I think those are going to be the jobs that are very difficult to kind of agitate and organize for more. I've always felt that real world stuff, especially the stuff you're talking about with new york times editorial page, that stuff all operates in cfa. And it's really, were thinking about what joe byden's aspirations are, and he's going to get voted in based on like, what we think he thinks he wants to doit. Whatever michael cole is telling us joo byden is going to do is what we're supposed to believe. In the rang we're meant to vote for democrats because they attack the people that we don't
"Increasing Numbers of US Students Look for a ‘Real’ World," read a 1965 headline from the magazine Moderator. "Academics: Get Real!," the Harvard Business Review implored in 2009. "‘Defund the police’ runs into reality," the Washington Post warned in 2021. "As Latin America Shifts Left, Leaders Face a Short Honeymoon," the New York Times declared in 2022. We're often reminded that anyone who espouses some degree of left-wing politics – whether a student, activist, political leader, or anyone in between – is at odds with the "real world." Academics, especially those in the humanities, sit in their ivory towers. Organizers and demonstrators against state violence have their heads in the clouds. Elected leaders campaigning on elevating living standards don’t know what they're in for.
But who's in charge of determining what’s ‘realistic’? Or what "the real world" is exactly? Why is studying theory, fighting for better healthcare, or working toward poverty reduction any less ‘real’ than plugging away at a spreadsheet for a weapons manufacturer or venture capital firm? And how did this pat and folksy concept of the "real world" emerge as a go-to dunk on eggheads and activists? On this episode, we seek to answer these questions, as we examine the canard that anyone to the left of a Goldman Sachs executive isn't living in or contributing to the "real world."
Our guest is Street Fight Radio's Bryan Quinby.