All posts by John Halle

Composer, pianist, writer on music and politics, former New Haven Alderman, supporter of the Sanders/Corbyn/Melenchon/ insurgency.

My Tunes: Invisible Hand, New York 1992

Invisible Hand:  Back in around 1992, I was enrolled as a doctoral student at Columbia.  A charmed life, in retrospect.  A supportive and inspiring teacher (Fred Lerdahl), hugely interesting fellow students, a “job” working under the wonderful Brad Garton in the Columbia/Princeton electronic music center, a great apartment cheap in uptown New York City in the waning days of the downtown scene and what now appear, in retrospect, to be the waning days of traditional concert music life before the internet and the “post canonic” aesthetic began to erode its foundations-what more could I ask for.

That said, I never felt fully at home there-or anywhere else in the “classical music” world.  Having spent a more than a decade playing jazz gigs  and having had most of my musical identity defined by evenings in clubs like Boston’s Jazz Workshop, San Francisco’s Keystone Korner, New York’s Bradley’s and Studio Rivbea left a permanent mark.  Invisible Hand  was the first of many attempts at reconciliation though the most direct since it involved getting a band together of the sort which I used to play in then just a few years before.

In fact, two of them were from those days: Bruce Williamson, a friend now for almost 40 years (is it possible?),  I met when I first got to Berkeley as a freshman in 1979, though maybe slightly after that.  He has since become one of the great spirits of the New York freelance scene-always finding ways to make any musical situation he finds himself in (and there have been probably thousands of these) more interesting, more special and more joyous.  A few years later, I was privileged to have performed on several occasions in the first stages of Larry Grenadier’s when he was still in high school.  He has since become one of the foremost jazz bassists of his generation.  Alas, I’ve lost touch with Larry, though I do occasionally see his older brother, the wonderful trumpeter Phil, when I visit Boston.

Bruce Williamson

Larry Grenadier

The other two quintet members were newer friends: Jon Nelson had at the time recently formed the Meridian Arts Ensemble brass quintet and would, in this capacity, produce numerous recordings and distinguished commissions. Now a much admired professor of Trumpet at SUNY Buffalo for two decades a gig Jon arranged for David Sanford’s Pittsburgh Collective brought us together last year.  I don’t quite recall where I met John Hollenbeck though as most new music fans know, he has gone on to do remarkable things both through leading his Claudia Quintet and his large ensembles in the years since.  I should mention that I did try to compensate the players for their services-but I had run out of cash when I needed to pay John-so I gave him a beautiful rosewood xylophone I had picked up at a pawn shop the summer before.   I wonder whether he still has it-or gets any use out of it.

Jon Nelson

John Hollenbeck

On the piece itself, as will be noticed from scrolling through the score below, it’s a fully composed work-no improvised solos,  a fully composed drum part (I actually though John was embellishing it, but when I asked, he told me he was just “reading the paint”), no C-7 or Abmaj7#5 for the pianist etc.  But it emulates the feel and the sensibility (I hope) of the mid sixties Bluenote sound which was the touchstone for what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to run away from when I turned to “classical” composition and which I have finally, I think, reached some accommodation with after years of usually joyful, though sometimes agonizing, struggle.

Anyway, I like this piece a lot.  Hope you do too.  If you want to play it, let me know, and I’ll send you the parts.  And, if you need a pianist, I’m available!

P.S. I should mention that the page turner for this session was my dear friend, the brilliant, inimitable and uncategorizable violinist Todd Reynolds.  I don’t know exactly how I talked him into serving in this capacity, but this may have been the most dramatic instance of a skills/demand mismatch in the history of employment.



Our Democratic Process

Our Democratic Process

The United States of America
Is passionately committed
To democracy and the democratic process.

That is why

U.S. State Department and Intelligence officials
Manipulated Russian elections
To engineer the victory
Of its hand-picked candidate

Boris Yeltsin,

A result which the then President of the United States
William Jefferson Clinton
Bragged about having achieved.

The United States also deplores
Those who do not share
Our committment to democracy
And the democratic process.

That is why

The Federal Bureau of Investigation
Recently issued indictments
Of 13 Russian nationals
Who are believed to be implicated

In a plot to influence our elections.

Michael Brooks on the Dum-Dum Left

A while back, a friend suggested that I subscribe to the podcasts of Michael Brooks as one of the few on the left who combine a clear recognition of the wilderness we are now inhabiting with and understanding of the path that we must take to escape it.

