• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY Times: The End of Identity Liberalism

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,666
Reaction score
39,922
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ya'll, I think racist homophobes who want to round up transsexuals and put them into camps have taken over the New York Times. Only a reactionary, fat-cat, rich straight cis-gender white bigot could come up with this kind of vitriolic hate.


One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions.....

National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them....

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.)...
Click to expand...


Obviously this person wants to bring back Jim Crow, if not put blacks back in slavery. So sad to see a once-great publication like the New York times fall to this kind of code-language and print these kinds of dog whistles.
 
cpwill said:
Ya'll, I think racist homophobes who want to round up transsexuals and put them into camps have taken over the New York Times. Only a reactionary, fat-cat, rich straight cis-gender white bigot could come up with this kind of vitriolic hate.





Obviously this person wants to bring back Jim Crow, if not put blacks back in slavery. So sad to see a once-great publication like the New York times fall to this kind of code-language and print these kinds of dog whistles.
Click to expand...

That writer is about to get fired. The NYT won't tolerate that kind of talk.
 
cpwill said:
Ya'll, I think racist homophobes who want to round up transsexuals and put them into camps have taken over the New York Times. Only a reactionary, fat-cat, rich straight cis-gender white bigot could come up with this kind of vitriolic hate.





Obviously this person wants to bring back Jim Crow, if not put blacks back in slavery. So sad to see a once-great publication like the New York times fall to this kind of code-language and print these kinds of dog whistles.
Click to expand...

Some of the comments on that article read disturbingly similar to your parody. :lol: Poe's Law, basically.

In all seriousness, I am enjoying peering into the sudden "debate" within the liberal East Coast-California echo chamber. Interestingly enough, the echo chamber seems to have become conscious of its own existence yet discussion on the nature of the echo chamber mainly consults voices already trapped within it. This article is a bold, and indeed thought-provoking challenge (that line on the KKK really underlined the article's power, IMO) to that bubble.

What the article gets wrong, or fails to mention, is that there wasn't much unusual about Trump's performance for a GOP candidate. He basically did the same as Romney with white voters, although he did, of course, do better with white working class voters in key swing states, which tipped the EC in his favor. So, I find it intriguing that it was Trump's win which has finally sparked self-reflection on the part of some liberals as to the (racialized) polarization of politics in this country.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but barring Goldwater in '64 and Clinton '96 (due to Perot), Republicans have won the white vote in every election since Eisenhower '52 (even Kennedy-Nixon), and the Democrats have received upwards of 75%+ of the nonwhite vote? (And 85%+ of the black vote). This is clearly a longstanding trend...
 
Affirmative action for women and minorities at America’s newspapers and broadcasters has been an extraordinary social achievement — and has even changed, quite literally, the face of right-wing media, as journalists like Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham have gained prominence.
Click to expand...
The writer attributes the success of Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham to affirmative action. Even when a liberal tries to show insight, there's always going to be a glaring lack of self-awareness.
 
The only problem with this author is that he has his head so far up his ass that he has lost all perspective.

"National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality."

This election was clearly won by the candidate who was more adept at sowing divisiveness. In fact, that is clearly Trump's single greatest strength, as demonstrated by both his business career and his political rhetoric.

"Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them...."

Trump won the identity politics game this time around with a series of tent revival meetings wherein he promised to be the savior of the white working class, who saw themselves as shunned by a rapidly evolving society. His entire strategy was identity politics.:roll:
 
Marlowe said:
Some of the comments on that article read disturbingly similar to your parody. :lol: Poe's Law, basically.

In all seriousness, I am enjoying peering into the sudden "debate" within the liberal East Coast-California echo chamber. Interestingly enough, the echo chamber seems to have become conscious of its own existence yet discussion on the nature of the echo chamber mainly consults voices already trapped within it. This article is a bold, and indeed thought-provoking challenge (that line on the KKK really underlined the article's power, IMO) to that bubble.

