PDA

View Full Version : Identity Politics Are Tearing America Apart



Chris
08-31-2017, 01:07 PM
Criticism of identity politics goes mainstream with James A. Baker III and Andrew Young's Identity Politics Are Tearing America Apart (https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/identity-politics-are-tearing-america-apart-1504132735).


The two of us have seen this before: a critical point in U.S. history, when political, social and economic upheavals have left too many Americans battling one another rather than working together to build a better country. We lived through the Great Depression, when men armed with bats and clubs went to the streets in violent attempts to resolve labor differences. We also experienced the civil unrest of the 1960s, when inner cities burned with the heat of racial division and authorities killed innocent students peacefully protesting a war.

Somehow, the drumbeat of dissonance seems harsher today. America’s national ideal of “e pluribus unum”—out of many, one—threatens to become a hollow slogan. Jaded Americans are constantly confronted by a deluge of animus from their televisions and smartphones. The U.S. finds itself increasingly divided along lines of race, ethnicity, gender, religion and sexual identity. Countless demagogues stand ready to exploit those differences. When a sports reporter of Asian heritage is removed from his assignment because his name is close to that of a Confederate army general, political correctness has gone too far. Identity politics practiced by both major political parties is eroding a core principle that Americans are, first and foremost, Americans.

The divisions in society are real. So are national legacies of injustice. All can and must be addressed. Those who preach hatred should be called out for their odious beliefs. But even as extremism is condemned, Americans of good will need to keep up lines of civil, constructive conversation.

The country faces a stark choice. Its citizens can continue screaming at each other, sometimes over largely symbolic issues. Or they can again do what the citizens of this country have done best in the past—work together on the real problems that confront everyone.

Both of us have been at the center of heated disputes in this country and around the world. And there’s one thing we’ve learned over the decades: You achieve peace by talking, not yelling. The best way to resolve an argument is to find common ground.

...

The Xl
08-31-2017, 01:17 PM
Our msm is cancer

Chris
08-31-2017, 01:39 PM
Our msm is cancer

It certainly enflames the masses.

Kalkin
08-31-2017, 01:40 PM
Our msm is cancer

Only because it's infested with alt-left liberals.

Perianne
08-31-2017, 01:41 PM
It certainly enflames the masses.
People say it is about money. I think that is part of it, but I think mostly it is about ideology.

Chris
08-31-2017, 01:49 PM
People say it is about money. I think that is part of it, but I think mostly it is about ideology.

It used to be about money, in the old Marxist materialism, but the new post-modern neo-Marxist politics is all about group identity, finding a group perceived as oppressed, and then hunting down anyone to blame and shouting them down as Nazis or racists. See http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/87492-Post-Modern-Neo-Marxism.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 01:50 PM
Only because it's infested with alt-left liberals.

Not a helpful, nor a particularly thoughtful comment. It exemplifies, in fact, the sort of attitude that works against meaningful discussion and the finding of common ground.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 01:57 PM
People say it is about money. I think that is part of it, but I think mostly it is about ideology.

If we're still talking about the media, the employees tend to be liberals, but the owners are wealthy conservatives whose focus is still very much about money. Conflict sells the news, and the shareholders and CEOs of those media corporations could not, for the most part, care who the combatants are - as long as they are fighting or are perceived to be fighting.

Kalkin
08-31-2017, 01:58 PM
Not a helpful, nor a particularly thoughtful comment. It exemplifies, in fact, the sort of attitude that works against meaningful discussion and the finding of common ground.

I know it has to bother you that your ideological comrades are a large part of the problem. Your worthless opinion has been relegated to the circular file. Next.

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:03 PM
Only because it's infested with alt-left liberals.

There is a problem though in that "alt-right" groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis and other white supremacists play the same group identity game. They think they can win it, but win at the left's game?

Kalkin
08-31-2017, 02:11 PM
There is a problem though in that "alt-right" groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis and other white supremacists play the same group identity game. They think they can win it, but win at the left's game?
There are no winners in that game. Unfortunately, the left has been doing it so long that it's become their default election strategy. The KKK and neo-nazis are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The MSM has a much higher profile and influence.

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:12 PM
If we're still talking about the media, the employees tend to be liberals, but the owners are wealthy conservatives whose focus is still very much about money. Conflict sells the news, and the shareholders and CEOs of those media corporations could not, for the most part, care who the combatants are - as long as they are fighting or are perceived to be fighting.


