I came across this wonderful exploration into the subject of identity politics in the US that I thought I'd share.  It's a bit of a read, but worth it, especially given the hot button issue that it's become.

Quote:

---

---

We hear a great deal these days about how the right’s hostility to “identity politics,” inflamed by advocates like BreitbartNews, its erstwhile editor Steve Bannon, and Fox News, enabled the rise of Donald Trump. In this framing, the election of 2016 was a populist backlash of ordinary voters against an increasingly aberrant left that has allowed itself to be distracted by narrow questions about groups whose niche concerns do not rightly pertain to the proper functioning of democracy. Their identity-based complaints are marginalizing the left, leaving it out of touch with the troubles of Middle Americans, who primarily worry about how to pay the bills, but who are also concerned with the degradation of national values. Identity politics—according to this telling—fosters a series of peripheral grievances that, in travestying political norms, pose a dangerous threat to these values.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/02/07...-politics/

Which closes, with this.

Quote:Perhaps Audre Lorde was correct that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house: identity politics from the left may well prove an insufficient weapon against identity politics from the right. But it is not true that identity politics are necessarily divisive. Difference is a fact of life, to which divisiveness is only one response. Inclusiveness is another: not just tolerating but celebrating difference, fighting for the rights of all, not just the few. To be a truly representative democracy, America will need to stop thinking in terms of the representative common man. Thinking in terms of common decency might be a start.

Quote:“identity politics describes when people adopt political positions based on their ethnicity, race, sexuality or religion rather than on broader policies. Though it started on the left, it has been more potent on the right: it fueled Donald Trump’s election and Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.”

The regressives are clueless if they believe this, as are the alt-right.

Donald Trump won the election because the electoral college, even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, were the deciders.

The gender wage gap has been explained to death, and it's still brought up as relevant. Men. Work. Longer. Hours.

I also like how all these historical data are used to crop up an argument that identity politics is what got Trump elected. You don't live in a democracy. And using history as an argument, will and can be used against the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

(February 8, 2019 at 10:56 pm)Sal Wrote:

Quote:“identity politics describes when people adopt political positions based on their ethnicity, race, sexuality or religion rather than on broader policies. Though it started on the left, it has been more potent on the right: it fueled Donald Trump’s election and Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.”

The regressives are clueless if they believe this, as are the alt-right.

Donald Trump won the election because the electoral college, even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, were the deciders.

The gender wage gap has been explained to death, and it's still brought up as relevant. Men. Work. Longer. Hours.

I also like how all these historical data are used to crop up an argument that identity politics is what got Trump elected. You don't live in a democracy. And using history as an argument, will and can be used against the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

Facts and logic aren't khemikals strong point. Save your breath, so to speak.

I get exasperated with media covering the issue of identity politics only from the perspective of the right being exasperated with identity politics on the left. It misrepresents the left, since the left is as exasperated with (and arguably betrayed by) identity politics. Identity politics have been used to fracture the left. The left advocated socially liberal positions to unite diverse people. Identity politics drives them apart.

(February 8, 2019 at 10:56 pm)Sal Wrote:

Quote:“identity politics describes when people adopt political positions based on their ethnicity, race, sexuality or religion rather than on broader policies. Though it started on the left, it has been more potent on the right: it fueled Donald Trump’s election and Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.”

The regressives are clueless if they believe this, as are the alt-right.

Donald Trump won the election because the electoral college, even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, were the deciders.

The gender wage gap has been explained to death, and it's still brought up as relevant. Men. Work. Longer. Hours.

I also like how all these historical data are used to crop up an argument that identity politics is what got Trump elected. You don't live in a democracy. And using history as an argument, will and can be used against the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

That was a quote from a book by Francis Fukuyama, in an interview published in The Economist, broadly arguing against identity politics in the manner that's become the recent memetic.  This begs the question, is Francis Fukuyama a regressive?  Is that what we mean by the regressive identity?

In that interview he offers this-

Quote:At the core of Trump's support were working-class white voters who felt the Democratic Party had become a party of minorities and professional women that no longer took their concerns, like job loss from outsourcing, seriously. The same can be said for European working class voters who deserted the left over the latter’s support for multiculturalism. It should be perfectly possible to win these voters back, based on an appeal to broad economic status rather than narrower support from a collection of special interest groups.

Is this typical or representative of a regressive viewpoint?

---

(February 9, 2019 at 8:40 am)Yonadav Wrote: I get exasperated with media covering the issue of identity politics only from the perspective of the right being exasperated with identity politics on the left. It misrepresents the left, since the left is as exasperated with (and arguably betrayed by) identity politics. Identity politics have been used to fracture the left. The left advocated socially liberal positions to unite diverse people. Identity politics drives them apart.

