The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

one person's identity politics is another person's freedom fighter, if you know what I mean

[Tequila Cowboy]

My point is more on the lines of that if we can't get past identity politics, we doom our existence to fighting over things that shouldn't be relevant to how you're treated by our government.

Diversity should be embraced and celebrated. It's often used as a wedge. That doesn't mean you ignore it, you just quit wedging. There are absolutely going to be future leaders in, for example, BLM. Find the people who articulate the real point (our criminal justice system disproportionately harms African American males, and we need to change it) of the movement; not just yell at people and say that their inherent privilege invalidates their belief or opinion.

The left has positively used identity politics in the past, but it's reaching a point where they create more division. To get past the idea that some groups are inherently inferior and thus don't deserve full rights, you to have rise above tribalism. Tribalism will just perpetuate the idea that some group is going to rise to the top and subjugate the others. Which is what equal rights is supposed to destroy.

Tribalism will never disappear. As they discuss in the Politico piece it's been with us since the beginning, and it will be with us until the end. We can wish that wasn't so but it is. To combat it you form coalitions, compromise and support each other's missions. Do you really there are many Trum supporters that want to give up their version of identity politics? Most of these people can't even admit their racism to themselves. Lilla misses the point when he says stop marching, we all should be marching for a causes but leadership of these causes has to step up as well. They'll do that if they're asked, dismissing them creates further division. BLM is important, and you even state why in your post, but Lilla wants them to sit down and shut up. How about engage with them, offer support and try to identify their leadership? There are people, even moderate liberals, who think they're a terrorist organization. Can you please tell me why we, meaning those of us that support their political positions, aren't shouting this down from the rooftops? Instead we let the right say that they are no better than the KKK and refuse to challenge that ridiculous notion. We do have more that unites us than divides us, Lilla gets that right, but he's trying to imagine a unity of purpose that doesn't exist without acknowledging and celebrating our difference and diversity.

[Tequila Cowboy]

one person's identity politics is another person's freedom fighter, if you know what I mean

As has always been the case.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Can you please tell me why we, meaning those of us that support their political positions, aren't shouting this down from the rooftops? Instead we let the right say that they are no better than the KKK and refuse to challenge that ridiculous notion.

I guess we knew what we signed up for

[Iowan]

one person's identity politics is another person's freedom fighter, if you know what I mean

As has always been the case.

Also applies to Trumpsters. At least in their own minds.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

one person's identity politics is another person's freedom fighter, if you know what I mean

As has always been the case.

Also applies to Trumpsters. At least in their own minds.

and that's the crux of the biscuit

[beantownbubba]

First of all, TC and anyone else for that matter, no need to apologize for disagreeing. Disagreement and discussion are both good and necessary. Truth is pretty darn elusive w/out both. I disagree w/ you as much as you disagree w/ me and that's fine. I also will put on the table directly that, as w/ most controversial matters, the truth is probably in between. On the substance:

Yeah, I think the Politico piece is where I first of Lilla and his book. I find the Politico article to be not so much wrong as bizarre. "Identity politics is as American as apple pie" Zeitz writes and his first three examples are the 1864 Democratic party, Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. All of whom lost, and pretty decisively. What then is the point? That's like saying that fascism is as American as apple pie because we've had fascists for a long, long time. Wrong, obviously, because fascism has always been and remains a distinctly minority view. Besides, as I argue below, it's not that identity politics hasn't always existed but how it's been perceived and how it's operated w/in the political system that's changed.

I've been thinking about the concept of white identity politics a lot ever since lotus made some very good points about it here a few months ago. I would say that he made the case a lot better than Zeitz does. And what I've concluded is not that lotus (or Zeitz) is wrong, but they miscategorize white identity politics as the same as what we commonly refer to as identity politics in the modern left. They're not the same and they're only somewhat analagous. While it's complicated and I don't have it fully worked out, white identity politics by definition applies to a dominant group (how that dominance is being reduced is also part of the story, but not for now) and is an appeal to fear and risk of loss while left identity politics is an appeal to narrowly based commonality in order to achieve particular and somewhat narrow ends for particular sub-groups. The point is not that "white identity politics" doesn't exist it's that it doesn't work in the same way and that concluding that we need our identities in order to counteract their identity is a misreading of the landscape and a misguided strategy.

