RE: Identity Politics
February 9, 2019 at 9:59 am
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2019 at 10:14 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(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?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
