Showing posts with label identity politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identity politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Max Diamond — Identitarianism and the Splintering of Democracy


I don't see identarianism or identarian epistemology as problem although it is an issue. It lies at the foundation of postmodern critique. 

identarianism or identarian epistemology are issues that a represetative democracy should be able to handle by ensuring that all identity groups are represented by qualified people. so that all can feel –genuinely – that they have a seat at the table rather than either token representation or no representation.

This is what social and political liberalism are about, after all.

Quilette
Identitarianism and the Splintering of Democracy
Max Diamond
Hannah Arendt was a literary intellectual, defined by Thomas Pynchon as, “people who read and think.” Like Socrates, Hannah Arendt thought and went where thought took her. Arendt’s thinking led her many places, but one of the more interesting topics she thought about was the source of human values. Arendt shared Nietzsche’s and Marx’s belief that moral values are made by humans and not, as the Enlightenment believed, independently existing principles of right and wrong. As Nietzsche and Marx are both earlier in history and more forceful in their language then Arendt (and also, notably, men), Arendt’s own thinking on how values are made gets less attention than it merits.
Arendt devotes much of her most important book, The Human Condition, to elaborating three different categorical distinctions important for how she thinks our experience of existence shapes how we make human values. She calls the first distinction the social/private/political distinction, the second the labor/work/action distinction and the third the earth/world distinction. To understand these three distinctions correctly is to follow Arendt’s thinking on human values, and they are best taken in reverse order....
OUP Blog
Hannah Arendt and the source of human values
Steven Maloney


Monday, September 18, 2017

Charlotte Edmond — Justin Trudeau wants to raise his sons as feminists. New research backs him up


Why is this important in economics? First, women now control a signficant slice of the pie, and secondly, women have an increasingly strong political voice to match their growing economic power.

This is chiefly a political battle between liberals and traditionalists. Identity politics is here to stay.

Economics is strong influenced by policy.
On the programme, scientists argue there is no obvious neurological explanation for the gender divide, with no significant difference between male and female brains. Both are highly plastic and largely influenced by childhood experiences.
World Economic Forum
Justin Trudeau wants to raise his sons as feminists. New research backs him up
Charlotte Edmond

Monday, September 11, 2017

The Russia Explainer Why did #Hillary call #Putin a “white authoritarian leader”?


Hillary doubles down on identity politics and McCarthyism.

Some interesting history and observations too.

Did you know that Pushkin was black by American standards?
Take Alexander Pushkin for example. He’s Russia’s most beloved poet, embraced as the quintessence of Russian romantic poetry. He died in 1837, at a time when slavery was the law of the land in the American South, and serfdom (a form of slavery) was the law of the land in Russia for Russia’s peasant class. Pushkin’s great-grandfather was a full-blooded Ethiopian who became a close friend of Peter the Great and a member of his court. Pushkin himself was born into nobility. The fact that he was one-eighth Black was a nonissue as far as his social standing went, even though under the “one drop” rule in the United States at the time, being one-eighth Black made you an “octoroon,” or fully Black for legal purposes. Thomas Jefferson’s famous slave Sally Hemings, who bore him several children, was one-eighth Black. Pushkin owned serfs, who were white. In Pushkin’s Russia, racial differences were insignificant compared to differences in religion (Pushkin was Russian Orthodox, and his great-grandfather was Ethiopian Orthodox) and social class. A Black nobleman was far socially superior to a white serf in early 1800s Russia.
How about an Asian Buddhist as President of Russia?
Russia doesn’t have many Black people, but it does have a large number of people that would be considered “Asians” by appearance. But if one of these Russian “Asians” were to become president of Russia, it would hardly change anything in terms of race relations in Russia. As a matter of fact, one of the people most seriously considered a potential successor to Putin is an Asian: Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. He not only looks Asian, but he was brought up a Buddhist in the Siberian region of Tuva.
Summary,
EPILOGUE. Some might point out that, rather than being the Russian equivalent of a “white nationalist,” on the Russian political spectrum Putin is not considered a Russian nationalist, though he’s played with Russian nationalist themes in the past. He supports immigration from Central Asia (where the people are, um, Asian), he is supportive of Russia’s large Muslim population, he frequently speaks about Russia’s diversity. Russia’s most famous challenger, Alexey Navalny, is by contrast a Russian nationalist who wants to limit immigration from Muslim countries, limit mosque construction and other visible manifestations of Muslim participation in Russian civic life, and stop financial subsidies and autonomy for Russia’s restive Muslim-majority regions in the Caucusus (Chechnya being the primary target).
Of all the labels Hillary could’ve legitimately hung on Putin, and there are many, emphasizing that he’s “white” is probably the least important, and shows either that Hillary really, really doesn’t understand Russia, or that she couldn’t resist a chance to try to connect Putin to Trump through the thread of them supposedly both being white nationalists.
The Russia Explainer
Why did #Hillary call #Putin a “white authoritarian leader”?
Hank DeBwankey