To a large extent, Zeitz and the others argue that Lilla is wrong simply be recharacterizing the dynamics he describes. It is EXACTLY Lilla's argument that "good" politics consists of the balancing of competing interests and the ability to work w/ others w/ whom you may not have a lot in common. That's exactly how Zeitz describes Truman's campaign as if he's disagreeing w/ Lilla. What Lilla argues that's different is that the current version of left identity politics is so moralistic and narrowly focused that it does not invite and indeed almost compels rejection of these sorts of compromises. If one stops to think for a moment, of course identity politics MUST have played a part in the successes of, e.g., the civil right movement. How else would black people have come together in the realization that they were the victims who had problems that needed fixing? Who else could they have been addressing but those who identify as white? But the approach, as Lilla explains, was to say "we want in to America. We buy into this equality thing but look, things are not equal." THAT was the commonality that got buy in from other groups including a substantial chunk of those who could be characterized as among the "white identity politics crowd." Or, put another way, as I have argued in other contexts, a key difference between today's politics and previous generations' is that it's a lot easier to argue over and split an expanding pie than a shrinking one. Even if one believes that today's pie is not shrinking, the way it is distributed makes for a very different and more adversarial world. If I get something, you lose something. OT1H, that's a motivation to find and join an identity group that will protect your share. OTOH, that approach is a prescription for disaster particularly if one believes in the value of liberal democracy (in the philosophical sense, not liberal as in left).

Lilla's opponents exaggerate Lilla's downplaying of identity groups in American history beyond all substance. That creates easy straw men but does not seriously address his POV. No serious person would argue that identity politics doesn't matter or hasn't long existed. For decades it was a long running joke that a guy named O'Bryant was repeatedly elected to the Boston City Council, even through the height of the busing chaos. Little did the average voter know that O'Bryant was black; they thought they were voting for "a good Catholic; one of us." Big city machines were always organized along ethnic or religious lines (the key historical point there is that for the most part they were not organized along class lines as in Europe). The story of almost very big city is the story of how succeeding waves of ethnic groups took over the political machinery as "their time came." It's how those groups see themselves in the big picture of "America" and how those groups interact w/ the political realities at levels above their ward or city that Lilla argues has changed. He calls it "we" v. "I" or "outward looking" v. "inward looking." I agree w/ him.

I didn't read the full article, but The NY Review of Books piece gets Lilla wrong. He does NOT dismiss the concerns of women and African-Americans as irrelevant; that's either a misreading or intentional distortion of Lilla's views. His point is that silo-like focus and exclusionary membership by identity groups is not productive - sort of a divide and conquer argument. While Lilla doesn't make this exact point I think he'd agree that it's very instructive that at the time of his death, Martin Luther King, Jr. had recently become an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. King understood the relationship between issues and the groups identified w/ those issues and understood that collective action, not disconnected individual "movements" was the way to achieve success.

Yes, Lilla argues that marching for distinct movements is not the right approach to regaining power. But it seems like this issue has taken over the debate over Lilla's thesis to the detriment of the larger points. While Lilla presents the marching v. machinery of government argument as all or none, I don't think that's where his argument rises or falls. Let's just say ok, some marching, some way for groups to keep their concerns in the public eye, is necessary. Fine. More important is the other half of the equation: Attention and energy must be paid to the nuts and bolts of getting elected at every level of government from dog catcher to president. Just as Lilla may be wrong to say marching is completely unnecessary, totally or largely ignoring the nuts and bolts is equally wrong and dangerous and one has to admit that many on the left enjoy a good wkend marching in DC a lot more than they do the tiresome daily, weekly and monthly trudge that is politics on the ground.

The overarching points are (i) the need for liberals/lefties of all shades to figure out points of commonality or community, what Lilla calls the rights and duties of citizenship; and (ii) the need to focus on consistently doing the hard work it takes to getting and keeping power by winning elections on all levels. If the left doesn't even look for that common ground, and doesn't seriously seek elected office throughout the country, they are ceding the political turf to the Trumps, McConnells and Gingriches.

[beantownbubba]

My point is more on the lines of that if we can't get past identity politics, we doom our existence to fighting over things that shouldn't be relevant to how you're treated by our government.

Diversity should be embraced and celebrated. It's often used as a wedge. That doesn't mean you ignore it, you just quit wedging. There are absolutely going to be future leaders in, for example, BLM. Find the people who articulate the real point (our criminal justice system disproportionately harms African American males, and we need to change it) of the movement; not just yell at people and say that their inherent privilege invalidates their belief or opinion.

The left has positively used identity politics in the past, but it's reaching a point where they create more division. To get past the idea that some groups are inherently inferior and thus don't deserve full rights, you to have rise above tribalism. Tribalism will just perpetuate the idea that some group is going to rise to the top and subjugate the others. Which is what equal rights is supposed to destroy.

Like.

[beantownbubba]

one person's identity politics is another person's freedom fighter, if you know what I mean

As has always been the case.

Actually, no, I don't know what you mean.

If you mean freedom fighter literally then you're talking about a situation where "politics" has broken down and violence has broken out. Identity politics is, I think, a method of achieving political ends by political (not violent) means. I get that both the fighter and the "politician" may share an allegiance to the same identity but I don't get the point*. No doubt I'm overthinking or misconstruing but I'd appreciate some help in understanding what you mean.

