FOR THE \u201cLEFT\u201d that is critical of him, the most common comparison made of Obama is to Bill Clinton.<\/p>\n
This critique of Obama, as of Clinton, denounces his \u201cCentrism,\u201d the trajectory he appears to continue from the \u201cnew\u201d Democratic Party of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) expressed by Clinton and Gore\u2019s election in 1992. Clinton\u2019s election was seen as part of the triumph of \u201cThird Way\u201d politics that contemporaneously found expression in Tony Blair\u2019s \u201cNew Labour\u201d Party in Britain.<\/p>\n
The idea of such \u201cThird Way\u201d politics is that, compared to the prior political polarizations that developed around the Reagan and Thatcher neoliberal assault on the Keynesian-Fordist state and the resistance against this trend by traditional \u201csocial-democratic\u201d politics, the \u201cradical Center\u201d expressed the possibility of a deeper and more effective political transformation. \u2014 What if the \u201cThird Way\u201d politicians were correct?<\/p>\n
While the \u201cLeft\u201d attacks Obama for being too Centrist or Right-wing, a neoliberal in blackface, the Right attacks Obama for being a closet \u201csocialist\u201d (or \u201cMarxist\u201d!). But both attacks neglect the fundamental transformation of politics that has taken place over the course of the past generation, since the \u201cReagan Revolution\u201d: the Right cynically because they wish to demagogically drive their conservative-reactionary politics ever further; and the \u201cLeft\u201d more despairingly because they have never made proper sense of the crisis of the Keynesian-Fordist state, and so have thought that the neoliberal Right\u2019s efforts can be simply reversed with a \u201cprogressive\u201d outcome \u2014 that Keynesian Fordism had been progressive and not regressive in terms of social emancipation.<\/p>\n
Behind this lies a deeper confusion that informed the problematic politics of the 1960s \u201cNew\u201d Left, and behind that, the reformism of the Left of the 1930s. The \u201cOld\u201d Left had jumped on the bandwagon of FDR\u2019s New Deal reforms \u2014 and the remaking of Europe and Japan as well as the postcolonial \u201cdeveloping\u201d states in a Keynesian-Fordist \u201csocial-democratic\u201d image after WWII. The \u201cNew\u201d Left responded to this conservatization ambivalently, however, attacking the authoritarian liberalism of JFK and LBJ in the 1960s, but then attempting to stave off its collapse in the 1970s-80s. In this the post-\u201960s \u201cLeft\u201d has been as mistaken in its defense as it had been previously in its attack.<\/p>\n
The \u201csocial democratic\u201d politics of the mid-20th century involved tying the workers\u2019 movement to state policies, depoliticizing labor struggles and eviscerating the remnants of the socialist movement of the early 20th century. The collapse of such Keynesian-Fordist reformist politics began in the 1970s and has carried through the \u201980s and \u201990s to the present. The displacement of the reformism associated with the Democratic Party (and Labour in the U.K.) by a \u201cnew\u201d Right starting in the 1970s was facilitated by the demobilization of the working class as a social force with its roots in the 1930s, the period of the Stalinization of Marxism \u2014 the transformation of Marxism into a reformist<\/em> ideology.<\/p>\n The alliance of such \u201cMarxism\u201d with liberalism and social democracy in the Popular Front against fascism in Europe and with FDR\u2019s Democratic Party in the 1930s and during WWII, despite the Cold War against the USSR and its allies that followed, collectively remade the world in its image of politics. What was most important about the politics of the mid-20th century were not the struggles, however epic, it contained and expressed, but rather how such politics repressed<\/em> possibilities for social emancipation.<\/p>\n The challenge \u201cThird Way\u201d politics has offered to the terms of both the Old and New Left, emerging from the crisis of the Keynesian-Fordist state in the latter part of the 20th century, has not been met. The changes this politics has augured are askew of the mainstream conceptions of \u201cLeft\u201d and \u201cRight\u201d as they were established in the mid-20th century, after the collapse of the Left into a conservative phenomenon in and through the Popular Front of the 1930s, and the subsequent failure to renew emancipatory politics in the 1960s. Indeed, the \u201cLeft\u201d since the 1960s has been trapped in an essentially conservative pose, trying to hold back the tide of neoliberal changes. The problems inherent in this can be summarized by the divisions the \u201cLeft\u201d accepts between \u201cpersonal\u201d and \u201cgovernment\u201d responsibility, or between libertarian and authoritarian politics \u2014 the opposition of individual to collective freedom.