"We need a post-identity liberalism"

[catherine]

A really good article in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?emc=edit_th_20161120&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57469847&_r=0) about the liberals' misfire of the strategy in the election that focused on identity politics, and how liberals should steer that boat in a completely different direction. (This one's for you, LDAHL)


But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and “celebrate” our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.

.....

We need a post-identity liberalism, and it should draw from the past successes of pre-identity liberalism. Such a liberalism would concentrate on widening its base by appealing to Americans as Americans and emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them. It would speak to the nation as a nation of citizens who are in this together and must help one another. As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale. (To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, America is sick and tired of hearing about liberals’ damn bathrooms.)

[Alan]

I agree with the author except for his belief that today's brand of liberalism is actually liberal. I think 'post-identity liberalism' would actually be this era's conservatism which is certainly more classically liberal than most realize.

If the Democratic Party were to abandon identity politics, where would they find their base? Socialists? Anarchists? Are there enough of those to sustain a party?

[jp1]

the question I have is how the author squares their suggestion with the reality that trump also used identity politics. This author's point ties in well with the concept presented in the article about the chemical plant worker in Louisiana, that there's a line of people trying to get ahead and various groups of people are cutting the line, with the help of the democrats. But it ignores the historical reasons that the democrats started doing that in the first place. If the democrats stop looking out for the various groups that they do and focus on trying to advance the lives of everyone will that in fact happen, or will there be a backlash against those groups with the white majority once again taking it all because they perceive it to be rightfully theirs?

As someone who is part of one of those minority groups I am rightfully concerned that the trump administration doesn't want to just stop my group's progress, but with the help of one the most anti-LGBTQ politicians currently around as his VP, is actively going to try and reverse the progresss gay people have made over the last 8 years. Undoubtedly many in other minority groups feel the same way.

[creaker]

I'm trying to figure out here how the party that is playing with the idea of registering all Muslims and targeting "illegals" - and most of all labeling and defining what they want liberalism to mean - is not also playing in "identity politics"?

added - this is identity politics:

http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2016/11/18/proposed-bill-would-make-teachers-out-their-lgbt-students

[catherine]

the question I have is how the author squares their suggestion with the reality that trump also used identity politics. This author's point ties in well with the concept presented in the article about the chemical plant worker in Louisiana, that there's a line of people trying to get ahead and various groups of people are cutting the line, with the help of the democrats. But it ignores the historical reasons that the democrats started doing that in the first place. If the democrats stop looking out for the various groups that they do and focus on trying to advance the lives of everyone will that in fact happen, or will there be a backlash against those groups with the white majority once again taking it all because they perceive it to be rightfully theirs?

As someone who is part of one of those minority groups I am rightfully concerned that the trump administration doesn't want to just stop my group's progress, but with the help of one the most anti-LGBTQ politicians currently around as his VP, is actively going to try and reverse the progresss gay people have made over the last 8 years. Undoubtedly many in other minority groups feel the same way.

You raise good points, and as a woman I also am supported by identity politics. Obviously we still have a way to go there. I probably shouldn't have been surprised, but I was really taken aback when a CNN reporter asked a man sitting in a diner why he voted for Trump and he said "Because a man belongs in the White House." NOTHING to do with policy or character or experience--it was all about gender. In this day and age?? So I see your point.

As for Alan's question--what would fill the liberal void, if not identity politics. How about a "Sanders-ocracy"? He doesn't focus on identity politics, but his platform would apply to all unique identities across the board--Addressing the balance of wealth would help everyone. Addressing trade issues would help everyone. Addressing climate change would help everyone. Addressing the clusterFK that's our healthcare system would help everyone.

[iris lilies]

You raise good points, and as a woman I also am supported by identity politics. Obviously we still have a way to go there. I probably shouldn't have been surprised, but I was really taken aback when a CNN reporter asked a man sitting in a diner why he voted for Trump and he said "Because a man belongs in the White House." NOTHING to do with policy or character or experience--it was all about gender. In this day and age?? So I see your point.

