Identity Politics

[Acim]

The End of Identity Liberalism | The New York Times

But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.)

I found this article interesting, and one that surely can prompt discussion/debate. I saw it first on Facebook (which means it's probably fake news, especially since it is from NYT, lol), and there it is getting a good deal of discussion. Surprisingly, all my liberal friends "liked" the post. Not sure why, when it is the type of liberalism that I think is near the heart of why there is a divide in the country.

I will note that prejudice, racism and sexism can all suck whenever they rear their ugly head, but in my experience, liberals act as if they are far removed from such (ugly) behavior and only one side is engaging in the negativity that comes from this. Honestly, of all the liberals I know, they all express prejudice of some sort, and at times, it's a little ugly. Conservatives as well. But the how to correct it is where I see the debate occurring and how politics routinely is framed. Conservatives are perhaps a bit more passive in how to correct it, and liberals aggressive. In being aggressive, it has manifested as identity politics, and is really just another form of class struggle(s).

As I see it, and going with sound bite rhetoric, conservatives want all of us getting over the hump, while downplaying the existence of the privileged class. While liberals want the privileged class to be ignored in terms of superficial politics and help minorities get over the hump first/foremost. And if that process occurs through a form of institutional prejudice that seeks to dissuade the traditionalists from helping (in any way), so be it - cause ya know, liberals have the (ahem) right principles to move us forward.

 

[MD]

There are bigger issues in the world today, dealing with class and climate change, than safe spaces for snowflakes.

It's a rubbish ideology that has severely damaged liberalism.

 

[Nous]

Isn't "conservatives" vs. "liberals" an example of the predominant form of "identity politics"?

Isn't "people of Euro-ancestry" vs. "Mexicans" an example of "identity politics"?

Isn't "not-Muslim" vs. "Muslim" an example of "identity politics"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't "conservatives" vs. "liberals" an example of the predominant form of "identity politics"?

Isn't "people of Euro-ancestry" vs. "Mexicans" an example of "identity politics"?

Isn't "not-Muslim" vs. "Muslim" an example of "identity politics"?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I didn't know what identity politics was until the election was over.

As a liberal, I'm not sure I understand it. Certainly, over aggressive people who go overboard on this kind of stuff is annoying, kinda.

This is a problem with college kids. . . one they outgrow. Not sure I see a boogeyman here.

 

[Sonofason]

The End of Identity Liberalism | The New York Times



I found this article interesting, and one that surely can prompt discussion/debate. I saw it first on Facebook (which means it's probably fake news, especially since it is from NYT, lol), and there it is getting a good deal of discussion. Surprisingly, all my liberal friends "liked" the post. Not sure why, when it is the type of liberalism that I think is near the heart of why there is a divide in the country.

I will note that prejudice, racism and sexism can all suck whenever they rear their ugly head, but in my experience, liberals act as if they are far removed from such (ugly) behavior and only one side is engaging in the negativity that comes from this. Honestly, of all the liberals I know, they all express prejudice of some sort, and at times, it's a little ugly. Conservatives as well. But the how to correct it is where I see the debate occurring and how politics routinely is framed. Conservatives are perhaps a bit more passive in how to correct it, and liberals aggressive. In being aggressive, it has manifested as identity politics, and is really just another form of class struggle(s).

As I see it, and going with sound bite rhetoric, conservatives want all of us getting over the hump, while downplaying the existence of the privileged class. While liberals want the privileged class to be ignored in terms of superficial politics and help minorities get over the hump first/foremost. And if that process occurs through a form of institutional prejudice that seeks to dissuade the traditionalists from helping (in any way), so be it - cause ya know, liberals have the (ahem) right principles to move us forward.

Great, lets get rid of all the people that are here illegally, and begin to help the under-privileged class in this country. But I don't want to keep bringing in under-privileged people in to this country when I'm the one whose gonna have to help foot the bill. Americans need jobs too, Americans need health coverage. Americans need education. So lets stop giving our stuff away to criminals, people who aren't citizens of this county that have overstayed their visas or have snuck in to this country illegally. I don't give a crap what their ethnicity is.

 

[metis]

As a friend occasionally reminds me, the cutting age between liberals and conservatives are this: liberals care about others whereas conservatives mainly care only about themselves.