<\/p>\n To take one prominent example, Adolph Reed, in a variety of writings and statements in other media prior to the election, has excoriated Obama for his rhetoric of \u201cpersonal responsibility\u201d regarding the problems facing black Americans. For Reed (as for Jeremiah Wright, and Jesse Jackson, Sr., who in off-air comments expressed a desire to \u201ccut his nuts off\u201d after Obama made a Fathers\u2019 Day commentary about black \u201cdead-beat dads\u201d), Obama\u2019s rhetoric of personal responsibility falls in with the neoliberal politics of disclaiming public (governmental) responsibility for social ills and \u201cprivatizes\u201d them instead.<\/p>\n Of course Reed is right to criticize such rhetoric by Obama. But the question remains whether today we ought to proceed as if the main enemy was the rhetoric of the 1965 Moynihan Report, \u201cThe Negro Family: the case for national action,\u201d which infamously identified a supposed \u201cculture of poverty\u201d pathology beyond the possibility of state amelioration, and sought to disenchant the 1960s Great Society expansions of the 1930s New Deal. While Reed and others in the 1960s rightly pointed to the essential affinity between the roots of neoconservatism of Moynihan et al. and the paternalism of liberal reformism, they failed to properly clarify the relation between the reformist politics of labor organizations and the state policies and agencies into which these groups were integrated (such as the National Labor Relations Board) in the mid-20th century.<\/p>\n The question is whether the terms of such political battles of the 1960s era are still pertinent \u2014 whether we ought to place our hopes in reversing policy changes that have occurred from Reagan through Bill Clinton to George W. Bush \u2014 or do we need instead to interrogate the terms of this (apparently) perennial struggle so as to be able to adopt an entirely different and potentially more effective framework for emancipatory politics. For the most significant change from the 1960s to the present has been the decimation of the \u2014 reformist, non-class struggle \u2014 workers movement.<\/p>\n An authentic Marxian Left would not oppose the politics of the governmental responsibility \u2014 of the capitalist state \u2014 to that of individual persons. A Marxian approach would neither devolve social responsibility onto individual persons nor would it invest collective responsibility in the form of the capitalist nation-state. Nor would it disclaim personal responsibility but would pose it very differently than liberals do \u2014 whether they be liberals of the moralizing \u201cconservative\u201d kind or of the supposedly more radical lifestyle-choice variety.<\/p>\n A Marxian approach would argue that the working class has, at the levels of both individual-personal and collective responsibility, to struggle for socialism<\/em> \u2014 and that Leftist intellectuals have a responsibility to help facilitate this struggle.<\/p>\n Rather than the illusions in Obama \u2014 either positive or negative \u2014 that associate him simply with the vicissitudes of movement along a spectrum of \u201cLeft\u201d and \u201cRight\u201d informed fundamentally by Keynesian-Fordist state policies or their undermining by neoliberalism, a response to the \u201cThird Way\u201d politics Obama represents needs to be formulated that recognizes a historical trajectory that is not reassimilable back into the social politics of the mid-20th century. For such politics had been settled by the time of Clinton\u2019s election in 1992, after the Reagan-Thatcher \u201crevolution\u201d and the destruction of the Soviet Union. There is a line of continuity between Clinton and Obama, but not one of betrayal of the Left but of historical changes for which the \u201cLeft\u201d has been ill-prepared.<\/p>\n The triumph of neoliberalism, as well as of \u201cThird Way\u201d politics of the \u201cradical Center\u201d at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st Centuries cannot be understood properly as a move to the Right that can be reversed by undoing it or by repolarizing politics according to an earlier mode of government policies. They must be seen as part of a deep-rooted historical trajectory that can only be defeated through a new politicization of the working class for socialism, a politics that has been neglected since the early 20th century.<\/p>\n We must learn the lessons of the 20th century not learned by those who came before us, and not accept the terms by which they rationalized their failures. Obama, as the latest sign of \u201cchange\u201d in this on-going trajectory, underscores this necessity.