*Some would argue that both are necessary to achieve political goals. The creation of the State of Israel is a classic case in point. The argument over diplomacy v. guerilla war continues to this day and if truth does indeed lie somewhere in the middle than chances are some of each was necessary to achieve the desired ends.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

one person's identity politics is another person's freedom fighter, if you know what I mean

As has always been the case.

Actually, no, I don't know what you mean.

If you mean freedom fighter literally then you're talking about a situation where "politics" has broken down and violence has broken out. Identity politics is, I think, a method of achieving political ends by political (not violent) means. I get that both the fighter and the "politician" may share an allegiance to the same identity but I don't get the point*. No doubt I'm overthinking or misconstruing but I'd appreciate some help in understanding what you mean.

*Some would argue that both are necessary to achieve political goals. The creation of the State of Israel is a classic case in point. The argument over diplomacy v. guerilla war continues to this day and if truth does indeed lie somewhere in the middle than chances are some of each was necessary to achieve the desired ends.

you are bigly overthinking what i said. It was just a twist on the saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, just pointing out that whether something is "identity politics" is a matter of one's POV

[Tequila Cowboy]

The overarching points are (i) the need for liberals/lefties of all shades to figure out points of commonality or community, what Lilla calls the rights and duties of citizenship; and (ii) the need to focus on consistently doing the hard work it takes to getting and keeping power by winning elections on all levels. If the left doesn't even look for that common ground, and doesn't seriously seek elected office throughout the country, they are ceding the political turf to the Trumps, McConnells and Gingriches.

There's nothing in this statement I disagree with, but Lilla isn't saying it Jeff, you are. Or rather Lilla is saying that the movement politics need to sit down, buckle up and find commonalities in being an American. That's what I find so offensive. I agree we can work together, I agree we can back each other's candidates and causes but in the end those causes belong to the groups espousing them. I'm ashamed to admit this, because I have always considered myself a supporter of women's issues, but I was absolutely astonished that every single woman of my FB friends participated in the "me too" movement on social media. It turns out that every single woman I know (at least those I know that are social media friends, most of whom I know in real life as well) has been assaulted, raped, abused or criminally harassed. Every. Single. One. My wife says she doesn't know any women that haven't been assaulted. None. I mean if that isn't chilling I don't know what is. Kind of surprising that they don't kill us all in our sleep, cut off our nuts and store them in the freezer. I obviously don't have children but if I had a daughter and had to deal with the truth that I was sending her out into the world with 100% chance of being abused by men I'm not sure how I would deal with that. So do you want to tell women to stop marching for their rights? Do you want to tell them to stop concentrating on electing women to office? It's some sobering shit. Or how about black families that have to teach their children how to deal with police in a completely different, and frankly demeaning, way that parents of white children would never even think about? I've read (and heard) a lot of interviews with Lilla and he has basically told both these groups to sit down and shut up and when questioned on it launches into some hypocritical bullshit. In one of the pieces above, and in the book I believe, he asks how if we're all for equality why isn't that a singular issue for women, minorities, LGBTQ, etc. That's ridiculously naive in my opinion. Most people of a certain political stripe do agree with equality for all but first and foremost they are looking for the right not be harassed, beaten, assaulted or killed because of their gender, sexual identity, religion or color of their skin and they are viewing from the angle they understand be they women, minorities, etc.
Bringing up Lilla's "Mayors, not marchers" trope again to be elected mayor it's not enough to say you're for equality for all. You have to listen to all the groups and try to tailor your political message to reach as many of them as you can. When a women's group marches in the street to protest sexual harassment in city government they're not looking for the candidate to simply say "I support equality in all of its forms" they want that candidate to pledge that he/she is going to eliminate the culture of harassment in city government. They'll likely support the African-American who are looking for a less discriminatory police culture but that's secondary to their fight for their gender.

I urge you to seek out both printed and audio interviews with Lilla about his book and his position. They are numerous so they won't be hard to find. He lacks specifics, focus and solutions and sometimes he's just downright mean. Going back to the NYT Review of Books piece are these statement inclusive? "He disparages Black Lives Matter as “a textbook example of how not to build solidarity,” and dismisses “sex relations, the family, the secretarial pool, schools, the grocery store” (read: women’s issues) as all but irrelevant to serious politics.?. I've been angry about his viewpoint for almost a year now so this certainly ins't new and I've read virtually every piece on his screeds and this book that I can find so I think I understand him. He has some valid points but they're mixed with misogyny and a passive bigotry that I'm sure he would deny but is clear as day to me.

[beantownbubba]

Perfect example, TC. Should women marching to end sexual harrassment allow women from anti-abortion groups to march w/ them?