Fukuyama and Lilla are liberal academics.  The article is a deep dive into both of their views and positions (and books..it's a book review) as vocal opponents of identity politics. What do you think, do they have it about right? They've written multiple articles and been interviewed, so you could find their broad summaries outside of their books online, if you were so inclined.

---

(February 9, 2019 at 3:35 am)PRJA93 Wrote: Facts and logic aren't khemikals strong point. Save your breath, so to speak.

I'm definitely more solid in the hookers and blow department, just comes with the territory.

What did you think of the article?

(February 9, 2019 at 9:59 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

---

(February 9, 2019 at 8:40 am)Yonadav Wrote: I get exasperated with media covering the issue of identity politics only from the perspective of the right being exasperated with identity politics on the left. It misrepresents the left, since the left is as exasperated with (and arguably betrayed by) identity politics. Identity politics have been used to fracture the left. The left advocated socially liberal positions to unite diverse people. Identity politics drives them apart.

Fukuyama and Lilla are liberal academics.  The article is a deep dive into both of their views and positions (and books..it's a book review) as vocal opponents of identity politics.  What do you think, do they have it about right?  They've written multiple articles and been interviewed, so you could find their broad summaries outside of their books online, if you were so inclined.

I don't think that the article was a deep dive. It's premise is deeply flawed and not of wide enough perspective to be a deep dive.  While it is certainly true that identity politics have always existed in America, it's not true that this can be used as a defense of identity politics. After all, the article gives example after example of identity politics being a bad thing. It gave those examples exclusively for the purpose of proving that identity politics have always existed, while seeming to be oblivious to what a bad image of identity politics this was portraying. Arguably, you can't engage in identity politics without being some sort of supremacist. The article gives examples of white working class men believing that they are disadvantaged. What should we take away from that? That white working class men are bigots? 

Or should we see it as proof positive that members of an identity group will perceive themselves to be disadvantaged no matter what, as long as there are rival identity groups?  If that's true, then identity politics can never lead to equality. When identity politics is the primary political motivator there will always be an identity group that gains advantage over others while perceiving itself to be at a disadvantage.

Liberal perspectives break down identity by seeking common unifying ground. Identity politics emphasizes identity over common ground. So identity politics and liberal politics are actually polar opposites. Liberal politics are on the left, and identity politics are on the right. This is why I cringe when identity politics keeps being discussed in terms of it representing the left. Social liberalism is on the left, but identity politics promotes illiberal values.

I'm not sure it was meant to be a defense of identity politics, more an exploration of those two books and the positions contained.  As you note, example after example were identity politics gone horribly awry.  The author certainly spent no time to note that identity politics was the organizing concept in the tribal alliances that sought to repel european colonization of america (and, not for nothing, it also drove colonization).

Personally, I think that we should take the fact that white working men routinely believe that they are a disadvantaged group despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary as an example of identity politics creating a false narrative in order to support it's position.  It's a thing that happens, though that doesn't imply or suggest that this is always the case or that all identity politics will do so.  After all, it's just as possible that identity politics notice and express a real and existing disparity.  Such disparities actively produce those politics..and both examples are a case of that.  

In the case of white grievance there's an underlying assumption that power or wealth or..just, generally, status is a zero some game.  If some other group has more of it, then your group will have less.  Well..if this underlying assumption is true (and as far as american politics is concerned it may very well be) - then the contention of a rival group asserting that white supremacy being overly represented leads to less wealth, or power, or status on the part of antithetical groups rides on the same assumption.  The only difference being that one group has command of facts and the other....well...doesn't.  

Liberal is, itself, an identity, and the liberal/conservative divide -is- identity politics, as is the liberal/libtard infighting.  As the author notes, all that seems to have changed are the voices included in that identity.  Liberals have sought to include more groups as "real" members of the american identity and the liberal identity, whereas conservative groups and some liberals within broader liberalism either perceptually or legally seek to exclude them.  They're not "real" americans, real people..or..real liberals.

I particularly like the way the author closed, though, suggesting that leftish identity politics may not be up to the task of defeating rightwing identity politics, and by noting that divisiveness is only one response to inescapable difference.  Inclusiveness and celebration another.  

