City Journal: Liberals, Shipwrecked (book review)

[nonniey]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/liberals-shipwrecked-15410.html

 

".....In his new book, Columbia University humanities professor Mark Lilla laments the phrase “speaking as an X.” Ubiquitous in academia for years, but now increasingly prevalent in general discourse, it is an introductory clause that

sets up a wall against questions, which by definition come from a non-Xperspective. And it turns the encounter into a power relation: the winner of the argument will be whoever has invoked the morally superior identity and expressed the most outrage at being questioned. So classroom conversations that once might have begun, I think A, and here is my argument, now take the form, Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B. This makes perfect sense if you believe that identity determines everything. It means there is no impartial space for dialogue.

 

.......Such reactions give strong reason to doubt that we will soon see a post- or anti-identity politics emerging the Democratic Party. And yet, an even stronger reason exists. The feasibility of Lilla’s project depends on the plausibility of his analysis. If identity politics is an affliction that happened to liberalism, as he sees it, then it’s realistic to activate Democratic antibodies to reject the pathogen. If, however, identity politics is a condition to which liberalism is inherently susceptible, or even disposed, then identity politics is not the Democrats’ problem but their destiny. Unfortunately for Lilla, the evidence points in this direction.

Something came between the New Deal Democratic Party, summoned to pride and patriotism by Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, and today’s Democratic Party, micro-targeting so many distinct constituencies that, to Lilla, it seems better prepared to govern Lebanon than America. In between came McGovernism—not just George McGovern’s 1972 campaign but also the whole style and substance of 1960s and 1970s liberalism: from John F. Kennedy’s cool to Robert Kennedy’s zeal; from civil rights to Black Power; from the counterculture, New Left, and antiwar movements to feminism and environmentalism. The result, says Lilla, turned Joe Sixpack’s Democratic Party into Jessica Yogamat’s. Democrats uncritically embraced the constituencies and passions brought to the fore in the 1960s—often at the expense of common sense, political and governmental. In these years, Lilla writes, “liberals, fearful of ‘blaming the victim,’ refused to speak about the new culture of dependency, or about the tremendous rise in violent crime in the 1960s.”

As a result, identity politics determined the Democratic reaction in 1988 when George W. Bush’s presidential campaign raised the “Willie Horton” issue against his opponent, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. It was intolerable, liberal activists and journalists declared, to bring to public attention an incident where a black man had brutalized a white couple. What was tolerable, by implication, was a policy (unique to Massachusetts) that gave violent felons, serving life sentences and ineligible for parole, unsupervised furloughs. Little wonder that Joe Sixpack voters tuned into Reagan Democrats as they came to associate liberalism with “profligacy, spinelessness, malevolence, masochism, elitism, fantasy, anarchy, idealism, softness, irresponsibility, and sanctimoniousness,” as sociologist Jonathan Rieder put it in Canarsie (1985). To this day, Democrats think that what Bush said about Willie Horton was outrageous but that what Dukakis did was, at worst, unfortunate......."

 

[No Excuses]

Identity politics is at the core of both parties. 

[Going Commando]

Mark Lilla has made some good and persuasive arguments about the self destructive exclusivity and condescension of mainstream liberalism today.  I'm going to read The Once and Future Liberal eventually.

 

I don't buy this author's claim that identity politics means Liberalism doesn't believe in itself though.  Finding truth in nuanced, shades  of grey analysis of the world doesn't mean you don't believe the conclusions you reach.  There is actually strong and broad consensus within the Left about most social and policy issues.  Broad cross ethnic and cross class consensus and support on all kinds of issues within the Left.  And further, I think there is popular support for a majority of Democratic positions that extends well beyond the party's core constituencies.  The problem is the party can't ****ing win elections without transcendent charismatic presidential candidates coming along because they are terrible at playing the game.

[No Excuses]

In fact, I can't think of a time when identity politics wasn't an emphasis in US politics and exploited by all sides.

 

You will always appeal to the public and particularly your base the strongest on issues of identity and culture, which we hold much more dear than abstract and wonky policy ideas of issues like taxation and trade.

[LD0506]

Really NE, that's all ya got?

 

The point made in the article ought to be worth discussing objectively, and while I may disagree with some of the conclusions the author draws (or attempts to) that does not invalidate the point or the discussion. I enjoy it when I see someone like nonniey share, he draws my attention to opinions I might not see otherwise, how is that a bad thing?

 

There clearly IS something wrong, very wrong with our systems and our politics and even ourselves as Americans. We have lost that sense of all being on the same team even when (or especially when) we disagree. IMO that was the underlying ethos of America in the first place, to give everyone a "tribe" to be a member of that superseded their old tribes. Research is rife with examinations of tribalism in its many forms and if we simply splinter in our own little comfy tribes that make us feel warm n fuzzy, we are going to lose that big ole American tribe and probably America herself.