Perfect rhetorical questions, TC: Are African American families best advised to spend all their time explaining to their children how to be safe from the police or convincing white people to buy into the notion that what's happening to black (especially black male) youth is a horrible and unacceptable way for all children to have to grow up? Does it really require a black mayor or police chief to stop the killing? Is there any reason to think that black mayors or police chiefs can in fact stop the killing? On the Nixon to China theory, might not it be better to find a white mayor to champion change?

Yes, Lilla says that BLM is a perfect example of how not to build solidarity and I don't see why that's controversial; I suspect members of BLM would agree w/ it. I'm not going to re-read the book but as I said above I do not believe he dismissed women's issues as all but irrelevant.

in the end those causes belong to the groups espousing them

This saddens me greatly, TC. It is probably the crux of our disagreement on this set of issues. I know I am old fashioned and out of step, but I do not believe this either literally, or even more importantly, as an approach to getting and keeping political power. It is undoubtedly one major reason why I feel so alienated from modern politics in this country.

It's certainly true that my knowledge of Lilla's views are limited to those he expressed in the book. If he went further, or went off the rails, in other contexts I'm sorry to hear it but it doesn't change what I think about what he actually wrote in the book. If he's not the right frontman for his own ideas, he won't be the first.

[lotusamerica]

I've been thinking about the concept of white identity politics a lot ever since lotus made some very good points about it here a few months ago. I would say that he made the case a lot better than Zeitz does. And what I've concluded is not that lotus (or Zeitz) is wrong, but they miscategorize white identity politics as the same as what we commonly refer to as identity politics in the modern left. They're not the same and they're only somewhat analagous. While it's complicated and I don't have it fully worked out, white identity politics by definition applies to a dominant group (how that dominance is being reduced is also part of the story, but not for now) and is an appeal to fear and risk of loss while left identity politics is an appeal to narrowly based commonality in order to achieve particular and somewhat narrow ends for particular sub-groups. The point is not that "white identity politics" doesn't exist it's that it doesn't work in the same way and that concluding that we need our identities in order to counteract their identity is a misreading of the landscape and a misguided strategy.

Well, damn, I'm impressed you even remember that!

And I don't know Lilla and am not in a place to do extended reading on political issues right now (focusing on other things - my current books in hand are the future of the mind, the brain that changes itself, pre-suasion, and a handful about the coming age of robots), but one thing I might add to your comment above is that I think you are characterizing things objectively instead of subjectively, and so miss some stronger connections between white identity politics and subgroup identity politics.

I think white identity politics is less about objective dominance being reduced than about subjective perceptions of already being an oppressed subgroup who needs to regain a power position that is already lost. That objectively that is a ridiculous mythology is not very relevant - under Obama, with the mix of urban millenials, LGBTQ, minorities and women rising to some (still not many) positions of visibility, threatened white people already perceived themselves as a minority in the power structure even if not necessarily in numbers. And if a woman followed a black man, it was not going to be a temporary demotion, but a permanent dismissal from holding the reins of power (again, subjectively, obviously not objectively). The mythology was strong and lay behind many of the things perceived to be wrong about Hillary (Bengazi involved leading white men to be killed and then covering it up; she was going to take white men's guns so we couldn't even defend ourselves against the overlord government; she was going to give away the economy to the Chinese and the nuclear materials to the Russians and some vague power to the Arabs; and allow people of color and illegal immigrants to vote lots of times and drown out the good, honest white people who only vote once and have earned the right to do so). (Please don't read this as I think she was a good candidate; she wasn't, she was terrible).

[beantownbubba]

I think you are characterizing things objectively instead of subjectively, and so miss some stronger connections between white identity politics and subgroup identity politics.

You're right about this. It's not that I don't understand the subjective viewpoint, if nothing else like all of us I've read an absurd amount about it in the past year or 2. But if one is going to analyze the situation for purposes of improving performance (of the left in this case) the overlaps and distinctions between the objective and subjective cases becomes quite a delicate thing; straying too far in either direction will lead to the wrong conclusions and from there inevitably to the wrong solutions. Where's the right balance (for the purposes of guiding future action; not to get at some ultimate truth on the validity of white identity group concerns)? I don't know but I'm searching.

[John A Arkansawyer]

one person's identity politics is another person's freedom fighter, if you know what I mean

As has always been the case.

Actually, no, I don't know what you mean.

If you mean freedom fighter literally then you're talking about a situation where "politics" has broken down and violence has broken out. Identity politics is, I think, a method of achieving political ends by political (not violent) means. I get that both the fighter and the "politician" may share an allegiance to the same identity but I don't get the point*. No doubt I'm overthinking or misconstruing but I'd appreciate some help in understanding what you mean.

Here's an interesting and depressing illustration:

At the Berkeley rally, RAM certainly wasn’t the only violent element on the scene — antifa cadres hurled bottles and other projectiles and instigated a number of melees. But throughout the day, interviews and video show, RAM was perhaps the most effective and disciplined group as the fighting dragged on for hours. At least 11 people were injured in the violence, with seven going to local hospitals for treatment, including a stabbing victim, according to local officials.