I have other thoughts on how it came to be that the right managed to weaponize the term and divide liberals who think that "fake" liberals are dividing the party, ofc - that..like white grievance..while a portion of that is meaningfully true, it's not the portion that white grievance junkies or liberals worried about illiberal libtards think it is. More an issue of conservative identity politics finding a way to combat the successful identity politics of the left through subversion, framing, and messaging. As Sal noted, Hitlery won the pop vote...while I don't know that Hitlery is really an archon of identity politics she was certainly painted as such by the right. Bernie was dripping with identity politics. That narrative was successful....and if people took the dems to be the party of identity politics....well, they gave identity politics the pop vote. Shortly thereafter a blue wave swept the house. All worrying and greivance aside..and not knowing how it will all ultimately turn out, it seems that the strong focus on leftist identity politics is uniting the left and providing them a greater share of political power (and why wouldn;t it - that;s exactly how the right had come into it's disproportionate seat of power - it obviously works no matter who wields it).

More than anything, I think that liberals need to get better at messaging and counter messaging...specifically so that the cynical gaming the right has become so damned good at doesn't wriggle it's way into the liberal consciousness as though -they- had come up with it. It's not actually a liberal talking point that "identity politics" is driving the left further away from the concerns of the "average american" or that it's going to tear the left apart. It's a rightwing trojan horse. This is a noted and disturbing trend, particularly on social media and internet communities. Purportedly or commonly "liberal" outlets and people are unconsciously drifting hard...hard...right - perhaps out of a misplaced sense of fairness to ideas or both-sides-ism (and this was the gate that the horse was wheeled in through). The identity politics of the right and left are both identity politics, but they don't congeal around the same concept of identity. Each espousing a profoundly different idea of what the representative american is.

Personally, I greatly prefer the identity put forward by the left, but since the left routinely screws the pooch on the singlemost defining portion of my own - it's not enough to get my vote. I think that to some extent you and I share an opinion here..that the left, in some respects, is polishing brass on the titanic. If and when they find a way to include that as more than just lip service or vapid platform publications I'm +1. Here's to hoping, right, lol?

(February 9, 2019 at 12:26 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm not sure it was meant to be a defense of identity politics, more an exploration of those two books and the positions contained.  As you note, example after example were identity politics gone horribly awry.  The author certainly spent no time to note that identity politics was the organizing concept in the tribal alliances that sought to repel european colonization of america (and, not for nothing, it also drove colonization).

Personally, I think that we should take the fact that white working men routinely believe that they are a disadvantaged group despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary as an example of identity politics creating a false narrative in order to support it's position.  It's a thing that happens, though that doesn't imply or suggest that this is always the case or that all identity politics will do so.  After all, it's just as possible that identity politics notice and express a real and existing disparity.  Such disparities actively produce those politics..and both examples are a case of that.  

In the case of white grievance there's an underlying assumption that power or wealth or..just, generally, status is a zero some game.  If some other group has more of it, then your group will have less.  Well..if this underlying assumption is true (and as far as american politics is concerned it may very well be) - then the contention of a rival group asserting that white supremacy being overly represented leads to less wealth, or power, or status on the part of antithetical groups rides on the same assumption.  The only difference being that one group has command of facts and the other....well...doesn't.  

Liberal is, itself, an identity, and the liberal/conservative divide -is- identity politics, as is the liberal/libtard infighting.  As the author notes, all that seems to have changed are the voices included in that identity.  Liberals have sought to include more groups as "real" members of the american identity and the liberal identity, whereas conservative groups and some liberals within broader liberalism either perceptually or legally seek to exclude them.  They're not "real" americans, real people..or..real liberals.

I particularly like the way the author closed, though, suggesting that leftish identity politics may not be up to the task of defeating rightwing identity politics, and by noting that divisiveness is only one response to inescapable difference.  Inclusiveness and celebration another.  

I have other thoughts on how it came to be that the right managed to weaponize the term and divide liberals who think that "fake" liberals are dividing the party, ofc - that..like white grievance..while a portion of that is meaningfully true, it's not the portion that white grievance junkies or liberals worried about illiberal libtards think it is.  More an issue of conservative identity politics finding a way to combat the successful identity politics of the left through subversion, framing, and messaging.  As Sal noted, Hitlery won the pop vote...while I don't know that Hitlery is really an archon of identity politics she was certainly painted as such by the right.  Bernie was dripping with identity politics.  That narrative was successful....and if people took the dems to be the party of identity politics....well, they gave identity politics the pop vote.  Shortly thereafter a blue wave swept the house.   All worrying and greivance aside..and not knowing how it will all ultimately turn out, it seems that the strong focus on leftist identity politics is uniting the left and providing them a greater share of political power (and why wouldn;t it - that;s exactly how the right had come into it's disproportionate seat of power - it obviously works no matter who wields it).  