<\/p>\n Like the \u201cThird Way\u201d we should not accept the opposition of individual and collective social responsibility in conceiving our politics. Unlike the \u201cThird Way,\u201d we should not affirm the forms of state and civil society in which these different dimensions of social responsibility are mediated in today\u2019s late, \u201cpost-revolutionary\u201d capitalism. We should rise to the challenge of the necessary double-sided critique that can meet the conservative politics of the \u201cThird Way\u201d in terms of its \u2014 and our \u2014 own historical moment, and not in the obsolete and, even in their time, mistaken and ineffective terms of a moribund \u201cLeft.\u201d<\/p>\n Since his election, Obama has made it clear that he wishes to steer clear of outdated polarizations \u2014 as well he should, if he wants to be an effective politician. We should not treat this merely as \u201cpolitical\u201d equivocation or obfuscation, but rather as clearing the way to a potential better recognition of social<\/em> reality. For a long time now, the \u201cLeft\u201d has been adept at skirting the issues and accepting, however tacitly, the terms of social politics set by others. For it is as true that \u201cgovernment [of the capitalist nation-state] is not the answer\u201d as it is that neoliberal \u201cfree market\u201d reforms have been a farcical debacle \u2014 with tremendous costs to humanity. But the historical failure of the Left is what brought us to this impasse of the 20th century, the 21st century opportunity of the \u201cThird Way\u201d and its politics of the \u201cradical Center.\u201d The vacuum of historical politics has been filled, and we need to address this present effective space for politics and not remain self-marginalized, in disdain of it.<\/p>\n We cannot continue the preceding \u201cLeft\u2019s\u201d follies in accepting the terms and attempting to re-fight the battles of the 1960 and the 1930s (and their aftermath), in an endless \u201crear-guard action,\u201d without denying our <\/em>social reality in its most fundamental respects. Obama has not been a transformative figure in the sense of bringing about a change. Rather, Obama\u2019s victory expresses a change that has been already long under way \u2014 and about which the \u201cLeft\u201d has remained confused and in denial for far too long, as a result of its abandonment of Marxism.<\/p>\n For a Marxian approach should seek to occupy the vital, radical center of political life, if social emancipation beyond capital is ever to be achieved. Not the intellectual cynicism of \u201cpostmodernism\u201d or the despairing utopian politics of an \u201canarchist\u201d withdrawal from mainstream political life, but an open assault on the on-going conservatizing strategies of depoliticization and the consolidation of power that takes form in ever more socially opaque and inaccessible ways.<\/p>\n Reversing this can only happen in the context of a reinvigorated workers\u2019 movement that would seek to centrally reorganize social life, at a global scale. Today, this must begin with the integrated North American working class, who, occupying the beating heart of the world of capital, has a unique historic responsibility and potentially emancipatory role to play, for whose abdication all of humanity will continue to pay a terrible and escalating price. Addressing the ideological clarification necessary for overcoming this deficit of working class politics will be possible only through Marxian critical theory, carried on by intellectuals trained and dedicated to do this.<\/p>\n As Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919), the great revolutionary Marxist politician of the early 20th century stated it, during the disintegration of the international Marxist workers\u2019 movement in the First World War,<\/p>\n Socialism is the first popular movement in world history that has set itself the goal of bringing human consciousness, and thereby free will, into play in the social actions of humankind .\u00a0.\u00a0. to try to take its history into its own hands; instead of remaining a will-less football, it will take the tiller of social life and become the pilot to the goal of its own history. (The Crisis of German Social Democracy<\/em>, AKA the Junius<\/em> pamphlet, 1915)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We need to resume this fight. | \u00a7 <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Obama and Clinton <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>Third Way<\/strong>\u201d politics and the \u201cLeft\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n \n Chris Cutrone<\/p>\n \n For the \u201cLeft\u201d that is critical of him, the most common comparison made of Obama is to Bill Clinton.<\/p>\n <\/span>This critique of Obama, as of Clinton, denounces his \u201cCentrism,\u201d the trajectory he appears to continue from the \u201cnew\u201d Democratic Party of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) expressed by Clinton and Gore\u2019s election in 1992. Clinton\u2019s election was seen as part of the triumph of \u201cThird Way\u201d politics that contemporaneously found expression in Tony Blair\u2019s \u201cNew\u201d Labour Party in Britain.