“From the second we got there it was just chaos,” said the RAM leader. “People like to say we’re Nazis and stuff, but all the people we’ve beaten up are white college kids.”

German, the former FBI agent now with the Brennan Center in New York, says he was shocked by the news reports he was seeing online about Berkeley. He thought: This isn’t a riot. It’s basically low-level political warfare in the streets of an American city. German, who studies national security and civil liberties at the Brennan Center, said he couldn’t believe law enforcement was allowing the two sides to battle it out with each other for hours with minimal intervention.

Italics not added, though I might've if they hadn't been there, since they're directly to the point.

[beantownbubba]

Lotus's post, copied from the 150 greatest albums by women thread:

I think equality will happen when people have equal roles in society. That can happen somewhat through natural progression, but it also requires that underprivileged groups be granted stronger privileges in areas of importance to them than overprivileged groups until the time that things are truly equal.

Men don't get to dictate abortion policies or laws unless they support women controlling their own bodies.
White people shouldn't even comment on black NFL players kneeling during the anthem unless to support people of color expressing their right to protest racism.
Straight people don't have a place in setting integration policies for gay, lesbian or transgender people unless they want to lend support to sexual/gender minorities developing their own policies for inclusion.
And so on...

As white men, we have to give up the power on things that are not primarily about us. Equality won't happen by privileged white men telling underprivileged women, people of color, and sexual minorities to just everyone join in a big group together and eventually they will somehow become equal. White men have to be willing to become a minority, not just in numbers, but in power, before equality will happen. You can't simultaneously maintain a power position and bring about equality, so the only hope for unity happening is us willingly putting ourselves underneath these other groups on issues of importance to them.

[Smitty]

I haven't read Lilla's book yet (although I'll add it to my queue) so I won't speak to it, but in the past year I've read countless op-eds on the subject of "identity politics", many if not most of them coming from a detracting POV (obviously, unless it was a rebuttal, I imagine most of those who fall on the "pro" side of promoting and perpetuating what's referred to as identity politics wouldn't use that term to begin with), and either read or participated in many discussions about the subject; in fact I believe I shared Lilla's post-election NYT op-ed (The End of Identity Liberalism) on Facebook which IIRC prompted our own OBL to passionately refute it's merits in the comments or maybe a private message, I can't remember.
I initially went back and forth on this issue. I agree with everything TC said, but I acknowledge that something must be conceded going forward if we (the left) are going to be successful in any meaningful way. I instinctively grimaced when I read the "mayors not marchers" quote; I'm all for protesting, marching and all forms of expression that activism can take and I believe that can do wonders to spread awareness and even change hearts and minds, but shit what percentage of Americans support increased gun control, or even universal health care? Hearts and minds don't mean shit if we can't even win what should be "gimme" elections. I still reject that quote; it takes both, but whether or not it was what he intended, maybe what we should take from it is that if we took a fraction of the outrage we feel when we see an injustice and harnessed that energy into someone's political campaign, or motivated and mobilized bodies to get out on election day with the same fire that we do for a march or demonstration, then we could lessen the need for marches or demonstrations in the first place. Of course I think the real problem (and true head scratcher IMO) is that we don't really have anyone to rally around; I mean shit, the two most vocal anti-Trump politicians are Joe Biden and John McCain; why some upstart hasn't taken advantage of what seems like a golden opportunity yet is beyond me. Then again, despite it feeling like years, we are only nine months in to the Trump administration... holy shit.
Oh yeah, identity politics. Sorry, I work nights and I ramble when I drink. I think one major part that gets ignored or overlooked is that most of the most maligned social justice movements (America's sick of hearing about your damn bathrooms!) are reactionary; it's not as if the left sits around pondering what non-issue to get outraged against next (although that does sound familiar, but I don't think it's a liberal problem*cough*waronchristmas*cough). The very fact that it's framed as a leftist problem while the right skates by solely because theirs pertain to a majority demographics (white, rural, Christians, white rural Christians) call into question the entire premise. I don't buy "they don't count" just because there's more of them, sorry. I wonder if roles were reversed if there would be op-eds calling for Republicans to ditch giving special attention to specific groups? There is one big difference between them though; the left's IP causes seek to ensure they get the same rights afforded to everyone else; the right's want to ensure their liberty at the expense of anyone different. The right's strategy is a winning one, at least for now, so it's totally not a problem. This ain't a "whataboutism" either. I bring the right-wing up to illustrate the inherent flaw in the argument: that identity politics by themselves aren't the handicap, it just depends on who the identity belongs to. Maybe that's all completely off base; in fact I know it is, at least from what y'all (btb and Iowan) are saying; I know y'all better than that, but when the problem is framed in a way that the problem lies with giving attention to already marginalized groups (no matter how small) that have legitimate concerns and that are being actively targeted by discriminatory legislation by the other side, I just don't see what exactly it is we're supposed to do, as standing up for minorities and the oppressed is kind of our thing. I've seen it said over and over that the focus should be "on class, not race"at the same time that Bernie was running on a platform founded on wealth inequality while you could watch young black men were getting murdered by the police live on video. I mean wtf? I mean yeah the poor and formerly middle class whites are hurting as well; we are in the middle of an unprecedented drug epidemic, at least as far as deaths go, entire industries are either leaving, becoming obsolete or being staffed by temp agencies that pay less than you could make at fucking Wal Mart, so you gotta throw us a bone too and maybe, as hard as it is at times, bite your tongue and not say some shit that will probably further alienate us uneducated deplorables, but you don't pull a u-turn and go a hundred miles in the other direction and blame it all on Hillary paying lip service to LBGTQ groups. Like it or not, for better or worse, a large portion of millennials are "woke" (as they call it) and feel strongly about social injustice, and that genie ain't going back in the bottle; the call for a politician to not address issues of the marginalized is unrealistic, at least until the opposition gets them out of their cross hairs. The terrain may be a bit trickier than it was before, but I've no doubt we'll see some politicians who can navigate it better than Hillary did.
Whew, I started sober, got drunk, and took a nap during the writing of this post and TBH I'm scared to proofread it, so I hope I make some sort of sense and don't piss everybody off.