He was right in his evaluation and I’m glad for the heads up to subscribe to Brook’s feed, which I did, albeit with some misgivings at the Patreon model Brooks and others are using to finance their media presence.

The particular reason for my friend’s referral was based on Brooks’ having referenced a “dum-dum left.” This, as my friend noticed, overlaps more or less exactly with what I have been categorizing here and elsewhere as the “idiot left.”

That we have both hit on two slightly different terms for the same thing is apparent at around 9’30″ in this recent segment where Brooks calmly and systematically defines what the dum dum left is and why it is deeply harmful to the left’s prospects:

There is, unfortunately still, a dum-dum left who confuse moral posturing with revolutionary fervor. Who confused ahistorical throwing anything at the wall and endless whining about the Democrats for a real radical stance towards politics and who confuse a couple of irrelevant protest votes for a marginal candidate for a serious committment to revitalizing power-to actually seizing power in this country. And I get why that’s emotionally appealing to people because we live in absolutely disgusting times and the governing class of this country and the globe is disgusting. It’s abusive, it’s cruel, it’s abusive, it’s stupid, it’s arrogant, it’s insular and they need to be mocked, ridiculed, debunked, and they need to be taken out, to keep it simple.

But not too simple.
We need to keep it as simple as it can be, but not simpler than that.”
Brooks then proceeds to examine a notable expression of “youtube dum-dumism,” an attack on Brooks defense of strategic voting issued by notable left dum-dum, comedian Jimmy Dore who asks incredulously “You should have voted for Hillary because of DACA? 
Dore continues:
How dumb can you be? Still defending voting for Hillary even though it was Hillary who propped up Donald Trump. She completely rigged the primary to make sure the only person who could have lost to Donald Trump lost the primary. And you still want us to vote for the person who cheated us out of Bernie. We got Donald Trump because Democrats got in power and fucked everyone over, you dummie. And if we didn’t get Trump this time, we were going to get a worse Trump next time. Because your inability to think past one election cycle is why you’re a dummie and no one listens to you.
Well, you could have voted for a third party and made a difference. But you voted like a stupid corporate neoliberal, you did the lesser of two evils.
As Brooks points out, among the “dummies” and “corporate neoliberals” Dore has in mind was Noam Chomsky who, as everyone should know, urged a vote for Clinton on the most elementary moral grounds: one should work to elect a lesser evil candidate because the lesser evil candidate will be . . . . less evil. Brooks cites a BBC interview with Chomsky stating what, after a year’s experience with “the most dangerous organization in human history” in unchallenged power, has by now become obvious to anyone who is not, well, an idiot.


As is generally the case, Dore’s addled conclusions are a reflection of shoddy reasoning or really none at all. The most obvious is, that as Brooks observes, Dore immediately runs away from the argument which provides the impetus for his rant. He correctly observes that those who support strategic voting point to the millions who will be deported by Trump as indicative of how quasi-fascism differs from Clintonite neoliberalism and will have tragic consequences for those millions. But after recognizing that that’s what Brooks and others say, Dore completely ignores it, obsessively returning to the only subject which he is able to focus on: hatred for Clinton and unnamed Democrats without even recognizing that by running away from it, he has effectively conceded Brook’s argument.

It would be interesting to know how Dore’s thousands of fans respond to this. Do they recognize his obvious failure to address the issue and recognize that, when they themselves confront those who aren’t already inclined to agree with them, that they will have to do better if they are to succeed in convincing them. Or do they simply assume that the absence of facts and logic don’t matter given the righteousness of their cause?

My strong suspicion that it is the latter is based on routinely receiving on my social media feed forwarded clips like that above. These are generally accompanied by comments along the lines of “Watch Jimmy Dore destroy corporate whore Noam Chomsky and other lesser-evil scum” entirely oblivious that Dore does nothing the kind but only hurls insults.

Of course, the inability to apply elementary logic, accept as fact what is self-evidentaly true and distinguish between good and bad arguments is not limited to Jimmy Dore fans. That elite high brow Marxists are as prone to idiocy as trailer park inhabitants of the left was apparent in a recent attack on right wing media phenom Jordan Peterson appearing in Jacobin. Its embarrassing lack of substance was noted by Peterson himself, who dispensed with it in a few words on twitter-to roars of approval. These derived, unfortunately, not just from tens of thousands of his followers. Also doing so were those who have not yet been won over to Peterson’s camp but simply value clear thinking, basic attention to factual accuracy and minimal standards of argumentation. It is that constituency which the left has been losing for generations now.