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Joan C. Williams — What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class


Why Hillary lost and Trump won. He got it and she didn't.

But now Trump has to deliver the bacon. So far the strategy seems to be similar to Reaganomics, tax cuts and tax credits for business to increase growth and assume that a rising tide lifts all boats. That has not worked so well since the 70s, since the ownership and managerial classes have increased their share disproportionally over labor.

Harvard Business Review — HBR Blog Network
What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class
Joan C. Williams is Distinguished Professor of Law and Founding Director of the Center of WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Scott Wong — No. 2 GOP leader defends Trump's Bannon pick in combative exchange with reporters


Trump more or less had to select Steve Bannon as an antidote to choosing establishment figure Reince Priebus as WH chief staff. Trump could not effectively govern without an establishment figure as his chief of staff. He is following in the footsteps of Washington outsider Ronald Reagan, who chose GOP veteran James Baker and appointed him US Secretary of State two years later, a post that Baker retained under G. W. H. Bush.

Certainly Donald Trump was aware that many of his supporters would be livid at this apparent sell-out in his first appointment. So he created the position of "chief strategist" for Steve Bannon as a surrogate chief of staff in order to appease them.

However, Alt-Right leader and former Breitbart chief Steve Bannon is a lightening rod. Perhaps more than some of Trump's own previous remarks, Bannon represents the epitome of identity politics of hate that engenders fear on the part of those at whom it is aimed and disgust by the liberal world internationally. This is not going down well outside the base.

The media is noticing and it appears that the honeymoon is over already.

Bannon has a long history of identity slurs, the most significant of which now are his anti-Semitic ones that are being called out. It's going to be difficult to either ignore these or pass them off as gaffes. Republican officials, leaders and office-holders are going to be questioned on this and eventually the president-elect himself.

Trump really is going to have to be the Master Persuader that Scott Adams thinks he is to navigate this conundrum. Scott Adams has some advice on this, but that would meaning confronting many of his supporters.
Unfortunately, picking Steve Bannon as chief strategist adds confirmation bias to the monster illusion because Clinton’s team polluted Bannon’s brand during the election. Bannon adds confirmation bias to the monster illusion. I assume Bannon is a great strategist or else Trump wouldn’t risk keeping him.…
But not to worry.
[Donald Trump] has lots of levers. Expect him to push one lever after another until the monster framing cracks. By summer the story will be that he’s the most flexible and centrist president in our history.
How will that go down with the base that elected him to "drain the swamp." 

On the other hand, Barack Obama disappointed progressives out the box by selecting Rahm Emmanuel as WH chief of staff and bailed out Wall Street while hanging Main Street out to dry. He was still reelected although he lost his party's majorities in Congress.

Meanwhile the "Soros-funded" protests continue in the streets and foreign leaders are in a quandary with their own electorates as to how far they can deal with Donald Trump, let alone support him as global leader.

Pandoras's box is now open.