[beantownbubba]

What's wrong w/ pissing everybody off?

I instinctively grimaced when I read the "mayors not marchers" quote; I'm all for protesting, marching and all forms of expression that activism can take and I believe that can do wonders to spread awareness and even change hearts and minds, but shit what percentage of Americans support increased gun control, or even universal health care? Hearts and minds don't mean shit if we can't even win what should be "gimme" elections. I still reject that quote; it takes both, but whether or not it was what he intended, maybe what we should take from it is that if we took a fraction of the outrage we feel when we see an injustice and harnessed that energy into someone's political campaign, or motivated and mobilized bodies to get out on election day with the same fire that we do for a march or demonstration, then we could lessen the need for marches or demonstrations in the first place.

As discussed above, Lilla does present this as more or less an either or proposition and I (as well as others who have posted from the other direction) think he's wrong about that. But interestingly, you get to the place Lilla actually intended to go, which is to say the balance of effort is out of whack, more time and energy needs to be spent on elections and less on marches.

the inherent flaw in the argument: that identity politics by themselves aren't the handicap, it just depends on who the identity belongs to. Maybe that's all completely off base; in fact I know it is, at least from what y'all (btb and Iowan) are saying; I know y'all better than that, but when the problem is framed in a way that the problem lies with giving attention to already marginalized groups (no matter how small) that have legitimate concerns and that are being actively targeted by discriminatory legislation by the other side, I just don't see what exactly it is we're supposed to do, as standing up for minorities and the oppressed is kind of our thing.

I appreciate your mid-course correction here I do believe the problem is inherent to identity politics. I also believe that not buying into identity politics as an approach does NOT mean abandoning or ignoring "already marginalized groups (no matter how small) that have legitimate concerns and that are being actively targeted by discriminatory legislation by the other side." OK, fair enough you say, but "I just don't see what exactly it is we're supposed to do, as standing up for minorities and the oppressed is kind of our thing." I can't answer that in a sentence or even a paragraph but for now I'll say that I have made at least a couple of suggestions in the ebb and flow of this discussion and that Lilla would say "that's where mayors, not marches comes in." I would also say that when an identifiable group is actively targeted by discriminatory legislation, the response ought to come from all of us, not merely the targeted group. I don't think that those who support identity group politics would disagree; the point is that there's nothing about identity group politics that provides a better platform for fighting that kind of thing than the larger "body politic" that believes in fairness and non-discrimination doing so. Should the response be led by the specifically targeted group? I'd say more of than not, yes, but it depends on the specifics and it's not a requirement or always going to be the best option.

I think one major part that gets ignored or overlooked is that most of the most maligned social justice movements (America's sick of hearing about your damn bathrooms!) are reactionary; it's not as if the left sits around pondering what non-issue to get outraged against next (although that does sound familiar, but I don't think it's a liberal problem*cough*waronchristmas*cough). The very fact that it's framed as a leftist problem while the right skates by solely because theirs pertain to a majority demographics (white, rural, Christians, white rural Christians) call into question the entire premise. I don't buy "they don't count" just because there's more of them, sorry. I wonder if roles were reversed if there would be op-eds calling for Republicans to ditch giving special attention to specific groups? There is one big difference between them though; the left's IP causes seek to ensure they get the same rights afforded to everyone else; the right's want to ensure their liberty at the expense of anyone different. The right's strategy is a winning one, at least for now, so it's totally not a problem.