The presence and active promotion of idiot left elements will insure that it will keep doing so.

The New Normal: Homelessness and Who We Are

Often, I find myself trying to convey to my students and others in their age group that the way things are are not what they have always been.

The most glaring and disturbing example of that is homelessness. I try to explain to them that legions of desperate, disheveled, lost, sometimes crazy individuals begging for food in major cities are not an inevitable fact of nature-like thunderstorms or the changes of the season. During my childhood and teens, they simply didn’t exist. Yes, there were a few of what were then called “bums”, “drunks” or (in Paris) “clochards”, but the apocalyptic scenes which we are assaulted with in the Tenderloin in San Francisco, downtown Los Angeles and New York City were unimaginable to us then. While they generally don’t argue with me, I often detect a certain eye-rolling disbelief in that they can imagine that what I’m saying is true.

That I’m not making it up is attested to in the Google n-gram registering the number of appearances of the word “homeless” in all sources. Just as I would have predicted, it begins to explode in the year 1980. Of course, this just means people were talking about homelessness more-not necessarily that it was more common. For that there is other statistical evidence. But as far as I’m concerned, this tells us everything we need to know.

Or nearly everything. Also revealing is extending the n-gram window rightwards past the default setting 2000 up to 2008. The number of mentions drops.

This does not mean, of course, that homeless is any less prevalent but that we stopped talking about it. That is, it became normalized as a fact of life. In other words,  we reconciled ourselves to the “new reality.” And, I would suggest, that in doing so we became still  human.

But that it was not always this way also tells us everything we need to know: it does not have to be.

We can and we will someday return to something like decency.

I genuinely believe this.


How the Right Goes Viral: Jonathan Cook on Jordan Peterson

A useful piece by the always excellent Jonathan Cook shows how the alt-right icon Jordon Peterson was able to make mincemeat of a typically clueless British channel 4 interviewer in much the same way that Glenn Greenwald does: by exposing the bankruptcy of the premises of corporate media which all on air personalities reflexively accept. Channel 4’s response to their humiliation was to retrospectively “no platform” Peterson by disappearing the clip from their site.

Interestingly, this mirrors the approach which much of the Marxist/authoritarian left here is pursuing with Peterson: those giving him a platform are shunned and marginalized, an apparent social media fatwa having been declared on those engaging with him. The reason is likely the same as that of Channel 4. Those who would have to confront him lack the intellectual capacity to address his arguments and they know it. Doing so does not require that much beyond the ability to deploy basic logic and a minimal knowledge of the facts: as Cook notes, Chomsky would easily dispense with Peterson’s more outrageous claims but so would many other lesser profile leftists (e.g. Norman Finkelstein and Nathan Robinson).

But as Angela Nagel points out, much of the left, while congratulating itself on its command of Hegelian dialectic and cult stud “theory”, is incapable of holding its own when its core assumptions are interrogated. And so they flee from the challenge, insuring that Peterson’s frat house Nietzscheanism will continue to gain an increasingly solid footing in popular culture.

Marketing the Idiot Left Brand

Everyone would prefer to have more people rather than fewer pay attention to what they say. So by the same token, those of us who have not achieved large internet followings will find themselves asking of those who have: how do they do it? What’s the trick?

Having been barraged by thousands of viral postings over the past years, we all know that there is no trick: one sure way of getting people to pay attention to you on the internet is the same way you do it in a public place: you pull down your pants and shriek-or produce the electronic text equivalent of the same.

Left politics is no exception: you don’t attract attention by calmly evaluating strategies through which left candidates compete in and win Democratic primaries or run as third party candidates where they have potential to win while making sure that far right Republicans are ejected from power as soon as possible.

What will get attention is to scream “burn it down”, the “it” here being the Democratic Party, and to advocate active “sabotage” of its candidates, particularly in the presidential election, even when this will result in, as it did in 2016, four years of a living nightmare.