Marshall Auerback — It’s Class, Stupid, Not Race

To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists and whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.
But that alone doesn’t explain Trump’s success. As I wrote in an earlier analysis of the Trump phenomenon, he became the voice for an increasing number of Americans, who counted themselves amongst the biggest losers of globalization and free trade. In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years. That’s why so many Americans have simply stopped voting (and this year was no different, as it looks like a mere 57.9% of the voter eligible population turned out). And perhaps Trump is a faux populist, who is merely deploying bait and switch tactics, but he explicitly addressed his campaign to those who have been marginalized by the neo-liberal policies dominant in both parties.…
The establishment, especially the Democratic Party establishment, keeps enforcing what divides people rather than what unites people by embracing identity politics and ignoring class. Yes, a huge majority of women were offended by Trump’s “locker room talk”, but a large chunk still voted for him, and larger numbers of Hispanics voted for Trump than Romney. Doesn’t that suggest that identity politics has reached some sort of limit? Why not find common ground on the issue of class?…
The real issue is class power and class privilege.  Class power and class privilege arise from social status and the networking based on it that gets amplified and stratified by wealth.

America has become a plutonomous oligarchy that won't change much without campaign finance reform, ending corporate lobbying, and locking the revolving door. This is, take way the tools of class power and privilege that enable government capture.
It is true that this process is likely to be resisted by the donor class and it may well take another financial crisis before their power is fully broken. Voters crave effective action to reverse long term economic decline and runaway economic inequality, but nothing on the scale required will be offered to them by either of America’s money-driven major parties. This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.
Counterpunch
It’s Class, Stupid, Not Race
Marshall Auerback

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Jason Hirthler — The Corporate Liberal in America

Whether seated in Congress or exiting a voting booth, a corporate liberal is someone who supports anything progressive that does not challenge corporate power. In practice, this means corporate liberals will fight for progressive identity politics. If it has to do with race, sexual orientation, and gender, it generally doesn’t challenge corporate power.  
Major corporations support progressive positions on those issues, too. Corporate liberals march for gay rights and the larger LGBTQ community itself. They support feminism. They support reproductive rights. They support African-American protests against police brutality—up to the point where they become threatening to the establishment. (Bill Clinton did initiate the prison industrial complex that unduly incarcerates huge numbers of minorities.)…
AKA Volvo liberals or latté liberals. Missing in the trenches.

Counterpunch
The Corporate Liberal in America
Jason Hirthler

Monday, January 18, 2016

David F. Ruccio — We’re all socialists now

OK, maybe not all of us. Not even a majority of us [Americans].
But a little-noticed data point in the new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa poll, in fact, shows that 43 percent of likely voters in the 1 February Democratic caucuses say they would use the word “socialist” to describe themselves.
The Sanders Effect.

Occasional Links & Commentary
We’re all socialists now
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Identity Politics and the Sclerosis of the American Left

We are at an interesting point in American history. We are at the apex of a 40-year triumph of neoliberal ideology in the US, and in fact, the world. At a time where public policy challenges are greater, and more global than ever, governments are less capable and less functional than ever. As a gridlocked Congress and lame-duck executive now struggle to pass the most basic of bills to keep the government open, its worth taking a look at how exactly we got here.

A quick look at our own history reveals it was not always this way. The Greatest Generation of voters and policymakers dug the country out of the Great Depression, fought a massive war on two fronts, and completely re-built the American economy in relatively short period of time. They were driven by more than just the necessities of winning wars and stopping depressions; they knew their work was deeply meaningful. They were changing not just their own lives but the entire trajectory of human society.

The unparalleled prosperity in the years that followed became its own worst enemy. The relative peace and prosperity of the post-war years led to a vacuum of meaningful employment and public engagement. The advertising Mad Men of Madison Avenue took full advantage of this vacuum, filling it with a potent, but pernicious focus on the self, on consumption, on branding, and in the process created a radical new way of forming human identities.

No longer was self-sacrifice  for the greater good a significant focus of people's lives. As the first generation of humans to be inundated with advertising from birth, the baby boomers unwittingly became a massive experiment in human social psychology. The new self-importance of post-New Deal American politics served perfectly the social movements that followed, and coalesced easily into the economic revolution of the last three decades.