An interesting take on the subjective/objective point that lotus made.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I would also say that when an identifiable group is actively targeted by discriminatory legislation, the response ought to come from all of us, not merely the targeted group. I don't think that those who support identity group politics would disagree; the point is that there's nothing about identity group politics that provides a better platform for fighting that kind of thing than the larger "body politic" that believes in fairness and non-discrimination doing so. Should the response be led by the specifically targeted group? I'd say more of than not, yes, but it depends on the specifics and it's not a requirement or always going to be the best option.

As far as the bolded section, you would be right I don't disagree at all but in regards to your later point in this passage I do think it should always be led by the targeted group. They're the sheriffs, the rest of us who support them are the deputies in that scenario. I don't think a man can speak about women's issues anymore than I think white people can speak about the discrimination of minorities. We can, however, support their positions at the top of our lungs and fight for them at the ballot box. As far as the infamous "mayors and marchers" quote I want to see some those leading the marches become the mayors as opposed to just lobbying candidates, possibly of another race or gender, and bringing them to their cause. Sometimes that has to be the case by necessity, but not always. I think where our major disagreement stems from is at least in part you think that all of us coming together to fight the fights that need to be fought should be the end goal, but you think it should be individuals all coming to that greater good. I believe the same thing but believe that we just aren't nearly unified enough for that so I feel groups need to come to the table and support each other. Think of it as representative democracy versus true democracy. I just think that groups are better suited to produce leaders than the larger whole. I'm probably not going to change my mind on that. Yes we should all fight for equality but do you think, for example, that even the best intentioned white men could have led the Civil Rights Movement? White men were necessary to it's success as allies, but do really think they truly understood the level of oppression, on a personal level, in the same way the movement's black leaders did? To me that's an obvious NO and at the crux of my argument or to summarize the disadvantaged should speak for themselves, in their own voices, in their own way with the rest of us in support and in turn, on other issues with different groups everyone plays different roles. To me that is unity but more achievable than what I've gathered from your position.

I guess what I'm saying is that in my opinion everything that has been achieved in US electoral history has been formed by coalitions and forged in compromise. What I see derided as identity politics seems to be just that, an understanding of each group's positions and grievances supported by the body politic. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours if you will. The right has absolutely no qualms with this methodology among white people, why should we have issues with it when the focus is diversity?

[lotusamerica]

I think you are characterizing things objectively instead of subjectively, and so miss some stronger connections between white identity politics and subgroup identity politics.

You're right about this. It's not that I don't understand the subjective viewpoint, if nothing else like all of us I've read an absurd amount about it in the past year or 2. But if one is going to analyze the situation for purposes of improving performance (of the left in this case) the overlaps and distinctions between the objective and subjective cases becomes quite a delicate thing; straying too far in either direction will lead to the wrong conclusions and from there inevitably to the wrong solutions. Where's the right balance (for the purposes of guiding future action; not to get at some ultimate truth on the validity of white identity group concerns)? I don't know but I'm searching.

Really interesting point. Something to think about..thanks!

[Smitty]

So, should we be worried about the latest executive order, reportedly allowing for retired military to be called back into service?

[Cole Younger]

So, should we be worried about the latest executive order, reportedly allowing for retired military to be called back into service?

I don't think it is limited to retirees. I think it is all prior service. All that has to happen is is a "national emergency" must be declared. Boy am I excited. No way this could go wrong.

[Flea]

So, should we be worried about the latest executive order, reportedly allowing for retired military to be called back into service?

I don't think it is limited to retirees. I think it is all prior service. All that has to happen is is a "national emergency" must be declared. Boy am I excited. No way this could go wrong.

Cole, your reaction tells me everything I need to know about this.

[beantownbubba]

So, should we be worried about the latest executive order, reportedly allowing for retired military to be called back into service?

I don't think it is limited to retirees. I think it is all prior service. All that has to happen is is a "national emergency" must be declared. Boy am I excited. No way this could go wrong.

Cole, your reaction tells me everything I need to know about this.

x2. Flea, you might want to double time that rehab. Or change your name to flee. Or something.

[lotusamerica]

Moving this here from the 150 Women's album thread....


y lotusamerica » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:42 pm

Iowan wrote:
Isn't the goal of equality that no group is under another?

White men need to cede power. All of lotus's examples are great examples of how to do that.

That's different than "willingly putting ourselves beneath others". That kind of self-flagelating rhetoric is just fuel to the White supremacist crowd. There's a very palpable under current from some that current white men should be punished for the sins of the past. How is that equality? It's just revenge.

----
Lotus:
Also don't miss that I said "on issues of importance to them" or something like that.

