See his reasoning here. Compelling (though I was pro-Obama to begin with).
-
Join 711 other subscribers
Recent Comments
Richard Taylor on Approximating post-modernism Huenemann on A fuller explanation Huenemann on A fuller explanation Richard Taylor on A fuller explanation jackleo on A fuller explanation Categories
- 3QD essays
- Books
- Fun with Jerry
- Historical episodes
- Items of the academy / learning
- Kant and/or Hume
- Machines / gadgets / technology / games
- Meanings of life / death / social & moral stuff
- Metaphysical musings
- Music
- Nietzsche
- Phonograph records
- Spinoza
- Stacks of Books
- This & that in the life of CH
- Uncategorized
-
Recent Posts
Blog Stats
- 221,759 hits
Meta
I’m also an Obama supporter, however, I’m not sure I buy Barnett’s post-ideological society picture of globalization. You could describe the 90s perhaps as a time when, generally-speaking, ideological narrative were in recession, while purely economic globalization was rapidly transforming the globe. I’m not sure if the current conjuncture could be characterized similarly.
LikeLike
Barnett does discuss this at the end of BFA. He thinks that generally we’re heading towards a post-state world, where economic and cultural connections frankly matter more, and he thinks this is on the whole a good thing. He cites a lot of data to suggest that globalization is helping much more than hurting. Yes, you get McDonalds everywhere, but also (and not causally related to this point!) fewer starving people. I mean that starvation, in real numbers and not just percentages, is down (though still far too high, of course).
The US’s response to 9/11 it seems, has put some hurt on globalization. But there is some reason to think (see last Wednesday’s NYT “Dealbook” section) that globalization is going to happen whether the US govt is promoting it or not.
LikeLike