 

[esmith]

As a friend occasionally reminds me, the cutting age between liberals and conservatives are this: liberals care about others whereas conservatives mainly care only about themselves.

until they find out they have to pay for the "others"

 

[metis]

until they find out they have to pay for the "others"

There's plenty of us "lefties" who care enough about our fellow Americans to be willing to pay more in taxes unlike so many of the "righties" that deify their $.

 

[esmith]

There's plenty of us "lefties" who care enough about our fellow Americans to be willing to pay more in taxes unlike so many of the "righties" that deify their $.

and who have you been listening to. try again my little flower child
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives
https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/
and since you are a flaming liberal/progressive I give you this liberal rag
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

 

[Revoltingest]

and who have you been listening to. try again my little flower child
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives
https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/
and since you are a flaming liberal/progressive I give you this liberal rag
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Liberals & conservatives are both generous.
But it's a question of with whose money.

 

[metis]

and who have you been listening to. try again my little flower child
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives
https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/
and since you are a flaming liberal/progressive I give you this liberal rag
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

The issue of $ spent on charity is much more complicated than what you're inferring because there are various factors involved, such as income levels and are religious donations counted as charity? What is far more telling are the various scientific studies done in regards to orientation, and that shows that liberals, more than conservatives, tend to be more other-oriented versus self-oriented.

I know as at least twice I've run across studies reported in Scientific American that indicate this, plus some other studies in the past, and it should even stand to common sense because liberals are far more apt to vote to pay higher taxes than are conservatives. And this really stands to just plain old common knowledge itself if one actually even just reads party platforms and statements by candidates by party affiliation.

And you and I fit this difference. For example, even though it's not exactly what I wanted to see, and even though I already have insurance coverage, I was for "Obamacare", and you've been opposed to it, and most of your argument centered around your not wanting to spend more $ on taxes, and more than once I "called" you on that position if you remember correctly.

 

[esmith]

The issue of $ spent on charity is much more complicated than what you're inferring because there are various factors involved, such as income levels and are religious donations counted as charity? What is far more telling are the various scientific studies done in regards to orientation, and that shows that liberals, more than conservatives, tend to be more other-oriented versus self-oriented.

I know as at least twice I've run across studies reported in Scientific American that indicate this, plus some other studies in the past, and it should even stand to common sense because liberals are far more apt to vote to pay higher taxes than are conservatives. And this really stands to just plain old common knowledge itself if one actually even just reads party platforms and statements by candidates by party affiliation.

And you and I fit this difference. For example, even though it's not exactly what I wanted to see, and even though I already have insurance coverage, I was for "Obamacare", and you've been opposed to it, and most of your argument centered around your not wanting to spend more $ on taxes, and more than once I "called" you on that position if you remember correctly.

Yeah liberals want to spend someone else's money, taxes, vice their own.

 

[Acim]

Isn't "conservatives" vs. "liberals" an example of the predominant form of "identity politics"?

No. I would say black vs. white is the predominant example.

Isn't "people of Euro-ancestry" vs. "Mexicans" an example of "identity politics"?

Isn't "not-Muslim" vs. "Muslim" an example of "identity politics"?

I would find all such examples debatable. My view would say if it is not visible, it's not exactly known. Or could be flipped in terms of identity at any moment. The reasons for flipping could be disingenuous, but would throw a wrench into any effort to marginalize the general population into quantifiable sub-groups. Hence, the plausible debate.

With regards to the NY Times article (I) cited in OP, there's a general idea of "celebrate differences" of all people and the strategic mistake of politically pandering to certain groups while downplaying/ignoring others, thus exercising exclusion (not celebration) within the whole.

Words not mentioned in the Times article that I think are relevant to the discussion are "prejudice" and (more recently) "deplorables." Identity politics, when not truly celebrating the differences of the entire population is very likely to engage in prejudice. I see that as a given. If then engaged in such prejudice to the point of labeling fellow Americans in disparaging terms such as "deplorable," that's gonna plausibly backfire politically.

The word "conservative" is mentioned once in the article, and says: "Fox News and other conservative media outlets make great sport of mocking the “campus craziness” that surrounds such issues, and more often than not they are right to. Which only plays into the hands of populist demagogues who want to delegitimize learning in the eyes of those who have never set foot on a campus."