I'm not exactly sure of the difference between ceding power and willing putting ourselves beneath others on issues of importance to them, but I just think if the issue primarily involves women, women should get the primary say, and so on. We need to get to the full societal equality eventually, but why not start there? Men can willingly defer to women on women's health issues, white people can willingly defer to people of color on issues that affect them more than us (and of course the NFL kneeling thing is not a very important one, but how about criminal justice and urban education issues?), and why the fuck can't we just build a third bathroom for whoever wants to use it? None of these will even come close to making things equal, but why can't we start with deferring to people affected most by issues as a reasonable place to start?

Next level...punished for the sins of the past? I'm not sure what that refers to. Slavery? Oppression of women? And what is punishment?

To me, anything I can think of that fits into this framing is something that continues to reverberate today with continued significant power differentials. Do I think financial reparations are owed to the black community? Depends on how you frame it I guess. Overall, their schools are underfunded, their housing is overpriced, predatory lenders everywhere, lots of them get locked up due to a combination of racially disparate laws, generational deprivation, embedded and perpetuated poverty, and disporportionately high arrest, conviction and sentencing rates, etc. They live in food deserts, recreation deserts, high crime environments, with multigenerational PTSD, broken families, relatively little opportunity, etc.

Should white men be punished for this? Well, I don't know what is meant by punishment. Should we pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to fix these situations? Well, hell yes we should. This all is still the legacy of slavery in this country. Is it my fault that people before I was born held slaves, or people before I was born kept black people from voting, or segregated, etc.? Of course it isn't my fault, I wasn't alive.

But is it my responsibility to continue to give more than my equal fair share of taxes to fix this? Of course it is. I live unencumbered from any of these problems. I might have grown up poor, but I didn't grow up with all this to deal with. Why should I have to pay for it? Because I can be utterly average in talent and effort and get by pretty well just fine, but people from disadvantaged communities have to be close to stellar to thrive in meaningful ways. I might not be personally to blame for that, but the right thing is for that to be made more equal, and the disadvantaged people can't afford to pay for it, so the burden falls on me and others who don't have those kinds of disadvantages. Is that redistribution of income? Is that the government taking from me by force something that disproportionately benefits someone else? Well sure it is both and it's pretty much the only right thing to do. And my opinion about it shouldn't really matter all that much. A strong government with a strong tax policy needs to take that money from my paychecks and put it where it will best serve the correction of the wrong that still exists and that will begin to equalize society.

How is that right? Well, the money I earn in my paycheck, through my contracts, or through my business, isn't all mine. It's the result of a mix of my effort and my advantaged place in society that allows me to do the same amount of work with the same amount of talent as someone from a disadvantaged community or frankly a woman from any community, and somehow reap a greater reward because I started from a place of relatively greater advantage, and live in a system where it's easier for me to get a job, to get paid more, and to have more opportunities to rise quicker.

I don't feel defensive about this. I don't need to self-flagellate, feel guilty or ashamed, or apologize. I don't have to feel bad about being a white man. I just need to pay more because money flows more easily my way just by my heritage, and I need to take the hit sometimes when someone is given an opportunity who might be equal or even slightly below me on some scale of competence, demonstrated achievement, etc. If I get ten turns in life to advance my career, etc., is it really so bad if a few of those ten times I'm the one disadvantaged in the competition? Is that being punished or just having my position of advantage occasionally equalized?

Okay, this is way off the 150 greatest albums issue, and it's clear I just worked all week and need to go have a drink and chill out a bit..

[lotusamerica]

Nothing really new, but just another poke in the side over gerrymandering...

https://billmoyers.com/story/america-he ... rity-rule/

[beantownbubba]

Tax reform takes hard work, persistence, intelligence and wearing a rubber because you care about the future, but all that foreplay leads to one hell of a big bang and the afterglow lasts for 20 years.

Tax cuts require nothing but sitting back, letting somebody else do the work, focusing only on the moment, is over really quick and doesn't feel like the real thing, but if you try really hard you can convince yourself that at least a handjob is better than jerking off, especially since she/he's such a slut you don't even have to take 'em out to dinner and they think getting smeared w/ garbage in the alley is the good part.

[cortez the killer]

Tax reform takes hard work, persistence, intelligence and wearing a rubber because you care about the future, but all that foreplay leads to one hell of a big bang and the afterglow lasts for 20 years.

Tax cuts require nothing but sitting back, letting somebody else do the work, focusing only on the moment, is over really quick and doesn't feel like the real thing, but if you try really hard you can convince yourself that at least a handjob is better than jerking off, especially since she/he's such a slut you don't even have to take 'em out to dinner and they think getting smeared w/ garbage in the alley is the good part.

More comedic gold. Bubba-style.

[scotto]

Wouldn't it be nice if all these politicians, pundits, and used-to-be's excoriating Trump would actually grow some real balls and say his name?

[John A Arkansawyer]

Wouldn't it be nice if all these politicians, pundits, and used-to-be's excoriating Trump would actually grow some real balls and say his name?

There's always a reason for what people do.