I agree with you ... up to a point. Like you, I appreciated that Coates is very deliberate about naming his perspective, and I’ve been bothered in the past by the fact that Klein rarely does (even when he uses “us” and “we” to refer to the left). That can make it sound like he’s neutral when he’s not. I don't think he's trying to fool anyone, but that still rubs the wrong way sometimes.
I had a different impression of the episode. To me, Klein was more ideological -- not in the sense of being rigid and ignoring other viewpoints, but in sticking to this important idea of engagement, even regarding someone like Kirk, whose rhetoric was ugly and damaging. I think Klein’s openness to talk about mourning across divides constructive, even if it’s hard to do (and very unlikely to be reciprocated if something terrible were to happen to Klein or Coates).
I’m no fan of Kirk’s views, obviously, but I think it’s essential to engage with “the other side.” Coates seemed quicker to reject that bridge-building. In contrast to you, I know Klein’s work better than I do Coates’, so I hope that isn't unfair.
Ciao Eric (e Mocha)! I see what you're saying, for sure. For me Klein's ideological take reads more as him being in a relatively safe bubble more than anything loftier. I agree, it's good to try and engage with everyone. But, it confused me as to why Klein would simultaneously be obsessing over the "deplorables" comment - even Coates bristled during that part of the conversation and went into the part about the humanity of his neighbors. I do recommend reading any of Coates' recent books, well worth the time! And, I think would maybe give some fullness to his 'fatalistic' view, which I don't find defeatist as much as pragmatic, which I think is another entry point for him for engagement, if that makes sense?
I admit that their bringing up Hilary's tone-deaf "deplorables" comment made me raise my eyebrow a little -- but only a little.
It is dated, but remember that I was listening from Italy, where nothing is too old to bring up in an argument.
Natives of Genoa and Venice still seriously dislike each other (e.g. members of parliament from those cities won't co-sponsor bills or sit next to each other on committees; football matches between teams from those areas often end with fist fights between fans) because of a series of wars they fought, the last of which ended in 1381.
I will always admire that kind of georgraphic grudge-holding haha. And to your point, it's true there are still people who are angry at The Clintons for that and other things (some of it justified IMHO, some of it tiresome)
Ciao Mythili. This was an interesting read.
I agree with you ... up to a point. Like you, I appreciated that Coates is very deliberate about naming his perspective, and I’ve been bothered in the past by the fact that Klein rarely does (even when he uses “us” and “we” to refer to the left). That can make it sound like he’s neutral when he’s not. I don't think he's trying to fool anyone, but that still rubs the wrong way sometimes.
I had a different impression of the episode. To me, Klein was more ideological -- not in the sense of being rigid and ignoring other viewpoints, but in sticking to this important idea of engagement, even regarding someone like Kirk, whose rhetoric was ugly and damaging. I think Klein’s openness to talk about mourning across divides constructive, even if it’s hard to do (and very unlikely to be reciprocated if something terrible were to happen to Klein or Coates).
I’m no fan of Kirk’s views, obviously, but I think it’s essential to engage with “the other side.” Coates seemed quicker to reject that bridge-building. In contrast to you, I know Klein’s work better than I do Coates’, so I hope that isn't unfair.
Ciao Eric (e Mocha)! I see what you're saying, for sure. For me Klein's ideological take reads more as him being in a relatively safe bubble more than anything loftier. I agree, it's good to try and engage with everyone. But, it confused me as to why Klein would simultaneously be obsessing over the "deplorables" comment - even Coates bristled during that part of the conversation and went into the part about the humanity of his neighbors. I do recommend reading any of Coates' recent books, well worth the time! And, I think would maybe give some fullness to his 'fatalistic' view, which I don't find defeatist as much as pragmatic, which I think is another entry point for him for engagement, if that makes sense?
I admit that their bringing up Hilary's tone-deaf "deplorables" comment made me raise my eyebrow a little -- but only a little.
It is dated, but remember that I was listening from Italy, where nothing is too old to bring up in an argument.
Natives of Genoa and Venice still seriously dislike each other (e.g. members of parliament from those cities won't co-sponsor bills or sit next to each other on committees; football matches between teams from those areas often end with fist fights between fans) because of a series of wars they fought, the last of which ended in 1381.
I will always admire that kind of georgraphic grudge-holding haha. And to your point, it's true there are still people who are angry at The Clintons for that and other things (some of it justified IMHO, some of it tiresome)