<\/p>\n <\/span>The idea of such \u201cThird Way\u201d politics is that, compared to the prior political polarizations that developed around the Reagan and Thatcher neoliberal assault on the Keynesian-Fordist state and the resistance against this trend by traditional \u201csocial-democratic\u201d politics, the \u201cradical Center\u201d expressed the possibility of a deeper and more effective political transformation. \u2014 What if the \u201cThird Way\u201d politicians were correct?<\/p>\n <\/span>While the \u201cLeft\u201d attacks Obama for being too Centrist or Right-wing, a neoliberal in blackface, the Right attacks Obama for being a closet \u201csocialist\u201d (or \u201cMarxist\u201d!). But both attacks neglect the fundamental transformation of politics that has taken place over the course of the past generation, since the \u201cReagan Revolution\u201d: the Right cynically because they wish to demagogically drive their conservative-reactionary politics ever further; and the \u201cLeft\u201d more despairingly because they have never made proper sense of the crisis of the Keynesian-Fordist state, and so have thought that the neoliberal Right\u2019s efforts can be simply reversed with a \u201cprogressive\u201d outcome \u2014 that Keynesian Fordism had been progressive and not regressive in terms of social emancipation.<\/p>\n <\/span>Behind this lies a deeper confusion that informed the problematic politics of the 1960s \u201cNew\u201d Left, and behind that, the reformism of the Left of the 1930s. The \u201cOld\u201d Left had jumped on the bandwagon of FDR\u2019s New Deal reforms \u2014 and the remaking of Europe and Japan as well as the postcolonial \u201cdeveloping\u201d states in a Keynesian-Fordist \u201csocial-democratic\u201d image after WWII. The \u201cNew\u201d Left responded to this conservatization ambivalently, however, attacking the authoritarian liberalism of JFK and LBJ in the 1960s, but then attempting to stave off its collapse in the 1970s-80s. In this the post-\u201960s \u201cLeft\u201d has been as mistaken in its defense as it had been previously in its attack.<\/p>\n <\/span>The \u201csocial democratic\u201d politics of the mid-20th Century involved tying the workers\u2019 movement to state policies, depoliticizing labor struggles and eviscerating the remnants of the socialist movement of the early 20th Century. The collapse of such Keynesian-Fordist reformist politics began in the 1970s and has carried through the \u201980s and \u201990s to the present. The displacement of the reformism associated with the Democratic Party (and Labour in the U.K.) by a \u201cnew\u201d Right starting in the 1970s was facilitated by the demobilization of the working class as a social force with its roots in the 1930s, the period of the Stalinization of Marxism \u2014 the transformation of Marxism into a reformist<\/em> ideology.<\/p>\n <\/span>The alliance of such \u201cMarxism\u201d with liberalism and social democracy in the Popular Front against fascism in Europe and with FDR\u2019s Democratic Party in the 1930s and during WWII, despite the Cold War against the USSR and its allies that followed, collectively remade the world in its image of politics. What was most important about the politics of the mid-20th Century was not the struggles, however epic, it contained and expressed, but rather how such politics repressed<\/em> possibilities for social emancipation.<\/p>\n <\/span>The challenge \u201cThird Way\u201d politics has offered to the terms of both the Old and New Left, emerging from the crisis of the Keynesian-Fordist state in the latter part of the 20th Century, has not been met. The changes this politics has augured are askew of the mainstream conceptions of \u201cLeft\u201d and \u201cRight\u201d as they were established in the mid-20th Century, after the collapse of the Left into a conservative phenomenon in and through the Popular Front of the 1930s, and the subsequent failure to renew emancipatory politics in the 1960s. Indeed, the \u201cLeft\u201d since the 1960s has been trapped in an essentially conservative pose, trying to hold back the tide of neoliberal changes. The problems inherent in this can be summarized by the divisions the \u201cLeft\u201d accepts between \u201cpersonal\u201d and \u201cgovernment\u201d responsibility, or between libertarian and authoritarian politics \u2014 the opposition of individual to collective freedom.<\/p>\n <\/span>To take one prominent example, Adolph Reed, in a variety of writings and statements in other media prior to the election, has excoriated Obama for his rhetoric of \u201cpersonal responsibility\u201d regarding the problems facing black Americans. For Reed (as for Jeremiah Wright, and Jesse Jackson, Sr., who in off-air comments expressed a desire to \u201ccut his nuts off\u201d after Obama made a Fathers\u2019 Day commentary about black \u201cdead-beat dads\u201d), Obama\u2019s rhetoric of personal responsibility falls in with the neoliberal politics of disclaiming public (governmental) responsibility for social ills and \u201cprivatizes\u201d them instead.