 

If we cannot even have conversation then there really is little hope that we'll ever settle any of the issues that trouble on individually. E pluribus unum, right there is the plan and the template and the goal.

[PeterMP]

59 minutes ago, nonniey said:

As a result, identity politics determined the Democratic reaction in 1988 when George W. Bush’s presidential campaign raised the “Willie Horton” issue against his opponent, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. It was intolerable, liberal activists and journalists declared, to bring to public attention an incident where a black man had brutalized a white couple.

 

People didn't complain about the Bush raising the issue.  Bush mentioned Horton and the weekend release program in speeches for a long time before the ad and nobody complained.  The complaint was about one specific ad.

 

It also seems odd to be complaining about people's response to the campaign tactic when the creator of it apologized for it before his death.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/13/us/gravely-ill-a****er-offers-apology.html?mcubz=3

 

Given that he felt the need to apologize, maybe there was something wrong about it?

[nonniey]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

People didn't complain about the Bush raising the issue.  The complaint was about one specific ad.

 

It also seems odd to be complaining about people's response to the campaign tactic when the creator of it apologized for it before his death.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/13/us/gravely-ill-a****er-offers-apology.html?mcubz=3

 

Given that he felt the need to apologize, maybe there was something wrong about it?

You missed the point which was the belief that there was nothing wrong with Dukakis's policy in the eyes of the left. 

[PeterMP]

30 minutes ago, nonniey said:

You missed the point which was the belief that there was nothing wrong with Dukakis's policy in the eyes of the left. 

 

And if he actually believes that, then he's even stupider then just ignoring the point that the issue wasn't that the Bush campaign just brought up Horton.  Al Gore even raised the issue in the Democratic primary.

 

Of course, nobody complained about it and Gore being on the left must have actually supported the program and raised an issue to bring a contrast to him and Dukakis that he knew most people on the left would agree with Dukakis on during a Democratic primary.

 

Wait, that doesn't make sense.

 

(This is going to depend on what meant by the "policy".  Furloughs from prison are and were common and were being done by the federal government and many states at the time. Bush himself said he had nothing against furlough programs in general.   If you mean that there was large support on the left for furloughs for people that were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole (i.e. Horton), I think that was and is pretty unlikely and certainly not supported by the facts.)

[Going Commando]

17 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Identity politics is at the core of both parties. 

 

The Right uses the term identity politics in a much more narrow way when they're talking about the concept in the context of criticism of the Left.  They're talking about how the Left champions positions that are critical or exclusive of majority white/christian points of view.  Of course viewing white/christian points of view as "mainstream" or "default" like the Right does and not a product of just another identity is obviously false.  And the Right absolutely plays to the sort of dog whistles and cultural triggers that speak to and motivate whites and Christians and to the exclusion of religious and ethnic minorities all the damn time.

 

But they're not explicit about it and the intelligentsia of the Right embraces this postulation of an ideal America as a absolutely color blind free market meritocracy that is profoundly appealing to voters. 

 

Anyway, there is definite value in the criticism that the Left has gotten too preachy and too far into the weeds on issues of race and class and religion to the point that they directly target, marginalize, and/or exclude the white/christian point of view.  Doing so is impractical and often hypocritical.  Bottom line, there are more white Christian voters than all other demographics combined, it's just dumb to constantly alienate them.  Like Mark Lilla said, this is a democracy, not a class room or church house.  Democrats need to be more disciplined and inclusive and pick battle grounds and rhetoric where they can command broad geographic and demographic support to win.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

23 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Anyway, there is definite value in the criticism that the Left has gotten too preachy and too far into the weeds on issues of race and class and religion to the point that they directly target, marginalize, and/or exclude the white/christian point of view.

You're right that the value of criticism depends on it's validity but it's hard not to consider the source. Case in point. I'm working outside the other day and my idiot neighbor comes over (I'd have gone in if I'd have seen him coming) and starts shooting his mouth off about how I have such an ugly fence and how the color is an eye sore for the entire neighborhood.

 

Meanwhile, his fence is the EXACT same color. Plus, it has all kinds of broken boards and nails sticking out everywhere. His yard is full of crab grass and littered with garbage. Inside, he's got mice and roaches running around unchecked and there's dog hair and feces (and not just dog feces) all over the place including in the silverware drawer.

 

So yeah, I guess my fence could use some paint. It's not hard to discern the type of person I'm dealing with though when he wants to take every opportunity to point out the flaws with my home when really, his own house is a total disaster and is, by far, the biggest problem in our neighborhood.

