Originally Posted by bjkeefe
If there remains anyone not tired of talk about Freddie's piece ...
I've nearly tired of the multiple blog posts that have responded to the original piece. In the comments at lgm I found a telling answer to Freddie by the contributor Eric Loomis
. What is most interesting to me generally regarding the matter is that it suggests the opposite of epistemic closure. I haven't seen much movement away from where writers started from, yet it illuminates the breadth of the spectrum and a willingness to examine preconceptions.
Both you and uncle eb incorporated to an extent a little "hippie punching" in your observations. As in the "left" needs to get real. Unions are passe', etc. (not referring to your remarks specifically). The vast majority of commenters agreed with this. Maybe unions need rebranding? What Freddie was decrying was the approach of the neo-libs regarding labor in general. He wants empowerment prior to the effects, not trickle down after the fact or social programs necessitated by the downsides of globalism to ameliorate issues it created. Problem is, no one knows how to get there from here.
His critique of Matt certainly hit a nerve. I agree that Matt tends to ignore his critics from the left. He doesn't see the need according to his own admission as his position is as egalitarian as possible. I don't think as much interest would have been generated without the personal swipes Freddie took at Matt and Ezra. It instantly became tribal. "Hey! Don't slam my guy. And you're just a dreamer anyway, so there."
In that stream of comments at lgm I also found a list of the leftist writers (sources) that you thought Freddie should have pointed to. I don't know if anything was gained by the exercise. I guess it's likely that Freddie will take his concerns with him to academia. I wish him well.