That myth has been around for some time. For example: Ed Schultz: ‘Fact’ that Conservatives Control 90 Percent of Media (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362741/ed-schultz-fact-conservatives-control-90-percent-media-andrew-johnson):


Ed Schultz claimed that conservative ownership over nearly every media entity is part of the reason why the recent coverage on Obamacare has been unfavorable. “Fact of the matter is 90 percent of the electronic media which is owned in this country is owned by conservatives,” the MSNBC host claimed on his show on Wednesday evening.

While Schultz conceded that conservative media such as talk radio have been effective in their messaging, he blamed it for “putting people in a very entrenched way of thinking.” Without the Fairness Doctrine, he whined, the Left doesn’t have an opportunity to broadcast their views, which could ultimately cripple causes such as Obamacare.

Schultz’s so-called fact is presumably based on this graphic that highlights media consolidation, with six companies, including Viacom and Time Warner, owning about 90 percent of the media landscape. Yet, in no way does it indicate that they’re controlled by a vast conservative conspiracy, as Schultz claims.

In fact, if there was a conspiracy, then they’re not doing a very good job at it. According to a September Gallup poll, about half of Americans see the media as being “too liberal,” compared with 13 percent who see it as “too conservative.” Even among Democrats, roughly the same percentage find the media to be “too conservative” as they do “too liberal,” 21 percent and 19 percent respectively.

...

I can find article after article like that from a few years ago.

While it's true, These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6), it's not true they're conservative.

As one meme succinctly sums it up about the current darling of the media:

https://i.snag.gy/W5Dw4E.jpg

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:14 PM
There are no winners in that game. Unfortunately, the left has been doing it so long that it's become their default election strategy. The KKK and neo-nazis are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The MSM has a much higher profile and influence.

Agree, they are irrelevant and mainly because they play the left's long time game of identity politics.

Kalkin
08-31-2017, 02:16 PM
Agree, they are irrelevant and mainly because they play the left's long time game of identity politics.
The only reason we are discussing them at all is the MSM has used them to incite more division.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 02:17 PM
Appeals to the wants and desires of groups and sub-groups by politicians has been going on for as long as politicians have existed - along with its concomitant demonization of other groups. No Party or ideology is innocent of the practice.

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:24 PM
Appeals to the wants and desires of groups and sub-groups by politicians has been going on for as long as politicians have existed - along with its concomitant demonization of other groups. No Party or ideology is innocent of the practice.

That's not really what identity politics is about, the appealing of politicians to groups for votes or marketeers appealing to various demographics.

It's more politics that claims to side with oppressed identity groups--identified by race, sex, secual orientation, etc--who seek social justice against oppressors who fail to see their abstract groups and the abstract rights being denied them.

Some ideologies, rightly or wrongly, are individualistic and see people as people and seek justice for each.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 02:24 PM
That myth has been around for some time. For example: Ed Schultz: ‘Fact’ that Conservatives Control 90 Percent of Media (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362741/ed-schultz-fact-conservatives-control-90-percent-media-andrew-johnson):



I can find article after article like that from a few years ago.

While it's true, These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6), it's not true they're conservative.

As one meme succinctly sums it up about the current darling of the media:

https://i.snag.gy/W5Dw4E.jpg

The Schultz piece you quoted moves the goalposts midway through - going from (paraphrasing) "the owners are not conservative" to "the owners are not in a conservative conspiracy". The point I was attempting to make is that the owners, the millionaires and billionaires who derive their income from exploiting conflict and division, whatever their personal political views happen to be, don't care which side the media they control portrays as winning or losing - as long as the fighting continues.

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:26 PM
The Schultz piece you quoted moves the goalposts midway through - going from (paraphrasing) "the owners are not conservative" to "the owners are not in a conservative conspiracy". The point I was attempting to make is that the owners, the millionaires and billionaires who derive their income from exploiting conflict and division, whatever their personal political views happen to be, don't care which side the media they control portrays as winning or losing - as long as the fighting continues.

All that may be true but at least you have dropped the silly claim the corporate owners of the media are conservative.

The Xl
08-31-2017, 02:27 PM
It's certainly just not the left, the right is in on it as well. I do think there are a few more honest conservatives than liberals, but not by much.

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:33 PM
It's certainly just not the left, the right is in on it as well. I do think there are a few more honest conservatives than liberals, but not by much.

