When an article starts with "As a Marxist", I expect garbage, but this was actually a really good read.
what he cared about more was a threadbare type of identity politics, cultural inclusivity, symbols and spectacles of the post-racial, post-nationalist millennium, of which he saw himself as the great exemplar.
Bingo. The complete failure of the Democrats to address real issues impacting voters (e.g. expensive medicine, rising college costs, economic inequality) and instead virtue signal for who should use what bathroom, who has to bake a cake for whom, etc lead to their defeat. Combine this with the corrupt and cronyism in the election procedure and complete lack of introspection that they themselves were wrong.
I was surprisingly interested in the article as well.
You mentioned virtue signalling, and I think that was the point of the first phrase "As a Marxist..." which was to clarify and "virtue-signal" that they are on the "good" side of the spectrum, therefore my criticism is allowed to be read and processed. That kind of pisses me off. As a Republican, or As a Libertarian, or as a Green Monkey - shouldn't every opinion be read for its merits, not for it's author's political views?
Oh, THIS person is allowed to make a valid criticism, because they are leftists. THAT person is not allowed to make valid criticisms, because they are rightists, therefore everything they say is FALSE, because we have been trained (?) or conditioned to dismiss the thoughts of anyone not on "our side" regardless of the truth behind it. Global warming was denied, when it was obviously happening in the 90's, because one side was for it, therefore the other side HAD to be against it. Yet, when the patterns changed recently, those who were FOR it stayed for it, even though the data was now no longer supporting the same conclusion, to the point that anyone who analyzes ALL the data and makes a different conclusion is called a "denier" and is ridiculed and ostracized. Has the cock crowed three times by morn?
The ossification of thought and instant resistance to an idea based on who is the deliverer is anathema to a republic - we saw this in the run up to the War between the States - as Republican and abolitionist thought became ever more prominent, it no longer mattered if their were any good ideas, there was instant opposition to them from the South, as they knew they were doomed if they stayed in the Union. It was only a matter of time until slave states were a minority - the only solution to keep their 'peculiar institution' was to leave the Union. That seems to be the path we are on today - refusal to compromise, instant opposition, 'life or death' electioneering. Seems like we will split into 3 countries - Pacific Coast, Flyover America, and the Eastern Seaboard.
This article is form a leftist POV and digs a bit into an armchair psychoanalysis of the former President.