“Abolitionism is sometimes tacitly framed as merely a form of rhetorical persuasion -- a radical-sounding slogan that pushes against the limits of the possible and reformats expectation for the pace and scale of change -- that then acts as a gateway to less dramatic and more defensible constructions of both the problem and its cure.
. . . .
“The movement toggles between these two rhetorical framings -- often the same person will do so in the course of a single exchange. The conceptual instability that some might see as a bug is exploited by others as a feature.”
It may be useful for readers to recognize the generic form of the type of rhetorical maneuver Wesley describes, a deceitful tack known as a “motte and bailey” argument (also known as the “motte-and-bailey” fallacy or doctrine). It’s named for a design aspect of feudal castles, in which the “motte” was a well-supplied stone tower constructed on a site surrounded by steep escarpments; the “bailey” was a broad area of land around the motte, containing a range of structures for daily living, which was protected by less formidable barriers, such as a ditch or pickets. The preferred area of defense was the open, expansive bailey rather than the confining motte. But, if attackers overcame the bailey’s barriers, the defenders could retreat to the motte, which was virtually impregnable.
As a rhetorical device, if a “bailey” contention such as “chiropractic can cure cancer” meets strong objection, the proponent will retreat to the “motte”—an anodyne argument such as “I’m only saying that there are alternative forms of health care—my opponent is misrepresenting my position.”
As was seen, when even the NYT, MSNBC, etc., largely recoiled from the BLM Abolitionists’ bailey—their call to “defund the police—the Abolitionists retreated to their motte—the “clarification” that they were merely suggesting greater use of what Wesley has called “therapeutic intervention” by social workers, health care workers, mediators, and the like. As Wesley said, the Abolitionist will “toggle between these two rhetorical framings,” to conceal the radical goals of the bailey behind the anodyne assertions of the motte.
The utter inanity of the "new abolitionists" rivals that of the tea party. When a "movement" cloaks itself in the army jackets of its predecessors, its a good sign the movement lacks cohesion and easily identifiable purpose. The whole thing comes crumbling down with one question: what do we do with a citizen who commits an act of violence?
I'm experiencing the same frustration I've felt consuming high quality serialized television drama during the season in which it airs: I want to binge read this immediately, but you're going to make me wait.
I suppose with no hint given we'll have to think for ourselves. My sense is that the "[other] conceptual element" is the introduction of a radical reformulation or redefinition of personhood. The "other" will always be with us, but the particular contours of the border between whomever we consider to be "people like ourselves" and "everyone else" forms one axis of all radical shifts in a society's organizing ideology. Radical in this sense would include expansive shifts, as in the case of the Civil Rights and women's rights movements or the original Abolition movement. But it would also characterize ideologically contractive or reactionary transformations like the rise of National Socialism in Germany in the 30's or maybe the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Reform by definition does not require these sorts of radical transformations. Rather it quite explicitly disavows them, insisting at some level on the moral legitimacy of the inherited order. Reform might be said to contain whatever change can occur, even severe and drastic change, which does not require a renegotiation of that which defines who a person is.
The Successor Ideology does not shy from this challenge. I look forward to seeing what Wesley proposes.
Fantastic, I’m fat, so by the logic of abolitionist/intersectionality quackery I’m a victim of doctors saying obesity is fatal.
How dare they state an objective fact, proven in science, this is a most horrible transgression against my lived experience - I need to find my safe space (preferably with copious salty snacks).
This is being taught to your children, they are marinated in this dreck. Stupid. Can you imagine what previous generations would say, people who faced existential threats: war , hunger, oppression.
"The slogan "Black Lives Matter" is a form of persuasion that seeks to be as anodyne in its tone and minimal in its assertion as possible, (indeed, almost self-parodically so) and therefore impossible to dispute. Its exponents then pack in as much sectarian content, much of it disputed, and much of it distant from the issue of police brutality that the slogan ostensibly addressed, as possible into that otherwise unimpeachable assertion."
Motte and Bailey, the rhetorical weapon of choice for our times.
Abolition was a movement my ancestors were invoved in to free the slaves. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments completed the movement's major objectives. The KKK, Jim Crow 1.0, Poll Taxes, literacy tests, separate but equal and, as Gov. George Wallace famously said, "segregation forever," were Democrats' attempts to undo, at least partially, the successes of Republicans' abolition.
What this article is talking about is an Alice in Wonderland redefinition of the word "abolition" to mean anarchy. Socialists redefine words like "abolition" to mean demolishing law and order, ie anarchy, because nobody would support anarchy labeled as such. Labeled as "abolition," and defined obscurely in complicated academic terms, it may sound defensible. It ain't really, because who suffers most when law and order breaks down, majorities or minorities?