What the article gets wrong, or fails to mention, is that there wasn't much unusual about Trump's performance for a GOP candidate. He basically did the same as Romney with white voters, although he did, of course, do better with white working class voters in key swing states, which tipped the EC in his favor. So, I find it intriguing that it was Trump's win which has finally sparked self-reflection on the part of some liberals as to the (racialized) polarization of politics in this country.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but barring Goldwater in '64 and Clinton '96 (due to Perot), Republicans have won the white vote in every election since Eisenhower '52 (even Kennedy-Nixon), and the Democrats have received upwards of 75%+ of the nonwhite vote? (And 85%+ of the black vote). This is clearly a longstanding trend...
Click to expand...
I believe your post is fairly accurate.

The only shift in this election, was HRC pulling less than Obama (duh!), and the shift of white working-class from D to R - similar to the Reagan Democrats - and especially & specifically in the rustbelt (swing) states. This can be seen by HRC maintaining a plurality (just barely) of the pop vote.

So I see HRC's loss here, due to primarily two things:

- An unlikeable uncharismatic candidate, that did poorly among all in her base.
- Ignoring and taking for granted the Caucasian working-class base.

2 (maybe 3) points or better in the national ranking, or among the working-class whites, would likely have done it for her!
 
RickJames3000 said:
The only problem with this author is that he has his head so far up his ass that he has lost all perspective.

"National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality."

This election was clearly won by the candidate who was more adept at sowing divisiveness. In fact, that is clearly Trump's single greatest strength, as demonstrated by both his business career and his political rhetoric.

"Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them...."

Trump won the identity politics game this time around with a series of tent revival meetings wherein he promised to be the savior of the white working class, who saw themselves as shunned by a rapidly evolving society. His entire strategy was identity politics.:roll:
Click to expand...
Could not disagree more.
Hillary was the group identity person and based her campaign on getting women, blacks, Hispanics, LGBT, and Moslems. She stated hateful things about broad groups, such as Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, males, and stay at home moms. Trump restricted his hated/disdain to specific individuals who may have some group identity but that certainly doesn't make it a group identity attack. Attacking Rosie O'Donnell and some other women is not the same as attacking all women. Trump arguably made 2 group attacks-to Mexicans who entered the US illegal (not all Mexicans, just those) and a rather generic comment about vetting people coming from some of the Organization of Moslem States. Did not attack Moslems. Suggested being very careful about immigrants from those countries.

Of course, the Statue of Liberty has a poem about taking in the "refuse" from wretched shores and the US has barred Nazis and, more recently, Iraqis, from easy entry to the US so one wonders why the concern. Obama has built a fence and has deported more than Clinton and Bush combined, he claims.

Do you have a quote in which Trump promised to be the savior of white America or was that some dog whistle?
 
Eric7216 said:
Could not disagree more.
Hillary was the group identity person and based her campaign on getting women, blacks, Hispanics, LGBT, and Moslems. She stated hateful things about broad groups, such as Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, males, and stay at home moms. Trump restricted his hated/disdain to specific individuals who may have some group identity but that certainly doesn't make it a group identity attack. Attacking Rosie O'Donnell and some other women is not the same as attacking all women. Trump arguably made 2 group attacks-to Mexicans who entered the US illegal (not all Mexicans, just those) and a rather generic comment about vetting people coming from some of the Organization of Moslem States. Did not attack Moslems. Suggested being very careful about immigrants from those countries.

Of course, the Statue of Liberty has a poem about taking in the "refuse" from wretched shores and the US has barred Nazis and, more recently, Iraqis, from easy entry to the US so one wonders why the concern. Obama has built a fence and has deported more than Clinton and Bush combined, he claims.

Do you have a quote in which Trump promised to be the savior of white America or was that some dog whistle?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's easier to see when you view it from abroad. This author articulates it far better than I could:

Tocqueville's Insights Into Donald Trump's Identity Politics
 
Chomsky said:
I believe your post is fairly accurate.

