>This is a very confusing moment to be sure. At least for me.
>
>No doubt, by admitting this I'm creating an opening for all sorts of criticism
>centered around my failure to understand this or that simple solution.
No doubt you are, but not from me. Years ago, when I was visiting Duke on Wahneema Lubiano's invitation, I remember her then-partner Raphael Allen asking me a question about what my aim was with my writing - "a better empiricism, like Chomsky, or something more." A lot of what I had been doing was that "better empiricism," based on the belief that if we could just explain things better people would come around to our side. I'd been coming around to thinking that that just wasn't enough - but his question really crystallized the problem for me, and I've been thinking about it ever since. No, people won't come around if things are just explained better to them. That something more - understanding and dealing with all the layers of fantasy, of manufactured ignorance and indifference - is really important too. Unfortunately, I haven't figured that one out yet. It's a lot easier to say that household income is stagnant three years into an economic expansion. It is, but aside from a vague sense of annoyance, the fact has little political salience.
Doug