As for Alan's question--what would fill the liberal void, if not identity politics. How about a "Sanders-ocracy"? He doesn't focus on identity politics, but his platform would apply to all unique identities across the board--Addressing the balance of wealth would help everyone. Addressing trade issues would help everyone. Addressing climate change would help everyone. Addressing the clusterFK that's our healthcare system would help everyone.

But you werent taken aback by the numerpus people who said it is time we have a woman in the White House? In my kitchen two friends of mine told me that. I told them that the presence of a vagina wasnt on my list of attributes for a Presidential candidate.

As far addressing the "balance of wealth" I consider that issue ridiculous, just out of scope, intrusive by big gubmnet. sanders would lose me there.

[Rogar]

It is interesting this time round that race and gender have been the pivotal point defining liberals and conservatives. At least for me there are a number of significant issues where there is a big divide that are not related to race or gender. Those are the ones I use to define my political leanings. I guess those just aren't the hot topics the media chooses to capitalize upon.

[jp1]

But you werent taken aback by the numerpus people who said it is time we have a woman in the White House? In my kitchen two friends of mine told me that. I told them that the presence of a vagina wasnt on my list of attributes for a Presidential candidate.


Both are equally bad. Earlier this week I had a lengthy back and forth with a friend of a friend on facebook who was of the opinion that any man who didn't vote for hillary in the primary did so because of sexism. She had no interest in hearing why I might have chosen to vote for sanders despite hillary's being "obviously better qualified and experienced," in her opinion. All of my reasons were met with "no, you're just sexist." The conversation ended with me telling her that her approach was not going to improve the lot of women in any way whatsoever if she's managing to massively piss off even a progressive gay man like myself.

[catherine]

But you werent taken aback by the numerpus people who said it is time we have a woman in the White House? In my kitchen two friends of mine told me that. I told them that the presence of a vagina wasnt on my list of attributes for a Presidential candidate.

As far addressing the "balance of wealth" I consider that issue ridiculous, just out of scope, intrusive by big gubmnet. sanders would lose me there.

Yes, I'm with you.. I don't think gender is either a reason to vote for or against a candidate. However, apparently being a woman is still a barrier to getting elected, which seems very 1960.

As far as the balance of wealth issue--I wasn't suggesting that everyone subscribe to Bernie's platform (although quietly, in my mind I think they should :) I definitely wouldn't expect you to sign up for much of anything on Bernie's platform, IL! I was just answering Alan's question about what would fill the void in liberalism if identity was taken out, and I think there are lots of things. Being a progressive liberal is not JUST about identity, although to Rogar's point, I think that particular focus has eclipsed some other pressing issues on a liberal agenda.

[iris lilies]

Yes, I'm with you.. I don't think gender is either a reason to vote for or against a candidate. However, apparently being a woman is still a barrier to getting elected, which seems very 1960.

As far as the balance of wealth issue--I wasn't suggesting that everyone subscribe to Bernie's platform (although quietly, in my mind I think they should :) I definitely wouldn't expect you to sign up for much of anything on Bernie's platform, IL! I was just answering Alan's question about what would fill the void in liberalism if identity was taken out, and I think there are lots of things. Being a progressive liberal is not JUST about identity, although to Rogar's point, I think that particular focus has eclipsed some other pressing issues on a liberal agenda.
dude, i can get behind "addressing the clustefk that is our healthcare system" and perhaps, perhaps, running thngs differently for the environment, depending in how when why.

