Sam, I always appreciate your deftness with terminology. Heterodox is a new one to me, and I like it in some ways but not in others. I wonder if we might not have more than one mainstream view? George Packer identifies four different Americas in "Last Best Hope," and I think all four are pretty alive and well. They can't be easily simpli…
Sam, I always appreciate your deftness with terminology. Heterodox is a new one to me, and I like it in some ways but not in others. I wonder if we might not have more than one mainstream view? George Packer identifies four different Americas in "Last Best Hope," and I think all four are pretty alive and well. They can't be easily simplified any longer along party lines, because there are internal divisions (moreso on the left) between the Obama/Clinton brand of liberalism (Packer's Smart America) and the Bernie/Cornel West brand (Just America). Similarly, Free America (Reagan, Romney, John McCain) is quite distinct from Real America (Palin, Trump). I wonder if every member of that camp sees themselves as a dissenter from the others and therefore heterodox?
You identify 2020 as a turning point, but some of what you're describing here in the critique of the left was articulated in 2016 by Mark Lilla (another moderate liberal). He is a very different kind of heterodox thinker from Christopher Rufo, who I was surprised to see you reference. Rufo is, in my mind, a terribly sloppy writer (basically a conservative version of Ibram Kendi) who has explicit goals of aligning with the alt-right. The problem with Rufo, IMO, is that he often begins with a kernel of truth (as Kendi does) and then at some point takes an alarming logical leap that leads to balderdash conclusions. I see someone like Lilla as a believer in institutions and in rationalism. He is therefore not a true believer in anything. Rufo is totally a true believer, and often not a good faith scholar, and that is what makes him worthy of a different kind of scrutiny.
Sam, I always appreciate your deftness with terminology. Heterodox is a new one to me, and I like it in some ways but not in others. I wonder if we might not have more than one mainstream view? George Packer identifies four different Americas in "Last Best Hope," and I think all four are pretty alive and well. They can't be easily simplified any longer along party lines, because there are internal divisions (moreso on the left) between the Obama/Clinton brand of liberalism (Packer's Smart America) and the Bernie/Cornel West brand (Just America). Similarly, Free America (Reagan, Romney, John McCain) is quite distinct from Real America (Palin, Trump). I wonder if every member of that camp sees themselves as a dissenter from the others and therefore heterodox?
You identify 2020 as a turning point, but some of what you're describing here in the critique of the left was articulated in 2016 by Mark Lilla (another moderate liberal). He is a very different kind of heterodox thinker from Christopher Rufo, who I was surprised to see you reference. Rufo is, in my mind, a terribly sloppy writer (basically a conservative version of Ibram Kendi) who has explicit goals of aligning with the alt-right. The problem with Rufo, IMO, is that he often begins with a kernel of truth (as Kendi does) and then at some point takes an alarming logical leap that leads to balderdash conclusions. I see someone like Lilla as a believer in institutions and in rationalism. He is therefore not a true believer in anything. Rufo is totally a true believer, and often not a good faith scholar, and that is what makes him worthy of a different kind of scrutiny.