Just like Critical Racist Theory, which judges people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character, redefined "abolition" is a socialist tool to cause racial devision and violence.
Wesley: this paragraph was excellent, but something is missing from this sentence that appears to have been excised mistakenly during editing:
"Its exponents then pack in as much sectarian content, much of it disputed, and much of it distant from the issue of police brutality that the slogan ostensibly addressed, [SOMETHING MISSING] as possible into that otherwise unimpeachable assertion."
An excellent article. I've always been enthusiastic about the idea behind this project, but frankly I thought the first few posts were analytically weak. But with this one you've hit your stride, and are doing what you set out to do: analyzing how an ideology gets constructed.
This substack is the perfect compliment to James Lindsay's theoretical analysis, taking an in depth and objective look at what this ideology is doing rather than the theory it is based on.
"We will to some degree undertake policy experiments in the coming decade that will put that faith to the test. We will find out if "reimagining safety" in practice means tent cities, squalor in the streets, spiking crime, and another cycle of political reaction, or if the caring professions have indeed evolved to the point where they can have transformative effects on societal macro-phenomena at an unprecedented new scale."
I think the answer to this is obvious. These experiments are sure to be taken at state and municipal level in blue states. This means they will be done by new or existing government offices, using government employees who are members of government unions. Such programs are established, or quickly converted, to serve only the interests of the employees.
This article fails to examine the source of so called abolitionism, which was late 18th century leftist mystical utopianism that came out of the French Revolution and took root in The Second Great Awakening and the pseudoreligious adoration of the terrorist John Brown.
1. The "successor ideology" is merely the new shape society may be taking now that neoliberalism is dead. You do touch nicely on some of the subtler points of this still-emerging discourse.
2. The problem with the police is simply that we still rely on them, when our own global economy beckons us toward a life without them. By virtue of the emancipatory potential of our own labor, we no longer need the police. Yet they persist--therein lies the problem.
“Abolitionism is sometimes tacitly framed as merely a form of rhetorical persuasion -- a radical-sounding slogan that pushes against the limits of the possible and reformats expectation for the pace and scale of change -- that then acts as a gateway to less dramatic and more defensible constructions of both the problem and its cure.
. . . .
“The movement toggles between these two rhetorical framings -- often the same person will do so in the course of a single exchange. The conceptual instability that some might see as a bug is exploited by others as a feature.”
It may be useful for readers to recognize the generic form of the type of rhetorical maneuver Wesley describes, a deceitful tack known as a “motte and bailey” argument (also known as the “motte-and-bailey” fallacy or doctrine). It’s named for a design aspect of feudal castles, in which the “motte” was a well-supplied stone tower constructed on a site surrounded by steep escarpments; the “bailey” was a broad area of land around the motte, containing a range of structures for daily living, which was protected by less formidable barriers, such as a ditch or pickets. The preferred area of defense was the open, expansive bailey rather than the confining motte. But, if attackers overcame the bailey’s barriers, the defenders could retreat to the motte, which was virtually impregnable.
As a rhetorical device, if a “bailey” contention such as “chiropractic can cure cancer” meets strong objection, the proponent will retreat to the “motte”—an anodyne argument such as “I’m only saying that there are alternative forms of health care—my opponent is misrepresenting my position.”
As was seen, when even the NYT, MSNBC, etc., largely recoiled from the BLM Abolitionists’ bailey—their call to “defund the police—the Abolitionists retreated to their motte—the “clarification” that they were merely suggesting greater use of what Wesley has called “therapeutic intervention” by social workers, health care workers, mediators, and the like. As Wesley said, the Abolitionist will “toggle between these two rhetorical framings,” to conceal the radical goals of the bailey behind the anodyne assertions of the motte.
The utter inanity of the "new abolitionists" rivals that of the tea party. When a "movement" cloaks itself in the army jackets of its predecessors, its a good sign the movement lacks cohesion and easily identifiable purpose. The whole thing comes crumbling down with one question: what do we do with a citizen who commits an act of violence?
I'm experiencing the same frustration I've felt consuming high quality serialized television drama during the season in which it airs: I want to binge read this immediately, but you're going to make me wait.