I find it inescapable to realize how much Trump utilized a counter-strategy against modern identity politics, by engaging in prejudice that appeals to the traditional majority. It is also identity politics of another sort, but not the original version, and more like prejudice that as seen during the past election cycle actually held benefit to engage in bigotry. I hesitate to bring Trump up because I think some who respond to this post may only make it about that. To think only liberals engage in prejudice is erroneous. Identity politics is prone to engage in prejudice (though doesn't necessarily have to). I see such prejudice as seeking to corner the market (of ideas) on what is the righteous way to refer to specific individuals, thus producing "political correctness." I see Trump as seeking to tear down the feeble walls that political correctness was looking to build. And at times, it appears that bigotry and rudeness are effective ways in overcoming zealous political correctness. Or what comedians have been doing for last 50 odd years. Except with politics/politicians, everything is elevated to level of - no this is really serious and laughter is so politically incorrect that you best mind your manners when intellectually superior adults are conversing.

 

[metis]

Yeah liberals want to spend someone else's money, taxes, vice their own.

As I mentioned many times before towards you, and that is if you didn't stereotype people or groups you wouldn't be able to even post here.

For example, if "liberals" voted to pay for more military expenditures, as most have, would you say the same thing? You know you wouldn't, so please stop being so hypocritical.

As it is, you have shown me time and time again in our discussions on the ACA that you are more than willing to allow Americans to die prematurely because of a lack of insurance so you don't have to pay any more of your "hard-earned money". Do you deny that? If you do, then we can add lying to your list of "accomplishments".




[a short note to those whom actually do care about people, both the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation as well as a Harvard University studies found that, before the ACA was passed, between 40,000 to 45,000 Americans died per year prematurely due to the repercussions of not having health-care coverage, and most of those were what we call the "working poor"]

 

[Nous]

No. I would say black vs. white is the predominant example.

Not on Religious Forums. It's common for members to identify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal". I haven't seen where anyone here has identified him/herself according to his or her race or skin color in order to politically oppose other races/skin colors. Members of the KKK do it, of course.

 

[Acim]

Not on Religious Forums. It's common for members to identify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal". I haven't seen where anyone here has identified him/herself according to his or her race or skin color in order to politically oppose other races/skin colors. Members of the KKK do it, of course.

I didn't realize how narrow the scope was for your assertion. The article from NY Times isn't written just for members of RF. Perhaps outside of RF, you might realize that black vs. white is the predominant example dating back hundreds of years. Kept alive today whenever a white police officer shoots an armed black person, and the alleged ongoing injustice that exists from the white vs. black mentality.

 

[Nous]

I didn't realize how narrow the scope was for your assertion. The article from NY Times isn't written just for members of RF. Perhaps outside of RF, you might realize that black vs. white is the predominant example dating back hundreds of years.

Only because whites treated Africans as something with no more rights than an animal is given. Right? So it's actually always been "whites vs. Blacks". African Americans politically need, and have always needed, those white Americans who are empathetic to the plight of African Americans, and these two groups stand together, unlike the white Americans who continue their antagonism toward African Americans--such as Trump indicated with his various references to African Americans.

 

[Acim]

Only because whites treated Africans as something with no more rights than an animal is given. Right?

Not all whites, not all Africans. Hence the inherent problem with identity politics. You can alienate the audience with such assertions which can easily show that it's not true for the entire identified group, or even show how the opposite is plausible true.

So it's actually always been "whites vs. Blacks". African Americans politically need, and have always needed, those white Americans who are empathetic to the plight of African Americans, and these two groups stand together, unlike the white Americans who continue their antagonism toward African Americans--such as Trump indicated with his various references to African Americans.

I think I disagree with everything said here. Based partially on what I wrote above, but other things which if you care to push it, I'll be glad to elaborate.

It is nice that the Southern Democrats lost the Civil War and the Africans were freed.

 

[Nous]

Not all whites, not all Africans. Hence the inherent problem with identity politics. You can alienate the audience with such assertions which can easily show that it's not true for the entire identified group, or even show how the opposite is plausible true.



I think I disagree with everything said here. Based partially on what I wrote above, but other things which if you care to push it, I'll be glad to elaborate.

Yes, do elaborate.