[ApatheticNoMore]

They didn't even run on identity politics. So we were told to elect Hillary because she is a woman. But how would any woman's life be improved for instance by voting for Hillary? Not overturning Roe v Wade is not much of an answer. They didn't run on vote for Hillary because she will help women (ie focusing on helping only part of the population - say with I don't know paid maternity leave for instance), she would have to have some actual proposals for that. She ran on vote for Hillary because she's a woman. It's even more ridiculous if you think they ran on vote for Hillary because she will focus her policies to help blacks for instance. She had pretty much no proposals for that. So it's nonsense to think Hillary even ran on identity politics, on helping specialized groups (sure if she had spit out proposal after proposal say to address issues that most concern blacks or women or etc. and ignored everyone else maybe that could be said). But even that isn't true, she ran on NOTHING (or close to it) and said: "oh btw I'M A WOMAN!!!!" If many women failed to see the benefit of this, well duh, it doesn't make life much different for most of them to have a woman President or not. They probably aren't in the running for President afterall.

So maybe we need a post-nothing liberalism. And lesser of two evils might not get enough people to the polls afterall.


The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.

that's nice, it only took 130 or so years for women to get the vote. The arc of the moral universe is LONG, eh? But that's adequately pointing out history, if you want even identity groups to vote for you now, you need to run on something they might have some interest in or believe in.

[catherine]

dude, i can get behind "addressing the clustefk that is our healthcare system"and perhaps, perhpas, song th Ngs differently for the environment, depending in what where when why.

Glad we have this common ground! ;)

[frugal-one]

It is interesting this time round that race and gender have been the pivotal point defining liberals and conservatives. At least for me there are a number of significant issues where there is a big divide that are not related to race or gender. Those are the ones I use to define my political leanings. I guess those just aren't the hot topics the media chooses to capitalize upon.

I recently looked up conservative vs liberal beliefs. This is very interesting.

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

Also, in the last week some of the articles regarding what is going to happen once Trump gets in office... use WI as a model state (to enact Act 10), keep the salary level at around $24,000 instead of around $45,000 (that was just passed) so more people will not be paid overtime, eliminate the minimum wage, lower taxes for the rich.... plus a myriad of others.

[LDAHL]

I think you could make a good case that identity politics has been a core strategy of the Democratic Party since Old Hickory made good on his promise to clear out Indian lands for the benefit of his constituents. The groups being "defended" have changed over the years, but the Party has always been a sometimes uneasy coalition of interest groups. It is only over the last half-century or so that practical politics has congealed into the unstable ideology of political correctness.

The GOP, on the other hand, has generally been a sometimes uneasy coalition of ideologies: abolitionists, progressives, jingoists, free-marketers, defense hawks, social conservatives, libertarians and others. What I find alarming about the Trump phenomenon (apart from the man's erratic nature and affinity for big government) is his odd and offensive counter-identity politics. He has taken one of the worst aspects of contemporary liberalism and associated the Republican Parry with it. If it sticks, conservatives will need to find a new political home.

[gimmethesimplelife]

the question I have is how the author squares their suggestion with the reality that trump also used identity politics. This author's point ties in well with the concept presented in the article about the chemical plant worker in Louisiana, that there's a line of people trying to get ahead and various groups of people are cutting the line, with the help of the democrats. But it ignores the historical reasons that the democrats started doing that in the first place. If the democrats stop looking out for the various groups that they do and focus on trying to advance the lives of everyone will that in fact happen, or will there be a backlash against those groups with the white majority once again taking it all because they perceive it to be rightfully theirs?

As someone who is part of one of those minority groups I am rightfully concerned that the trump administration doesn't want to just stop my group's progress, but with the help of one the most anti-LGBTQ politicians currently around as his VP, is actively going to try and reverse the progresss gay people have made over the last 8 years. Undoubtedly many in other minority groups feel the same way.I very much worry about this, too. It is beyond insane to me that my marriage could be nulled and voided on me due to hatred and bigotry served up with a glare from The Orange One and his henchmen......but that in Mexico, my husband and I could marry (get this, in the developing world in a country with so many problems) and it would quickly and efficiently be legally recognized. Just utterly unreal but it is incentive to keep two bags packed at all times if nothing else.. Hete's hoping you and your partner thrive the next four yours and I mean this sincerely, K? Rob

[iris lilies]

I very much worry about this, too. It is beyond insane to me that my marriage could be nulled and voided on me due to hatred and bigotry served up with a glare from The Orange One and his henchmen......but that in Mexico, my husband and I could marry (get this, in the developing world in a country with so many problems) and it would quickly and efficiently be legally recognized. Just utterly unreal but it is incentive to keep two bags packed at all times if nothing else.. Hete's hoping you and your partner thrive the next four yours and I mean this sincerely, K? Rob

I don't see why any Mexico is immune to changing laws.

