Uh-oh, looks like Josh is starting a blog war! Well, I might as well use this opportunity to disagree with his overly mechanistic account of the ways in which ideology is part of/is shaped by/shapes the reactionary agenda. Eidelson, Brock, et al (not to seriously attempt to lump Josh Eidelson in with David Brock and Michael Lind - you have to be conservative first to do that, and I think Josh was probably born holding a copy of The Nation, fail to lend enough credence to the ways in which, while opportunistic and convenient, the relationship of the right to racist, homophobic, and sexist ideologies of control -- which is how I'd characterize those who demonize non-violent drug offenders, even as I'd argue that maybe Rush Limbaugh isn't all that non-violent, is far too genuine. No offense to my man Josh, but arguments that privilege economics over everything else tend to generally originate from white men. The fact that Bob Barr's daughter had an abortion doesn't change the fact that Mr. Barr would like the state apparatus to control people's bodies in a fascistic linking of gender and power, of sexual reproduction and social reproduction. Rather than trying to claim that ideology's just a smokescreen, I think we need to look more deeply at how racism, sexism, heteronormativity, and capitalism are both intertwined and sometimes contradictory as subjectivities from below struggle to reshape and have reshaped the social relations of capitalism.


Much respect to Josh.  ¶ 8:07 PM