The arsonists associated with this tendency, Paul Street, Jeffrey St. Clair among others appearing at Counterpunch, advocated for just that and continue to do so now, though it’s worth noting that it’s not just establishment Democrats who they reject: Bernie Sanders failed to meet with their approval despite the fact that virtually every establishment institution hated and feared him-and did everything in their power to take him down.

Given that Sanders didn’t make it over the anti-establishment bar, their logic dictates that neither would other radicals who actually succeeded in getting elected to office as Democrats. For example, Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner who is carrying forward a wholesale purge of the vicious prosecutors who have fueled the mass incarceration epidemic in one major city.

Or Chelsea Manning, now a newly declared Democratic candidate for senate from the state of Maryland would also deserve rejection as would Chokwe Lumumba, the newly elected Democratic mayor, now following through on his pledge to make Jackson, Mississippi “the most radical city on the planet.”

And they would also sabotage Democrats-anti-establishment, and in most cases otherwise-whose victories will be required to begin to remove from power the “most dangerous organization in human history”.


At this point, the nihilistic absurdity of their non-strategy becomes so obvious that it hardly merits comment.

But the question remains. What accounts for the thousands of clicks and hundreds of “likes” of their postings?

To understand why requires recognizing that they don’t go viral in spite of their being idiotic. Rather they go viral *because* they are idiotic.

And that’s because most of those reading idiot left content are not actively searching for ways in which they can effectively participate in politics using it to address the almost inconceivable suffering those in power are inflicting on those who don’t have it.

Rather, those waving a crufix at any consituency developing behind left wing Democratic like Sanders, Lumumba, Manning and Krasner have no interest in doing that. Ultimately, they look to politics as repository for their fantasies where they can inflict random violence, burn, rape and pillage without consequence.

Of course, it’s fun to engage in video game fantasies, as any parent of a 12 year old knows.

But doing so has nothing to do with advancing politics which has any chance of helping those who desperately need it.

If recognizing that means my posts don’t rack up thousands of likes, it’s a small price to pay.

Note: Thanks to FAIR’s Steve Rendall for noting mistakes on a draft version of this piece.

Election 2020: Caitlin Johnstone and Left Pyromania

In a widely reposted piece, Caitlin Johnstone informs us of her

“promise to unequivocally and unconditionally do every single thing in (her) power to sabotage the candidacy of whatever pro-establishment presidential candidate the Democratic party tries to run . . . in 2020.”

Having advocated the same electoral strategy in 2016, Johnstone’s position is consistent.

But unlike others assuming it, she makes no effort to deny the atrocities of the anti-establishment administration she helped elect, climate change deniers in charge of the EPA, the emboldening of far-right hate groups, tax cut to billionaires and corporations, 13 million forced off of health insurance, federal waters opened to oil exploration, the impending deportations of 250,000 El Salvardoran immigrants, etc.

Rather she simply declares that she does “not care what Donald Trump (will have) done by” 2020, the suffering of millions of much less concern to her than the prospect of having “plenty of fun” in “find(ing) every scrap of dirt (she) can find” to “ruin” establishment candidates.

Aside from its unusual honesty, it is also revealing that a piece on anti-establishment candidates includes not a single mention of the candidate the establishment itself went into overdrive to defeat in 2016, namely, Bernie Sanders.

In this connection, it’s worth recalling that back then, while she was not one of them (edited 1/15) , many of Johnson’s follow arsonists were doing the establishment’s work for it-ridiculing Sanders as a “sheepdog”, gleefully passing on David Brock manufactured smears of his supporters as racist and misogynist Berniebros.

No doubt they will pick up from where they left off in 2020 mocking those such as Nina Turner, Rose Ann Demoro and Nomiki Konst working to build up the organizational capacity required to seriously oppose to the establishment.

Johnstone, whose twitter followership, she breathlessly informs us, “increased by 1000% over the last year,” clearly speaks for some in her enthusiasm for left pyromania.

Her doing so is a reminder that the left has often been a refuge for loons and cranks.

But their parading under our banner doesn’t mean that we need to hold our tongue.

When they attempt to spread their infection, basic intellectual hygeine and political common sense requires that it be forcefully repudiated.

The News of the Day: Does it Matter?

Of today’s two big news stories, one of them, excerpts from Michael Wolff’s new book will be obsessively consumed as political junk food always is.

But it won’t tell us anything we didn’t know before.

We already knew Donald Trump is the worst person in the world.

