RE: Identity Politics
February 9, 2019 at 12:26 pm
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2019 at 12:59 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
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?
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?
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!
