re nancy eraser’s article: > https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/progressive-neoliberalism-reactionary-populism-nancy-fraser
Some good points I think. But, also wrong in parts. For example, she doesn’t acknowledge that Clinton did win the vote, or that clintons platformwas 75% sanders, which means it was in itself a significant break with BILL clintonism, Hilary also addressed the rust belt and jobs. But the media and republican elites and FBI and putin were allied profoundly against her per se as they always have been. Hilary is not bill. There is no ‘clintonism’. And Fraser over emphasised a rational self interest motive fortrump supporters, which is not persuasive to me. That has much more to do with projective standing in for entitlement. Trump got votes because he is an entitled privileged bully who has reinstated the speakability of white entitlement. And is part of the mediatised reality culture which is phantasmatically more real than what is real.
My opinion anyway.
[from note to B who sent me the link]
to this i’d add that the rust belt is not the only casualty of progressive neoliberalism – there is also, among many other casualties, the wanton destruction of education from state schools to universities in general (marketisation, demonisation of teachers, adjunctisation), to facts and logic and evidence; to democratic structures `(gerrymandering, destruction of citizenship, privatised prisons and corrupt, racist policing), demonisation and destruction of social/health safety nets, re-rise of authoritarianism. none of these issues is intrinsically trump territory. many casualties of progressive neoliberalism support/ardently desire an alternative progressivism.