The movements that shaped the baby boomer identities were uniquely uneconomic in nature, standing in stark contrast to those of their fathers. The Civil Rights, gay, and women's rights movements, along with sexual liberation while important, were movements focused exclusively on human identities. Discussions of economic power were almost entirely absent from these movements.

Perhaps no man embodies the rise of neoliberalism than Milton Freidman. Through his adept use of public media outlets to promote his radical message of market fundamentalism, Freidman was able to direct his message of individualism to a young audience eager to separate itself from the New Deal mentality of its parents. While the baby boomer motto of "dont trust anyone over 30" expressed frustration with the social conservatism and militarism of the previous generation, it, perhaps unintentionally, also condemned the New Deal values of class solidarity and economic struggle that had created the American middle class. As these values faded from America's political consciousness, they were replaced by the Freidman-esque focus on individual identity, freedom of self promotion, and adversity to leadership from the national government.

The last 30 years has show us that these identity-bases affiliations are as fragile as they are convenient. The absolute lack of any meaningful leadership from American politicians since the 1970's is plain evidence of the weakness of identity based politics. Not since Lyndon Johnson has a progressive politician taken the national stage and gone to bat for the bread-and-butter issues that are most important to America's middle class. The rise of identity politics has limited liberal movements to peripheral social issues, that while important, were addressed at the neglect of the core purposes and functions of national government. And once Ronald Reagan appeared on the scene, preaching an unapologetic message of greed, selfishness, and material prosperity, the identity politics generation was pulled right in. By this point, the Democratic party had been weakened by such an extent by identity politics, and had moved so far away from the bread-and-butter issues that had been its core, that it could not muster an effective opposition to the Reagan Revolution (and still cannot, to this day).

Neoliberalism thrives on identity politics. At first glance, neoliberalism is sleek, modern, and unoffensive. It can be easily explained and transmitted, like a zombie virus, through introductory college textbooks. It does not trip the political sensors of the identity politics generation. Unlike racism, sexism, or homophobia, it does not seek to deliberately sensor, constrain, or manage human behavior. But it ultimately does so, to a much greater extent, through a crushing blend of government power and corporate avarice. As a result, it has successfully slipped under the radar of so called "liberals" in the United States to an incredible degree, leading us to the economic dystopia we find ourselves in at the present day.The rise of unconventional candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are clear indicators of the anger of the mass of America which has slowly and quietly been economically dispossessed by neoliberalism.

The state of black America is perhaps the clearest example of how identity politics feeds neoliberalism. The civil rights movement was a legal victory that culminated with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. The passage of those laws finally brought an end to the overt, institutional racism of American government. No longer was political power being used to constrain minorities in such obvious ways. Ironically however, these legal victories created a veneer of political success that allowed neoliberal economic policy to thrive, which in the end dis-empowered and dispossessed Americans of all stripes, to a degree not seen since before the civil rights victories had been achieved. Poverty, unemployment, and discontent--all the products of neoliberalism- are now nearly as tragically common as before the civil rights victories of the 1960s.

And these legal victories were not economic ones. As Dr. King knew all to well, the larger struggle was for economic rights. After the 1965 Voting Rights Act, King focused his efforts largely on economic issues, fighting for higher wages, union rights, and job guarantees. His assassination took place following a march in Memphis, Tennessee, in support of the black sanitary public works employees who were striking for higher wages. None knew better than King the importance of universal, guaranteed employment. Far more effective than any handout, subsidy, or welfare program, a job guarantee is all inclusive. It hires anyone wiling and able to work. Unlike other welfare programs, it could never be perceived as a special advantage given to favored minorities. This latter part of his legacy has been largely forgotten, but in King's own words it was equally important.

And while minority issues are important matters of national policymaking, they are, by definition, not the issues of importance to the majority of American citizens. In a nation built on the principles of majority rule, a focus on minority issues cannot be a successful electoral strategy. Therefore, the increasing focus of liberals on to issues that don't affect the majority of the country has created enormous political backlash, and come at the expense of the necessary focus on economics and the power dynamics of global capitalism.  Equal rights are much more effectively addressed through the court system, where calm, judicial analysis can be made on a case by case basis, away from the heat and tension of electoral politics. As the triumphant LGBT activists have recently demonstrated, using the judicial branch of government, instead of the politically sensitive legislative and executive branches, is a far more effective strategy for bringing about equality.