<\/p>\n <\/span>Of course Reed is right to criticize such rhetoric by Obama. But the question remains whether today we ought to proceed as if the main enemy was the rhetoric of the 1965 Moynihan Report, \u201cThe Negro Family: the case for national action,\u201d which infamously identified a supposed \u201cculture of poverty\u201d pathology beyond the possibility of state amelioration, and sought to disenchant the 1960s Great Society expansions of the 1930s New Deal. While Reed and others in the 1960s rightly pointed to the essential affinity between the roots of neoconservatism of Moynihan et al. and the paternalism of liberal reformism, they failed to properly clarify the relation between the reformist politics of labor organizations and the state policies and agencies into which these groups were integrated (such as the National Labor Relations Board) in the mid-20th Century.<\/p>\n <\/span>The question is whether the terms of such political battles of the 1960s era are still pertinent \u2014 whether we ought to place our hopes in reversing policy changes that have occurred from Reagan through Bill Clinton to George W. Bush \u2014 or do we need instead to interrogate the terms of this (apparently) perennial struggle so as to be able to adopt an entirely different and potentially more effective framework for emancipatory politics. For the most significant change from the 1960s to the present has been the decimation of the \u2014 reformist, non-class struggle \u2014 workers movement.<\/p>\n <\/span>An authentic Marxian Left would not oppose the politics of the governmental responsibility \u2014 of the capitalist state \u2014 to that of individual persons. A Marxian approach would neither devolve social responsibility onto individual persons nor would it invest collective responsibility in the form of the capitalist nation-state. Nor would it disclaim personal responsibility but would pose it very differently than liberals do \u2014 whether they be liberals of the moralizing \u201cconservative\u201d kind or of the supposedly more radical lifestyle-choice variety.<\/p>\n <\/span>A Marxian approach would argue that the working class has, at the levels of both individual-personal and collective responsibility, to struggle for socialism<\/em> \u2014 and that Leftist intellectuals have a responsibility to help facilitate this struggle.<\/p>\n <\/span>Rather than the illusions in Obama \u2014 either positive or negative \u2014 that associate him simply with the vicissitudes of movement along a spectrum of \u201cLeft\u201d and \u201cRight\u201d informed fundamentally by Keynesian-Fordist state policies or their undermining by neoliberalism, a response to the \u201cThird Way\u201d politics Obama represents needs to be formulated that recognizes a historical trajectory that is not reassimilable back into the social politics of the mid-20th Century. For such politics had been settled by the time of Clinton\u2019s election in 1992, after the Reagan-Thatcher \u201crevolution\u201d and the destruction of the Soviet Union. There is a line of continuity between Clinton and Obama, but not one of betrayal of the Left but of historical changes for which the \u201cLeft\u201d has been ill-prepared.<\/p>\n <\/span>The triumph of neoliberalism, as well as of \u201cThird Way\u201d politics of the \u201cradical Center\u201d at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st Centuries cannot be understood properly as a move to the Right that can be reversed by undoing it or by repolarizing politics according to an earlier mode of government policies. They must be seen as part of a deep-rooted historical trajectory that can only be defeated through a new politicization of the working class for socialism, a politics that has been neglected since the early 20th Century.<\/p>\n <\/span>We must learn the lessons of the 20th Century not learned by those who came before us, and not accept the terms by which they rationalized their failures. Obama, as the latest sign of \u201cchange\u201d in this on-going trajectory, underscores this necessity.<\/p>\n <\/span>Like the \u201cThird Way\u201d we should not accept the opposition of individual and collective social responsibility in conceiving our politics. Unlike the \u201cThird Way,\u201d we should not affirm the forms of state and civil society in which these different dimensions of social responsibility are mediated in today\u2019s late, \u201cpost-revolutionary\u201d capitalism. We should rise to the challenge of the necessary double-sided critique that can meet the conservative politics of the \u201cThird Way\u201d in terms of its \u2014 and our \u2014 own historical moment, and not in the obsolete and, even in their time, mistaken and ineffective terms of a moribund \u201cLeft.