A very nice, thoughtful piece, bang on about some aspects of our current malaise. I appreciate the attempt to provide non-partisan analyses and recommendations. But I wonder whether the aim of trying to be fair-minded risks distorting reality when that reality is profoundly asymmetric, as it is today (imo).
Publicly rejecting certain foundational aspects of the ideology or actions of the parties currently in power has clear costs for many people, and doing so may come across as a kind of shrill activism, with a partisan slant.But I'm sceptical that one can find a genuine civic middle which doesn't in fact involve such a rejection.
To put the point another way: the search for a mid-point between two partisan positions may seem to be the correct way in which to take a non-partisan view of a situation. But when one side takes extreme positions, looking for this mid-point may lead us away from neutrality.
I appreciate the efforts of people like you, Yogendra Yadav, maybe Pratap Bhanu Mehta in some modes to present arguments which should appeal to people with different first-order political preferences (I try to do so too, in my teaching). I wonder, though, whether this is a stable orientation in our current situation.
Arudra, in response to your comment: "To put the point another way: the search for a mid-point between two partisan positions may seem to be the correct way in which to take a non-partisan view of a situation. But when one side takes extreme positions, looking for this mid-point may lead us away from neutrality"
I'm not suggesting both-sideism at all. I'm saying that there should be a way to engage politically without getting boxed-in on either side. The middle I am referring to is not the mod-point but the independent
A very nice, thoughtful piece, bang on about some aspects of our current malaise. I appreciate the attempt to provide non-partisan analyses and recommendations. But I wonder whether the aim of trying to be fair-minded risks distorting reality when that reality is profoundly asymmetric, as it is today (imo).
Publicly rejecting certain foundational aspects of the ideology or actions of the parties currently in power has clear costs for many people, and doing so may come across as a kind of shrill activism, with a partisan slant.But I'm sceptical that one can find a genuine civic middle which doesn't in fact involve such a rejection.
To put the point another way: the search for a mid-point between two partisan positions may seem to be the correct way in which to take a non-partisan view of a situation. But when one side takes extreme positions, looking for this mid-point may lead us away from neutrality.
I appreciate the efforts of people like you, Yogendra Yadav, maybe Pratap Bhanu Mehta in some modes to present arguments which should appeal to people with different first-order political preferences (I try to do so too, in my teaching). I wonder, though, whether this is a stable orientation in our current situation.
Arudra, in response to your comment: "To put the point another way: the search for a mid-point between two partisan positions may seem to be the correct way in which to take a non-partisan view of a situation. But when one side takes extreme positions, looking for this mid-point may lead us away from neutrality"
I'm not suggesting both-sideism at all. I'm saying that there should be a way to engage politically without getting boxed-in on either side. The middle I am referring to is not the mod-point but the independent