Why do you think Bruenig chooses this strategy?

Jay Caspian Kang makes interesting arguments in part because he’s conflicted–he’s interested in issues of identity, but he’s also critical of the way that people talk about them. He’s a seeker, looking for a new way to see a problem. Elizabeth Bruenig is similar, in that her writing spans modes of identification that are challenging.

She’s a Christian and a parent advocate for children, and she’s also a committed leftist. She’s not interested in the Democratic party, which she views as too far right on most issues, she’s interested in something like a socialist revolution, in which society is rebuilt in accord with principles of bringing about economic equality for the mass of world citizens.

While most people don’t usually think “Christian” and “Radical leftist” go together, this is Bruenig’s terrain. In the essay attached, “Not that Innocent,” Bruenig discusses one of the topics that is most important to her: capital punishment. Bruenig is a staunch critic of capital punishment but her argument is not the typical argument against it.

No Comment.