The only shift in this election, was HRC pulling less than Obama (duh!), and the shift of white working-class from D to R - similar to the Reagan Democrats - and especially & specifically in the rustbelt (swing) states. This can be seen by HRC maintaining a plurality (just barely) of the pop vote.

So I see HRC's loss here, due to primarily two things:

- An unlikeable uncharismatic candidate, that did poorly among all in her base.
- Ignoring and taking for granted the Caucasian working-class base.

2 (maybe 3) points or better in the national ranking, or among the working-class whites, would likely have done it for her!
Click to expand...

You touched the point, but ignored the impact.
"The only shift in this election, was HRC pulling less than Obama (duh!), "
Six million previous Dems did not show up to vote. Disgusted? Angry? Emails? Sanders?
Those six million would have swung the election. The real question is why did they not vote? The answer to the question is the story of the election.
 
DaveFagan said:
You touched the point, but ignored the impact.
"The only shift in this election, was HRC pulling less than Obama (duh!), "
Six million previous Dems did not show up to vote. Disgusted? Angry? Emails? Sanders?
Those six million would have swung the election. The real question is why did they not vote? The answer to the question is the story of the election.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the answer is multifaceted, but I'll bring Occam to the party - Razor and all:

She is personally dislikeable.

It's that simple. She is plastic, fake, does not connect, and has absolutely no charisma. She does not inspire. She does not relate. She is not personable. In short, she's a ****ty candidate (that nobody likes)!
 
RickJames3000 said:
Perhaps it's easier to see when you view it from abroad. This author articulates it far better than I could:

Tocqueville's Insights Into Donald Trump's Identity Politics
Click to expand...

I like Tocqueville as much as the next person but hard to believe that 185 year old observations are that significant today and that we are still living from the English-Irish-Scottish hellhole they established. 75% of my relatives came from Germany and Switzerland in the 1880s, long after Tocqueville left. In my "immediate" family (grandparents aunts, uncles, cousins and spouses), I have 7 Hispanics, 3 Asians, 2 black Africans, and 13 non Hispanic Europeans (most German-Americans). Suspect that is not unusual. My Moslem brother and his Fulani (Nigerian) Moslem wife voted for Trump despite what I thought was my brother's hatred of Republicans, esp. Bush.

Even Malcolm X made a speech in 1964 in which he basically stated that racism was not the issue. (Ballot or the Bullet) Africans were OK and it was African Americans who faced discrimination. This makes it cultural rather than racial. Of course, Malcolm X had a mother from Grenada and there is hostility between British Caribbean blacks and American blacks. Cultural differences. Not racial.

Of course, I took the Harvard Implicit Bias test and discovered that I am one of the 17% that are not biased. Perhaps the 83% biased see things differently.
 
Darn those women wanting bodily autonomy and equal pay. Darn those black people not wanting to be shot like rabid dogs for no good reason. Darn those muslims wanted to migrate here with no harassment. You people and your silly demands for political, social, and economic equality lost the Democrats the bigot vote!
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Darn those women wanting bodily autonomy and equal pay. Darn those black people not wanting to be shot like rabid dogs for no good reason. Darn those muslims wanted to migrate here with no harassment. You people and your silly demands for political, social, and economic equality lost the Democrats the bigot vote!
Click to expand...
Yep, that is exactly the kind of comic book caricature that lost you the election.

Keep it up. I am quite sure there are enough of those blind folk, being led by even blinder folk, out there thinking exactly in those silly terms to keep the party going. Just not enough to get your folks elected in any measureable numbers. Its all empty... all empty rhetoric. That you stil do not understand the message sent you by the American electorate is painfully obvious.

Pleasurably, on the other hand, obvious to the rest of us. I mean have you checked the super majority of governorships, the supermajority of state legislatures, majorities in the House and Senate, no doubt soon to have a majority in the Supreme Court... and of course Trump in the White House for at least 4 years... all Republican.

Hate to have to break it to you, not that you will actually get it still, but that right, right wing, there shows a near clear rejection of all your above stated... and much much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom