the creation of new ones. Hopefully there will also be mutual understanding and mutual learning. Otherwise, it is hard to see how we can effectively come together to defeat Trumpism and to advance the values of freedom, justice, and environmental sustainability. And too much is at stake to risk failure.

[GemDigger]

1. I am looking forward to these debates.

[Merlot]

2. Yes, the young-uns have cornered the market on socialism

If someone my age or younger is weighing a policy idea, and somebody comes along and says, ‘you can’t do that, it’s socialist,’ I think our answer is going to be, ‘OK, is it a good idea or is it not?’

Really, Pete? Why not ask Bernie, or well, lots of us over the age of you how we feel about socialism?

Or are you "age-baiting?"

[marylandblue]

3. He's not age baiting and doesn't claim to have any kind of market on socialism

He's saying that the label doesn't mean anything to the younger crowd one way or another. In contrast to Bernie, who has always used the label.

[Celerity]

4. Buttigieg is not a socialist at all, he is a self-described 'democratic capitialist'

I have zero idea where you also got 'age-baiting' from.

here is the entire quote from that CNN interview that you partially quoted, for full context

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/10/pete_buttigieg_the_word_socialist_has_lost_its_meaning_no_longer_ends_a_debate.html

PETE BUTTIGIEG: I think he's clinging to a rhetorical strategy that was very powerful when he was coming of age 50 years ago, but it's just a little different right now. If you grew up during that Cold War period, then you saw a time in politics when the word "socialism" could be used to end an argument. Today I think a word like that is the beginning of a debate, not the end of a debate. Look, America is committed to democracy, and we're essentially a market-based economy. But you can no longer simply kill off a line of discussion about a policy by saying that it's socialist. If someone my age or younger is weighing a policy idea and somebody comes along and says you can't do that, it's socialist, I think our answer will be, is it a good idea or is it not? That idea has lost its power when you think about the way it was applied to characterize the ACA... Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, invented by a conservative think tank, relying on market principles, implemented first by a Republican governor. And they said that was socialist. So I think the word has mostly lost its meaning. It's certainly lost its ability to be used as a kill switch on debate.