If it tells us anything at all, it is something slightly different. That is that even those we already knew to be the worst people in the world can be even worse than we thought they were.

But this says more about us than it does about Trump.

In particular, what is shows is that we lack imagination.

This was painfully apparent during the election.

Again and again, those urging voting in swing states to make sure Clinton was elected were met with the completely obvious rejoinder that she was a terrible candidate-a lying, neoliberal warmonger in Adolph Reed’s words. It was also entirely irrelevant since anyone with minimal contact with the planet earth also knew that Trump was-and would be-worse, possibly even much worse as he has turned out to be.

But again and again, this simple logical fact-i.e. that X is terrible does not imply that Y can’t be worse-was dismissed or never even registered on the consciousness of more than a few leftists. Hence they, which is to say we, became a small but not insignificant part of the reason why we are currently living a nightmare.


The second news story is getting much less attention but is self-evidently far more serious and significant. This involves James Risen’s disclosures that New York Times editors Phil Taubman and and Bill Keller actively colluded with the Bush administration to spike Risen’s reporting on NSA spying in 2004, a decade before it was revealed by Edward Snowden.

Risen also details how the Obama administration, in the face of hopes that it would roll back some of the worst aspects of the police state imposed by the Bush administration worked to advance them and cement them in place.

One example was Risen’s own prosecution by the Bush administration justice department for refusing to reveal his sources. This was, as Risen reports, intentionally delayed by the presiding judge Leonie Brinkema based on the expectation that it would be dropped under a Democratic administration. As we now know, Eric Holder moved forward threatening Risen with many years of imprisonment only dropping the case in Obama’s final months when it was clear it was not sustainable.

But as important as all this is, it is also, like Wolff’s book, mostly irrelevant to what needs to be our major if not exclusive goal from now until November 2018 and then November 2020: to remove from all positions of institutional power the Republican Party, “the most dangerous organization in human history” as Chomsky referred to it.

The Wolff bombshells, if they are believed, (regardless of whether they are true), only matter in that they are likely to further drag down the Republicans’ prospects. But this will only increase the pressure for Republicans to accede to an impeachment resulting in a President Pence with a return to “normal” Republican rule-no less dangerous than Trump, but only less flamboyant, and more competitive. If this is to materialize, there is nothing to celebrate about Wolff’s book-as dadaistically amusing as some might find it.

The Risen story raises a different category of problems in that it shows how, when it comes to matters of national security and the military budgets which are required to support an increasingly aggressive international posture, how little difference there has been between the Republicans and Clinton/Obama neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. It is unlikely that their anointed candidate will depart from this suicidal path.

This is one of many indications that if it is to have any chance of reversing its string of losses, the DP will need to fundamentally change course in the direction which the Sanders wing is pointing. While far from ideal, Sanders has a long record of opposing the worst excesses of militarism having during the campaign, for example, denounced Henry Kissinger and Benjamin Netanyahu, brought up the U.S. support for dictators such as Pinochet while running on his opposition the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

While Sanders’s foreign policy shortcomings are significant, everything that does not involve fighting for the course change his wing of the party are trying to effect against neoliberal elites dead set on maintaining it is a distraction.

We should consume, and for that matter make, our news with that in mind.

A (Dissenting) Left Top Ten

Ten pieces from the last year expressing left views much of the official left evidently doesn’t want to hear. Or, to use their words (albeit usually behind my back), these are the views of a “crank.”

Whether that’s so I’ll leave that for you to judge.

Thanks to all who have read this blog and for the occasional encouragement which I have received over the year.

1) The left is correct in comparing where we find ourselves to the Weimar Republic, but they apply the wrong analogy: The tragedy of a greater evil far right victory, here now and in Germany then, resulted from their and our failure to make use of the ballot box to head it off.

2) Of what is now easily over 100 men taken down by #metoo activism, only one or two are Bernie Sanders supporters.  The great majority were in the Clinton camp.  This is not a coincidence.

3) Contrary to Naomi Klein and Opal Tometi’s assertion,  advocacy for reparations (as Adolph Reed insists), is entirely consonant with the objectives of neoliberalism and hostile to those of the left.

4)  Clinton’s nomination, while correctly described as “rigged”, was not a foregone conclusion. Unions could have pushed Sanders over the top.  They chose not to.