[Kilmer17]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/08/mark_lilla_thinks_identity_politics_are_destroying_the_democratic_party.html

 

 

great podcast if you have time.  The interviewer simply cannot grasp what Lilla is saying and instead spends the majority of the time as an example of it. 

[Going Commando]

21 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

So yeah, I guess my fence could use some paint. It's not hard to discern the type of person I'm dealing with though when he wants to take every opportunity to point out the flaws with my home when really, his own house is a total disaster and is, by far, the biggest problem in our neighborhood.

 

In this case, the criticism is coming from a credible liberal voice in Lilla.

 

Yes the GoP is a disgraceful dumpster fire and thoughtful, high information conservatives should be ashamed of their party.  Ashamed to support it.  And actively seeking to reform it for the good of the country itself.

 

But the GoP gets away with being a dumpster fire while Democrats can't afford to ever **** up because they play the game better and they win.  They play to electoral majorities.  They raise **** tons of money and spend it wisely.  They strategize and message better.  To steal Mark Lilla's phrase, they don't set the bar for agreement higher than it needs to be to get people to vote for them.  

 

The bottom line is that Hispanics, Asians, young liberals, and single women don't ****ing vote.  The black vote ticks down a few points when Barack Obama isn't on the ballot.  White people, especially white men, always vote.  And even if everyone turned out the same, they're 60 some percent of the country.  But again, the turnout isn't the same and white people actually make up 74% of the electorate in presidentials and that ticks up a few points towards 80 in midterms.

 

Playing identity politics that alienate white people and white, straight, christian men in particular is shooting yourself in the face and it's a huge reason why Democrats have gotten their asses kicked for most of the electoral cycles since 1994.  Democrats are perfectly willing to chase the tiny Hispanic and Muslim votes but won't chase white Christian votes any more?

[No Excuses]

When Joe Arpaio is getting a pardon after tormenting people of color for his entire career, I have a difficult time coming to grips with any half baked analysis that says we need to tone down the fight for racial justice because sometimes white people get butthurt or feel alienated by it.

 

The GOP will never stop playing a game of identity politics that targets White Christians.

 

And frankly, can anyone point to something in the Democratic parties platform that marginilizes white people? The GOP explicitly has platform positions that target people of color. 

 

Yet the conversation in terms of criticizing identity politics seems to heavily center around the need to appease a group of people that by no means are the target of any negative political agenda.

 

The moral compass of this country is completely broken.

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

46 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Good points

My rebuttal would be that the left need to analyze their strategy to determine whether it's right or wrong. If it's wrong, they should change it. If they truly believe they are trying to do the right thing, you don't do the wrong thing to get more votes. You try to figure out how to get those people who aren't voting to get off their asses.

[No Excuses]

On 8/25/2017 at 1:46 PM, LD0506 said:

Really NE, that's all ya got?

 

I find any argument centered around hypothesizing a post-identity politics world to be of little substance. 

 

In a country of our size, scale and diversity, issues of identity and culture will always be front and center. 

 

Frankly on this issue, I don't see much wrong in terms of what the Democrats, as a political party, practice. The Democratic Parties approach on identity politics is fairly moderate.

 

If there is an issue with identity politics on the left, it lies with the leftist activist groups, left wing media and within academic circles.

 

Which is honestly the really ironic aspect of this conversation. From leftist groups and circles that practice the full extent of leftist identity politics, the criticism is usually that the Democrats are too moderate and appeasing on these issues.

 

The fact that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer aren't preaching intersectional theory on a consistent basis should tell you everything about how much the Democratic Political machine actually emphasizes leftist identity politics compared to what core aspects of the base demand.

 

[Hersh]

On 8/25/2017 at 1:41 PM, No Excuses said:

In fact, I can't think of a time when identity politics wasn't an emphasis in  politics and exploited by all sides throughout history.

 

I'm not the worlds greatest history buff, but was there ever a time when identity politics wasn't exploited?

[BornaSkinsFan83]

MARK LILLA’S BOOK CRITICIZES IDENTITY POLITICS, BUT FALLS SHORT ON PROPOSING AN ALTERNATIVE

[JSSkinz]

I don't understand why only white voters are broken down by socio economic status, I want to know who the upper-class/educated Latino's and Black's are voting for.  Do they feel the same way as uneducated Blacks and Latino's, what policies are important to them?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, jschuck12001 said:

I don't understand why only white voters are broken down by socio economic status, I want to know who the upper-class/educated Latino's and Black's are voting for.  Do they feel the same way as uneducated Blacks and Latino's, what policies are important to them?

 

White college grads: 45% - 49% Trump

White, no degree: 28% - 67% Trump

 

Non-white college grads: 71% - 23% Clinton

Non-white, no degree: 75% - 20% Clinton

 

There's no need to overcomplicate this though. We can look at all the stats and charts we want but the man ran a racist ass campaign.