Indeed, there seems to be an emergence of right wing identity groups. There's a lot of white pride stuff. And male pride stuff aimed at restoring dominance. Polly is not mistaken about this, though I think it's pretty much fringe right and, as Kalkin said, not very significant, other than it gives the left something to shout about.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 02:37 PM
That's not really what identity politics is about, the appealing of politicians to groups for votes or marketeers appealing to various demographics.

It's more politics that claims to side with oppressed identity groups--identified by race, sex, secual orientation, etc--who seek social justice against oppressors who fail to see their abstract groups and the abstract rights being denied them.

Some ideologies, rightly or wrongly, are individualistic and see people as people and seek justice for each.

Your last sentence, in particular, resonates with me because I have long argued that preferences in hiring, in promotion, in school admissions, etc., should focus solely on individual achievement and potential, regardless of any other factor.

On the other hand, you write (it seems to me) dismissively about the members of groups who are oppressed, as though that oppression isn't really "a thing". Laws concerning voting being re-written in order to target and disenfranchise a specific racial or age group? Sane, adult, consenting adults being denied access to a public institution because they are of the same sex? A group of individuals who are singled out for other than fair treatment by a government entity because of some characteristic they share - that group has not "created" a common identity for themselves as much as they have had one forced upon them.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 02:45 PM
All that may be true but at least you have dropped the silly claim the corporate owners of the media are conservative.

I haven't "dropped" anything. Rupert Murdoch, G.E., Time-Warner, etc. - they all have a conservative agenda and (as one would expect) a pro-corporate bias, but that's not the point. It isn't really important to me what their ideologies are because it isn't important to them. Not when it comes to what we see presented in the news.

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:49 PM
Your last sentence, in particular, resonates with me because I have long argued that preferences in hiring, in promotion, in school admissions, etc., should focus solely on individual achievement and potential, regardless of any other factor.

On the other hand, you write (it seems to me) dismissively about the members of groups who are oppressed, as though that oppression isn't really "a thing". Laws concerning voting being re-written in order to target and disenfranchise a specific racial or age group? Sane, adult, consenting adults being denied access to a public institution because they are of the same sex? A group of individuals who are singled out for other than fair treatment by a government entity because of some characteristic they share - that group has not "created" a common identity for themselves as much as they have had one forced upon them.


I dismiss the abstractions. The abstract groups and the abstract rights demanded for them. I accept the individual injustices and correction of them.

"Sane, adult, consenting adults being denied access to a public institution because they are of the same sex?" I would argue is a universal problem violating univeral rights, not as merely a gay identity group problem. If I can make this clear, the difference is between treating gays as people who share universal rights equally, as opposed to gays being a special group with special rights. When the argument is framed in terms of an identity group, it pits sides against side intead of, as the OP calls for, working together.

I'm not so sure that group has not created an identity, some not, some yes. The problem come more from others not in those identity groups arguing for them in proxy in order to attack others.

Chris
08-31-2017, 02:51 PM
I haven't "dropped" anything. Rupert Murdoch, G.E., Time-Warner, etc. - they all have a conservative agenda and (as one would expect) a pro-corporate bias, but that's not the point. It isn't really important to me what their ideologies are because it isn't important to them. Not when it comes to what we see presented in the news.

Pro-corporate is not conservative, lordy.

And, again, if you assume them conservative, they sure do love Trump.

The Xl
08-31-2017, 02:53 PM
Indeed, there seems to be an emergence of right wing identity groups. There's a lot of white pride stuff. And male pride stuff aimed at restoring dominance. Polly is not mistaken about this, though I think it's pretty much fringe right and, as Kalkin said, not very significant, other than it gives the left something to shout about.

It's not so much that these groups don't exist, it's that they're irrelevant fringe groups being made out to be bigger and more influential than they actually are.

There really are no leftists or rightys at the top, they'll do whatever they can to make money and divide the rest of us.

Chris
08-31-2017, 03:00 PM
It's not so much that these groups don't exist, it's that they're irrelevant fringe groups being made out to be bigger and more influential than they actually are.

There really are no leftists or rightys at the top, they'll do whatever they can to make money and divide the rest of us.


Fringe but I would argue that much of the education going down in universities is geared toward identity politics, some courses dedicated to it and teaching youth how to fight for it, usually the humanities, but I heard it even infiltrates mathematics lately. This is why you see this whacky snowflake/safespace stuff happening on campuses, even to the point of shutting down speakers and violence. A lot of what you see in the streets like harlotteville and Boston is this, amplified by the fact these warriars are going up against right-winge identity groups.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 03:54 PM
I dismiss the abstractions. The abstract groups and the abstract rights demanded for them. I accept the individual injustices and correction of them.