Maybe I am missing someng. Out-and-out legalization of same sex marriage is still limited to less than a third of the states in Mexico, anyway.

edited to add: some recent protests against same sex marriage, protestors measured n the hundreds of thousands detailed in article below

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-global/is-mexico-ready-for-gay-m_b_12556626.html

[iris lilies]

I recently looked up conservative vs liberal beliefs. This is very interesting.

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

Also, in the last week some of the articles regarding what is going to happen once Trump gets in office... use WI as a model state (to enact Act 10), keep the salary level at around $24,000 instead of around $45,000 (that was just passed) so more people will not be paid overtime, eliminate the minimum wage, lower taxes for the rich.... plus a myriad of others.

re: the student news daily list

I dont claim several of those positions ascribed to "conservatives. ". Maybe that list is a good starting point to discuss the "conservarive" label, but I would argue that the appropriate "conservative" response to several of those issues would be "I dont care."

I was joking around with my friend about what Libertarian* radio would look like and I said that it would have a lot of dead air time, or maybe music, because opinion shows would be sparse. There is no need to dissect every gubmnt action because it is assumed that most gubmnt actions are simply unnecessary, and wrong. A tape could play in a loop sayng "Today Congress passed legislation that was out of scope according to the Constitution and it is wrong."

*Libertarians, the true conservatives, haha

[iris lilies]

Also, on this woe is me thread, are we allowed to mention that Trump said gay marriage is settled law? Or must we continue to awfulize our thoughts and feelings because that is really where we are most comfortable. ?

[creaker]

Also, on this woe is me thread, are we allowed to mention that Trump said gay marriage is settled law? Or must we continue to awfulize our thoughts and feelings because that is really where we are most comfortable. ?

Pence wouldn't say that. And Trumps flips faster than a pancake maker at IHOP.

added: Actually what Trump said is gay marriage is "settled law" - but Roe V. Wade can be changed. I'm not sure how that works.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/

[jp1]

Also, on this woe is me thread, are we allowed to mention that Trump said gay marriage is settled law? Or must we continue to awfulize our thoughts and feelings because that is really where we are most comfortable. ?

Trump has always been pretty muted on the gay issues. My concern is that he wont make it 4 years and we'll be stick with mr super-anti-gay Pence as president. We also have no real idea what trump is going to focus on besides 'making america great again' for whatever the hell that means.

[iris lilies]

Pence wouldn't say that. And Trumps flips faster than a pancake maker at IHOP.

added: Actually what Trump said is gay marriage is "settled law" - but Roe V. Wade can be changed. I'm not sure how that works.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/

yes, it does seem that Trump changes often, but this one had the ring of truth to me.

[creaker]

yes, it does seem that Trump changes often, but this one had the ring of truth to me.

I don't expect him to push a SC appointment who is "settled" on this issue - and after that it's out of his hands regardless of how he feels about the issue.

[jp1]

Pence wouldn't say that. And Trumps flips faster than a pancake maker at IHOP.

added: Actually what Trump said is gay marriage is "settled law" - but Roe V. Wade can be changed. I'm not sure how that works.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/trump-gay-marriage-abortion-supreme-court/

It probably works in trump's mind because more and more people every year are fine with gay marriage but the number of people changing their minds on abortion every year is approximately zero. It's not worth using gay marriage to pander to his voters because it will get less and less bang for the buck as time goes by and might even start to alienate some of his supporters.