The New Right’s appropriation of Gramscian and Frankfurt School tactics in America’s ongoing culture war, and the existential tension this creates with the U.S. Constitution.
Ignore for the moment his use of "Gramsci". In his long quoted post, he says that he wants to persuade the people, not use raw power. That sounds like something who honors the representative republic would do. In other words, it sounds like his entire post is "using power for good isn't evil". Rufo isn't woke, he doesn't appear to believe in any of his writings that good/evil are just social constructions but he appears to believe in consequential reality. So he appears to be saying: "Let's look at reality, determine what is good, convince the people that this is good, and if they elect us, use power to get it done." Now, I could be wrong in this interpretation. But if correct, this sounds like entirely inline with the US constitution.
Let me digress for a moment: The US constitution is not the highest good; it is a legal document. Let's talk about epistemology and ethics: I believe in a real reality that is consequential and knowable. That may sound trite, but it is the cornerstone against Woke. The woke do not believe in a real realty or if they do, it isn't knowable. The defining feature of the woke is this "constructed reality". You never demonstrated Rufo believes in this constructed reality. The progressive left tends to be made up of social constructivists, people who believe this "constructed reality" is socially defined.
Let's talk about the Woke Right: I've witness two different types of Woke on the right: (1) conservatives who want some aspect of the past, a Return. (2) a certain type of Christian constructivists. Before we go further, let's talk about the racists and antisemitism that I've see on the right (all of which I personally disavow and disagree with). There are some people who are constructivist on the right who are also racists and hold antisemitic views. But there are also some who do believe in a consequential knowable consequential reality and they believe (wrongly) that black people can't govern themselves and that (wrongly) Jews are pulling all the strings. They are not woke. They are not constructivists. They have a bad model of reality.
Let's go back to the Woke right "Return". These are often constructionists and thus "woke" because rather then holding to an ideal or consequential reality, they look to the past and say "that was better". This almost definitive what many conservatives are: look to the past and believe "that was better". They are not anchored in reality and in practice they are moored to a social phenomena rather then taking one step further, looking at the reason within reality as to why it was better or worse, and then seeking to apply those principles to the present to move the future. The other common constructivist on the right are those who's epistemology is presupisitional scripturalism. This view is common in US Christians and explicitly disavows the concept that "truth is what corresponds with reality", rather they believe truth is what exists in the mind of God ("Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview", The Trinity Review, Crampton). I call this divine constructivism.
So if Woke is to mean some form of constructivist world view, you have presented no evidence that Rufo is Woke. All direct sources appear to state the opposite that Rufo wants to shape culture to a real reality, so we can live in that reality better. To be fair, I'm also forming that view from his interviews and actions I've seen around New College FL, where he and a new board got power over the college, established a new direction that follows truth and reality. This is not what a constructivist would do.
Your argument essentially says "Gramsci" is bad, anyone who upholds part of his analysis is also bad. In otherwords, Hitler drank water, you drank water, you're bad. This is a bad form of reasoning. Yes, when you explicitly use the enemies tools, you should be very careful. But in WWII I don't think anyone was saying German engineering was inferior; we were saying your actions and ideology must be stopped. Right or wrong, I think what Rufo is saying is "What the left is doing works, it impacts the real consequential reality, where as conservatives have been routed from all levers of power and consequence. Why?" Rufo isn't saying the left's view of the world is acceptable, Rufo isn't saying anything to indicate a constructivist mind set. He is asking "Why is this effective?" Which is exactly what someone who believes in a true, knowable, consequential reality should be asking.
I appreciate you do quote Rufo.
Ignore for the moment his use of "Gramsci". In his long quoted post, he says that he wants to persuade the people, not use raw power. That sounds like something who honors the representative republic would do. In other words, it sounds like his entire post is "using power for good isn't evil". Rufo isn't woke, he doesn't appear to believe in any of his writings that good/evil are just social constructions but he appears to believe in consequential reality. So he appears to be saying: "Let's look at reality, determine what is good, convince the people that this is good, and if they elect us, use power to get it done." Now, I could be wrong in this interpretation. But if correct, this sounds like entirely inline with the US constitution.
Let me digress for a moment: The US constitution is not the highest good; it is a legal document. Let's talk about epistemology and ethics: I believe in a real reality that is consequential and knowable. That may sound trite, but it is the cornerstone against Woke. The woke do not believe in a real realty or if they do, it isn't knowable. The defining feature of the woke is this "constructed reality". You never demonstrated Rufo believes in this constructed reality. The progressive left tends to be made up of social constructivists, people who believe this "constructed reality" is socially defined.
Let's talk about the Woke Right: I've witness two different types of Woke on the right: (1) conservatives who want some aspect of the past, a Return. (2) a certain type of Christian constructivists. Before we go further, let's talk about the racists and antisemitism that I've see on the right (all of which I personally disavow and disagree with). There are some people who are constructivist on the right who are also racists and hold antisemitic views. But there are also some who do believe in a consequential knowable consequential reality and they believe (wrongly) that black people can't govern themselves and that (wrongly) Jews are pulling all the strings. They are not woke. They are not constructivists. They have a bad model of reality.
Let's go back to the Woke right "Return". These are often constructionists and thus "woke" because rather then holding to an ideal or consequential reality, they look to the past and say "that was better". This almost definitive what many conservatives are: look to the past and believe "that was better". They are not anchored in reality and in practice they are moored to a social phenomena rather then taking one step further, looking at the reason within reality as to why it was better or worse, and then seeking to apply those principles to the present to move the future. The other common constructivist on the right are those who's epistemology is presupisitional scripturalism. This view is common in US Christians and explicitly disavows the concept that "truth is what corresponds with reality", rather they believe truth is what exists in the mind of God ("Scripturalism: A Christian Worldview", The Trinity Review, Crampton). I call this divine constructivism.
So if Woke is to mean some form of constructivist world view, you have presented no evidence that Rufo is Woke. All direct sources appear to state the opposite that Rufo wants to shape culture to a real reality, so we can live in that reality better. To be fair, I'm also forming that view from his interviews and actions I've seen around New College FL, where he and a new board got power over the college, established a new direction that follows truth and reality. This is not what a constructivist would do.
Your argument essentially says "Gramsci" is bad, anyone who upholds part of his analysis is also bad. In otherwords, Hitler drank water, you drank water, you're bad. This is a bad form of reasoning. Yes, when you explicitly use the enemies tools, you should be very careful. But in WWII I don't think anyone was saying German engineering was inferior; we were saying your actions and ideology must be stopped. Right or wrong, I think what Rufo is saying is "What the left is doing works, it impacts the real consequential reality, where as conservatives have been routed from all levers of power and consequence. Why?" Rufo isn't saying the left's view of the world is acceptable, Rufo isn't saying anything to indicate a constructivist mind set. He is asking "Why is this effective?" Which is exactly what someone who believes in a true, knowable, consequential reality should be asking.
Always had a hunch that Rufo will take a strong left turn, he always carried that vibe, but I don't know how to articulate it...
Eat Arby's.