Which is exactly what happens in, for example, a case that goes before the Supreme Court. Jim Obergefell was a gay man who was not being allowed to marry his partner, so he brought suit against the Ohio Director of Public Health. In order for Jim Obergefell to receive justice, it was necessary to change the law for all others in his circumstances. It would not have been possible for the State to permit Jim Obergefell and his partner to marry and leave all other members of that "abstract group" out in the cold.


"Sane, adult, consenting adults being denied access to a public institution because they are of the same sex?" I would argue is a universal problem violating univeral rights, not as merely a gay identity group problem. If I can make this clear, the difference is between treating gays as people who share universal rights equally, as opposed to gays being a special group with special rights. When the argument is framed in terms of an identity group, it pits sides against side intead of, as the OP calls for, working together.

Unfortunately, what some folks mean by "special rights" are not really special rights at all, but simply the rights to which some individuals had previously had no access.

As for framing the argument in terms of an "identity group", what, if not that, are Christians doing when they base their views on same-sex marriage on the tenets of their religious faith? They're identifying themselves as Christians and saying our group doesn't approve of what that other group is doing.

Chris
08-31-2017, 04:01 PM
Which is exactly what happens in, for example, a case that goes before the Supreme Court. Jim Obergefell was a gay man who was not being allowed to marry his partner, so he brought suit against the Ohio Director of Public Health. In order for Jim Obergefell to receive justice, it was necessary to change the law for all others in his circumstances. It would not have been possible for the State to permit Jim Obergefell and his partner to marry and leave all other members of that "abstract group" out in the cold.



Unfortunately, what some folks mean by "special rights" are not really special rights at all, but simply the rights to which some individuals had previously had no access.

As for framing the argument in terms of an "identity group", what, if not that, are Christians doing when they base their views on same-sex marriage on the tenets of their religious faith? They're identifying themselves as Christians and saying our group doesn't approve of what that other group is doing.


But the court found marriage a fundamental* right for all, a universal and not a special right.

Yes, some argue marriage must be between a man and a woman and men and women are free to choose their partners but that gay merriage is something special. That in itselfborders on arguing group identity politics. --Anyway, I disagree and see it as a univeral right, you know, all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty and the pursut of happiness.


I think you can identify an issue and argue it in a framework of group identity politics, or argue it other ways, as I have. The issue doesn't define the ideology, the ideology itself does that.


Taking down statues is largely a group identity political thing. The issue isn't, but the actions are.


*Confusing because that fundamental was based on other rights like free association.

Standing Wolf
08-31-2017, 04:21 PM
But the court found marriage a fundamental* right for all, a universal and not a special right.

Yes.


Yes, some argue marriage must be between a man and a woman and men and women are free to choose their partners but that gay merriage is something special. That in itselfborders on arguing group identity politics. --Anyway, I disagree and see it as a univeral right, you know, all men are created equal with rights to life, liberty and the pursut of happiness.

We agree on something. Somebody check the temperature in Hell.


I think you can identify an issue and argue it in a framework of group identity politics, or argue it other ways, as I have. The issue doesn't define the ideology, the ideology itself does that.

If the issue is the existence of a law - a law that mandates a prohibition or a requirement - and that law adversely affects members of a particular group, then I think it makes sense to address it in terms of the rights of members of that group to equal justice. It may come out sounding like some "group" is being empowered, but in fact it is the individual members of that group, as individuals, who benefit.

Chris
08-31-2017, 04:41 PM
Yes.



We agree on something. Somebody check the temperature in Hell.



If the issue is the existence of a law - a law that mandates a prohibition or a requirement - and that law adversely affects members of a particular group, then I think it makes sense to address it in terms of the rights of members of that group to equal justice. It may come out sounding like some "group" is being empowered, but in fact it is the individual members of that group, as individuals, who benefit.


The temperature in the Hole is cool today.


How about a law that susidizes a single family monopoly on sugar in the US by protecting it from foreign competition? Or the conglomerate agribusinesses? Eh, but they're not identity groups because there's no emotional appeal, no one seems to be oppresed and in need of anyone fighting their cause. And still, a law that would require special protection of blacks or women or gays, hiring quotas, say, is the same thing.

Peter1469
08-31-2017, 05:45 PM
I heard something in passing on the radio- the democrats held a poll (not sure of who, leadership or members) and the poll seemed to conclude that the party needed to move away from identity politics and get back to issues.