More than anything, I think that liberals need to get better at messaging and counter messaging...specifically so that the cynical gaming the right has become so damned good at doesn't wriggle it's way into the liberal consciousness as though -they- had come up with it.  It's not actually a liberal talking point that "identity politics" is driving the left further away from the concerns of the "average american" or that it's going to tear the left apart.  It's a rightwing trojan horse.  This is a noted and disturbing trend, particularly on social media and internet communities.  Purportedly or commonly "liberal" outlets and people are unconsciously drifting hard...hard...right - perhaps out of a misplaced sense of fairness to ideas or both-sides-ism (and this was the gate that the horse was wheeled in through).  The identity politics of the right and left are both identity politics, but they don't congeal around the same concept of identity.  Each espousing a profoundly different idea of what the representative american is.

Personally, I greatly prefer the identity put forward by the left, but since the left routinely screws the pooch on the singlemost defining portion of my own - it's not enough to get my vote.  I think that to some extent you and I share an opinion here..that the left, in some respects, is polishing brass on the titanic.  If and when they find a way to include that as more than just lip service or vapid platform publications I'm +1.  Here's to hoping, right, lol?

 You think that Bernie is dripping with identity politics? He's under attack from the identity politikers.  If he declares for 2020, the identity crowd is going to attack him aggressively. He'll probably end up being another casualty of identity politics like Bret Weinstein.

(February 9, 2019 at 12:26 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm definitely more solid in the hookers and blow department, just comes with the territory.

What did you think of the article?

It's always interesting to me when someone will post some piece of media without giving their take on it. Some people seem to be waiting for someone to post an opinion on which they already have memorized talking points that they want to throw out. Only weasels and snakes use tactics like that.

I am, of course, not saying that this is what you're doing. But it sure does look eerily similar. Hmm. Weird.

The all-or-nothing politics of today have become a complete joke, with common sense being thrown out the window in many cases by people who, rather than looking to examine individual ideas and the merits of those ideas, simply want to "tick all the right boxes" so they can be on the correct side of things. You see it on the right just as much as you see it on the left, though for some reason unknown to me most conversations you'll see on the subject tend to criticize the left for their use of identity politics. I think this is a mostly baseless criticism as you see people on the right being lambasted for failing to subscribe to the status quo just as much as you see it on the left. Tomi Lahren, who is some right-wing talking head I think, was completely exiled for a while by the conservatives when it came out that she was, in fact, pro-choice.

She failed to tick all the right boxes and was outed for it. It's all a joke. After the backlash, she did a classic flip-flop and is, I think, now pro-life. All's right with the world again, no pun intended.

Let's examine individual ideas and their merits. I'm tired of identity politics.

(February 9, 2019 at 2:05 pm)PRJA93 Wrote: It's always interesting to me when someone will post some piece of media without giving their take on it. Some people seem to be waiting for someone to post an opinion on which they already have memorized talking points that they want to throw out. Only weasels and snakes use tactics like that.

I am, of course, not saying that this is what you're doing. But it sure does look eerily similar. Hmm. Weird.  

My take is that it's a good article on the contents of the books, and I broadly agree with it..though I would have loved to see more examples of identity politics as it's produced a positive outcome - rather than a recitation of it's known pitfalls.  I think that it would have supported the final comments in a way that simply establishing the factual inaccuracies of the books being reviewed didn't...but, it -was- a book review..so, you know, it's like bitching about how my car can't make juliene carrots..right, lol?

Quote:The all-or-nothing politics of today have become a complete joke, with common sense being thrown out the window in many cases by people who, rather than looking to examine individual ideas and the merits of those ideas, simply want to "tick all the right boxes" so they can be on the correct side of things. You see it on the right just as much as you see it on the left, though for some reason unknown to me most conversations you'll see on the subject tend to criticize the left for their use of identity politics. I think this is a mostly baseless criticism as you see people on the right being lambasted for failing to subscribe to the status quo just as much as you see it on the left. Tomi Lahren, who is some right-wing talking head I think, was completely exiled for a while by the conservatives when it came out that she was, in fact, pro-choice.

She failed to tick all the right boxes and was outed for it. It's all a joke. After the backlash, she did a classic flip-flop and is, I think, now pro-life. All's right with the world again, no pun intended.

Let's examine individual ideas and their merits. I'm tired of identity politics.

She failed, then..in your estimation, to properly virtue signal.  Is this, broadly, your view of what identity politics is or operates on?

(I'm an all or nothing potential voter, btw, but precisely because of common sense. I see two parties desperately wringing their hands about a 2020 vote and trying to distance themselves or purge those things or groups they fear might cost them a win...when, in 2050...the very idea of spending a minutes worth of time on voting is going to seem absurd......if things continue along business as usual. We had time to argue about abortion and sjws but not enough time to literally save our planet and all life in the process? Everybody just sit back and have a drink, I guess, because the ship sank and there's no sense in worrying about it now.)