Perhaps nothing is more emblematic of the triumph of identity politics, and the sclerosis of the American left, than the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton as the heir-apparent of the Democratic party. In no other time in the history of the post-New Deal Democratic party would someone who had been so close with the economic and politically powerful be considered a viable candidate. In no other time in the party's history would someone whose main name recognition was largely due to spousal choice and not administrative success be an  implied front-runner. Yet here we are. The simplistic desire of the identity generation to have "the first female president" seemingly trumps her enormous flaws, both on her policy views, and as an effective candidate. The power of the Clinton dynasty is due entirely to the triumph of liberal identity politics.

On economic issues, the Clintons are far to the right of Richard Nixon (and their political cynicism makes Nixon look like a amateur). Their hostility to the well-being of the blue collar, unionized American working class is unparalleled in Democratic Party history, as is their post-government coddling by the corporate community.  It is only because of Hillary's perceived "progressivism" on the issues close to the bleeding hearts of identity liberals that she is anywhere close to being the party's nominee.

Never in the course of baby-boomer adulthood has a movement arisen to challenge the backward slide of the American middle class, the militarization of police, the rise of post-9/11 security state, or the impending catastrophe of climate change. No, as long as those 401(k) balances and home equity values kept going upwards, the boomers didnt make a peep. Identity politics ultimately makes for a crass, shallow, and fickle basis for political identification.

The rising insurgency of Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, along with the bold leadership of Pope Francis, may be indicators that this 40 year old political dynamic may be finally changing. The pendulum may now be swinging back to the bread and butter issues which delivered the New Deal Democratic party near total control of government for decades. Nothing could be more frightening to the global cabal of  neoliberal elites. And nothing could be more necessary to the prosperity of man and earth.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Ezra Klein — Why Democrats and Republicans don’t understand each other


Identity politics versus interest politics.
On its face, this presents a puzzle: how can conservatism be the more popular ideology even as the Democrats are the more popular party?
Grossmann and Hopkins disagree. They see this not as a puzzle about American politics but as an explanation for why it works the way it does. They note that 73 percent of Republican voters say they're conservative but only 42 percent of Democratic voters say they're liberal. And they note that while voters tend to agree with Republicans on the philosophical questions in American politics (should government be smaller?) they tend to agree with Democrats on the policy questions in American politics (like should Social Security be smaller?).
73 percent of Republican voters say they're conservative but only 42 percent of Democratic voters say they're liberal
The Republican Party, in other words, has a very good reason to base itself around philosophical conservatism, while the Democratic Party has a very good reason to base itself around policy deliverables. And so the Republican Party bases itself around philosophical conservatism and the Democratic Party bases itself around policy deliverables.…
Republicans are uncompromising because compromise tends to expand the scope of government. Democrats are willing to make deep concessions because policy moves in a generally liberal direction. Republicans have a clearer message about government because their message about government is fundamentally popular. Democrats talk more about policy because what they have to say about policy is fundamentally popular.…
Democrats tend to project their preference for policymaking onto the Republican Party — and then respond with anger and confusion when Republicans don't seem interested in making a deal. Republicans tend to assume the Democratic Party is more ideological than it is, and so see various policy initiatives as part of an ideological effort to remake America along more socialistic lines.…
Still, there's much that this data does illuminate. I've often heard liberals wonder why there's no Democratic analogue to the Tea Party. I've often heard conservatives complain that their party doesn't spend enough time coming up with serious policy solutions for issues like health care. And, to be sure, there are some liberals trying to popularize Tea Party-like tactics and some conservatives trying to come up with sweeping new health reforms. But it's hard for these initiatives to succeed. There's a tendency to imagine the parties as mirror images of each other, and so to believe they can easily follow the other's strategies. But they can't. The parties are good at different things because they really are different.
Vox
Why Democrats and Republicans don’t understand each other
Ezra Klein