5) Despite its defining itself vis a vis its contempt for them, the radical left mirrors Clintonite neoliberal technocrats in their shared hatred and fear of working class whites.  This is not their only similarity.

6) The Vietnam War was not  “begun in good faith, by decent people” as Ken Burns claims now, nor were they engaged in “blundering efforts to do good” as Anthony Lewis suggested then.

7) Denouncing and/or ridiculing others for their taste in music is neoliberalism applied to the aesthetic realm.

8) Some left celebrities owe their celebrity status to their being fools and opportunists, and then make the left look ridiculous by their antics. This is a problem we need to address.

9) The major difference between Clinton 1992 and 2016 inheres in the group designated as “deplorables.”  Then it was “super-predators”.  in 2016 it was working class whites from the flyover states.

10) The number 187 should be kept in mind by MSNBC talking heads uncritically passing on repeatedly debunked stories of Russian hacking.

Reparations, Solidarity and The Shock Troops of Neoliberalism: Adolph Reed Answers Klein and Tometi

Image result for Adolph Reed

In an Intercept piece attempting to moderate the recent dispute between Ta-Nehisi Coates and Cornel West, Naomi Klein and Opal Tometi make two significant errors, both of which raise questions about their understanding of the nature of the disagreement between these two “brilliant men of the left”, as they refer to them.

The first resides in their claim that West “accuses (Coates) of silence on some subjects where he has, in fact, been vocal (like the financial sector’s role in entrenching Black poverty).” In fact, West’s criticism has to do not with the “financial sector’s” role in the immiseration of Black people but with Obama’s role. Specifically, Obama was not coerced, but chose to enrich the financial sector effectively rewarding them for their years of marketing fraudulent mortgages, disproportionately to African Americans. The result was not only a massive transfer of wealth to the top, but, more tragically, the largest decline in African American wealth in U.S.  history. If this is what “eight years in power” represents to Coates, is hard to see on what basis the adjectives “brilliant” or “left” are applied.

The second has to do with Klein and Tometi’s characterization of Coates as “The man who has done more to revive the debate about Black reparations than any writer of his generation.” Based on his role, Klein and Tometi conclude that Coates “cannot blithely be written off as a neoliberal tool. ”

In fact, there is considerable basis for categorizing Coates’s views as neoliberal. That we are not familiar with it has to do with it having been provided by an African American intellectual whose views are routinely and systematically excluded when these topics arise, namely, Adolph Reed. For years, Reed has been arguing that the advocacy of reparations is entirely consistent with neoliberalism-Coates’s restatement of it different only in the same contents being delivered in new, arguably more authentic, packaging.

The basic logic, as Reed construed it in his column in The Progressive in 2002, proceeds from the recognition that “the reparations idea spreads. when common circumstances of economic and social insecurity have strengthened the potential for building broad solidarity across race, gender and other identities around shared concerns of daily life . . . like access to quality health care, the right to a decent and dignified livelihood, affordable housing, quality education for all.”

It is precisely these universalist remedies which are at the core of the left agenda. And, predictably when these are ascendent,  Reed continues, “the corporate-dominated opinion-shaping media discover and project a demand for racially defined reparations that cuts precisely against building such solidarity.”

Finally, Reed noted as a point of “interest” that “Randall Robinson, mainstream poster boy for reparations advocacy, is a member of the Rockefeller family’s Council on Foreign Relations.”

All that is required to update the passages to 2017 is to alter the affiliations: “Isn’t it interesting that Coates’s has been provided a blogging platform by the leading organ of neoliberalism, The Atlantic. his books published, and receiving the editorial and marketing resources of mainstream publishing houses, invariably receiving glowing reviews in the pages of the agenda setting media.”

While Reed would not apply the banal phrase “neoliberal tool” to describe Coates, when pressed to deliver one, his unsurprisingly harsh assessment includes Coates as among “the black shock troops for neoliberalism.”

As other have noted, the problem isn’t so much Coates, but rather the failure of the left to recognize, yet again, how what Nancy Fraser refers to as “progressive neoliberalism” routinely deploys multiculturalism as a delivery vehicle for injecting its reactionary program. Rather than accepting it as unchallengeable conventional wisdom, the left which should be resisting it at every turn.

It’s particularly disappointing to find Klein and Tometi, normally capable of requisite skepticism, taken in by the savvy marketing and wide circulation of Coates’s goods.

They should be the first to call it out for what it is.