I suppose with no hint given we'll have to think for ourselves. My sense is that the "[other] conceptual element" is the introduction of a radical reformulation or redefinition of personhood. The "other" will always be with us, but the particular contours of the border between whomever we consider to be "people like ourselves" and "everyone else" forms one axis of all radical shifts in a society's organizing ideology. Radical in this sense would include expansive shifts, as in the case of the Civil Rights and women's rights movements or the original Abolition movement. But it would also characterize ideologically contractive or reactionary transformations like the rise of National Socialism in Germany in the 30's or maybe the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Reform by definition does not require these sorts of radical transformations. Rather it quite explicitly disavows them, insisting at some level on the moral legitimacy of the inherited order. Reform might be said to contain whatever change can occur, even severe and drastic change, which does not require a renegotiation of that which defines who a person is.
The Successor Ideology does not shy from this challenge. I look forward to seeing what Wesley proposes.
Fantastic, I’m fat, so by the logic of abolitionist/intersectionality quackery I’m a victim of doctors saying obesity is fatal.
How dare they state an objective fact, proven in science, this is a most horrible transgression against my lived experience - I need to find my safe space (preferably with copious salty snacks).
This is being taught to your children, they are marinated in this dreck. Stupid. Can you imagine what previous generations would say, people who faced existential threats: war , hunger, oppression.
"The slogan "Black Lives Matter" is a form of persuasion that seeks to be as anodyne in its tone and minimal in its assertion as possible, (indeed, almost self-parodically so) and therefore impossible to dispute. Its exponents then pack in as much sectarian content, much of it disputed, and much of it distant from the issue of police brutality that the slogan ostensibly addressed, as possible into that otherwise unimpeachable assertion."
Motte and Bailey, the rhetorical weapon of choice for our times.
Aren't San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle already test cases into the effects of the new abolitionism?
Abolition was a movement my ancestors were invoved in to free the slaves. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments completed the movement's major objectives. The KKK, Jim Crow 1.0, Poll Taxes, literacy tests, separate but equal and, as Gov. George Wallace famously said, "segregation forever," were Democrats' attempts to undo, at least partially, the successes of Republicans' abolition.
What this article is talking about is an Alice in Wonderland redefinition of the word "abolition" to mean anarchy. Socialists redefine words like "abolition" to mean demolishing law and order, ie anarchy, because nobody would support anarchy labeled as such. Labeled as "abolition," and defined obscurely in complicated academic terms, it may sound defensible. It ain't really, because who suffers most when law and order breaks down, majorities or minorities?
Just like Critical Racist Theory, which judges people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character, redefined "abolition" is a socialist tool to cause racial devision and violence.
Lots of religious language here: prophets, moral clarity, a clear division between good and evil, the promised land.
Michael Crichton would approve of the cliff hanger ending. Very much looking forward to the next post.
Wesley: this paragraph was excellent, but something is missing from this sentence that appears to have been excised mistakenly during editing:
"Its exponents then pack in as much sectarian content, much of it disputed, and much of it distant from the issue of police brutality that the slogan ostensibly addressed, [SOMETHING MISSING] as possible into that otherwise unimpeachable assertion."
Please fix that.
Brilliant post. Will go find that Andrew Delbanco essay
An excellent article. I've always been enthusiastic about the idea behind this project, but frankly I thought the first few posts were analytically weak. But with this one you've hit your stride, and are doing what you set out to do: analyzing how an ideology gets constructed.
This substack is the perfect compliment to James Lindsay's theoretical analysis, taking an in depth and objective look at what this ideology is doing rather than the theory it is based on.
"We will to some degree undertake policy experiments in the coming decade that will put that faith to the test. We will find out if "reimagining safety" in practice means tent cities, squalor in the streets, spiking crime, and another cycle of political reaction, or if the caring professions have indeed evolved to the point where they can have transformative effects on societal macro-phenomena at an unprecedented new scale."
I think the answer to this is obvious. These experiments are sure to be taken at state and municipal level in blue states. This means they will be done by new or existing government offices, using government employees who are members of government unions. Such programs are established, or quickly converted, to serve only the interests of the employees.
This article fails to examine the source of so called abolitionism, which was late 18th century leftist mystical utopianism that came out of the French Revolution and took root in The Second Great Awakening and the pseudoreligious adoration of the terrorist John Brown.
Once again, great! if lacking...
1. The "successor ideology" is merely the new shape society may be taking now that neoliberalism is dead. You do touch nicely on some of the subtler points of this still-emerging discourse.
2. The problem with the police is simply that we still rely on them, when our own global economy beckons us toward a life without them. By virtue of the emancipatory potential of our own labor, we no longer need the police. Yet they persist--therein lies the problem.
For another spin on this issue: https://beforethedawn.substack.com/p/police-brutality-and-the-task-of