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/span>Since his election, Obama has made it clear that he wishes to steer clear of outdated polarizations \u2014 as well he should, if he wants to be an effective politician. We should not treat this merely as \u201cpolitical\u201d equivocation or obfuscation, but rather as clearing the way to a potential better recognition of social<\/em> reality. For a long time now, the \u201cLeft\u201d has been adept at skirting the issues and accepting, however tacitly, the terms of social politics set by others. For it is as true that \u201cgovernment [of the capitalist nation-state] is not the answer\u201d as it is that neoliberal \u201cfree market\u201d reforms have been a farcical debacle \u2014 with tremendous costs to humanity. But the historical failure of the Left is what brought us to this impasse of the 20th Century, the 21st Century opportunity of the \u201cThird Way\u201d and its politics of the \u201cradical Center.\u201d The vacuum of historical politics has been filled, and we need to address this present effective space for politics and not remain self-marginalized, in disdain of it.<\/p>\n <\/span>We cannot continue the preceding \u201cLeft\u2019s\u201d follies in accepting the terms and attempting to re-fight the battles of the 1960 and the 1930s (and their aftermath), in an endless \u201crear-guard action,\u201d without denying our <\/em>social reality in its most fundamental respects. Obama has not been a transformative figure in the sense of bringing about a change. Rather, Obama\u2019s victory expresses a change that has been already long under way \u2014 and about which the \u201cLeft\u201d has remained confused and in denial for far too long, as a result of its abandonment of Marxism.<\/p>\n <\/span>For a Marxian approach should seek to occupy the vital, radical center of political life, if social emancipation beyond capital is ever to be achieved. Not the intellectual cynicism of \u201cpostmodernism\u201d or the despairing utopian politics of an \u201canarchist\u201d withdrawal from mainstream political life, but an open assault on the on-going conservatizing strategies of depoliticization and the consolidation of power that takes form in ever more socially opaque and inaccessible ways.<\/p>\n <\/span>Reversing this can only happen in the context of a reinvigorated workers\u2019 movement that would seek to centrally reorganize social life, at a global scale. Today, this must begin with the integrated North American working class, who, occupying the beating heart of the world of capital, has a unique historic responsibility and potentially emancipatory role to play, for whose abdication all of humanity will continue to pay a terrible and escalating price. Addressing the ideological clarification necessary for overcoming this deficit of working class politics will be possible only through Marxian critical theory, carried on by intellectuals trained and dedicated to do this.<\/p>\n <\/span>As Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919), the great revolutionary Marxist politician of the early 20th Century stated it, during the disintegration of the international Marxist workers\u2019 movement in the First World War,<\/p>\n Socialism is the first popular movement in world history that has set itself the goal of bringing human consciousness, and thereby free will, into play in the social actions of humankind .\u00a0.\u00a0. to try to take its history into its own hands; instead of remaining a will-less football, it will take the tiller of social life and become the pilot to the goal of its own history.\u201d (The Crisis of German Social Democracy<\/em>, AKA the Junius<\/em> pamphlet, 1915)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/span>We need to resume this fight.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chris Cutrone FOR THE \u201cLEFT\u201d that is critical of him, the most common comparison made of Obama is to Bill Clinton. This critique of Obama, as of Clinton, denounces his \u201cCentrism,\u201d the trajectory he appears to continue from the \u201cnew\u201d Democratic Party of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) expressed by Clinton and Gore\u2019s election in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[12,23,15,21,6],"class_list":["post-296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essays","tag-12","tag-neoliberalism","tag-obama-era","tag-postmodernism","tag-the-platypus-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=296"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/296\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":656,"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/296\/revisions\/656"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chriscutrone.platypus1917.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}