The End of Identity Liberalism

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

by carsongross • 10 years ago

69 64 10 years ago

PaulHoule• 10 years ago

I think more simply, if you think "black" vs "white" is the axis that matters in American politics you'd better be "white", simply because there are more whites and they are going to win when it comes to a vote.

I think of the Jewish people who went down the South to support the civil rights movement, who were people who generalized their own experience of oppression to have emphathy and solidary for somebody else's experience of oppression.

doublevea• 10 years ago

I'll believe it when I see it

cnnsucks• 10 years ago

That's the thought I had as well. Aside from SJW outrage and grievance mongering I really don't know what liberals offer any longer, and I see no evidence they care to reconsider.

rm_-rf_slash• 10 years ago

To paraphrase a commenter on the Times, identities aren't a problem, liberalism isn't a problem, but combined they can mutate into a regressive form of political correctness, where the inability to move on from or ignore the identity politics (on either side!) grinds any form of debate or disagreement to a halt.

Kinda like when that college professor (I forget the name) published a paper a while back showing a link between absent parents and stunted upward mobility for their children. He was swiftly accused of racism because there were significantly more absent parents in black families than white, even though the paper said little about the disparity itself.

Decades later, deindustrialization and opiate addictions are causing the same harm to white families and their children, just as predicted. But because of the accusations of racism, the warning went largely unheeded.

kazagistar• 10 years ago

I'm just curious, how would you expect the warning to have been "heeded"? I think the problems surrounding single parents are pretty well accepted, but it is just difficult to find morally acceptable solutions for.

mercer3• 10 years ago

If it's more generally accepted that single-parenthood can cause problems for children, that general knowledge in itself might make couples more cautious about having children, or be more wary of separating if things don't work out.

Emphasis on might! I'm not saying there's an easy solution; I'm not even 100% sure that I agree with the assumptions.

What I do feel is that it's not a good idea to avoid discussing things because they're uncomfortable. At least not as much as we often seem to be doing. To some extent we have to be able to discuss sensitive things if we want to evolve/develop/progress as humanity.

hyperion2010• 10 years ago

Brooks also has a related take on this [0]. Above all I would say that identity politics on all sides puts the vital practice of pluralism in grave danger. If we reject pluralism we are lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a-do...

nickbauman2• 10 years ago

The intent of "identity liberalism" (an awful neologism: I'd prefer "identity emphatic") is to try to end otherization of out-groups. But Lilla's point is right on. The result is often divisive rather than inclusive.

My white uncle is famous for saying "You should never discriminate against people because they're different. But why do those people keep coming over here?" o_0

m_mueller3• 10 years ago

I'm not sure why you chose to mock your unvle after your first paragraph. Am I missing your /s tag or are you missing the irony

.. of calling your uncle your white uncle. why is that so important to have it his main attribute?

.. of emphasizing those people - was that really his emphasis or is it rather you who turns around his words into something he didn't say?

.. of not trying to understand his point, rather to immediately accuse him of bigotry. I read it as a dissatisfaction with economical migration when already many domestic people (who have basically a lot of sunken cost in this society) are left behind. I read his first sentance as an assurance that he doesn't care about race or ethnicity, rather, it's natural in-group vs. out-group thinking. If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless.

So if you weren't sarcastic I suggest rereading the article.

gcr• 10 years ago

If anyone who does that is a bigot, then boy, everyone is a bigot sometime - and the distinction is meaningless.

Nah. Different races are different, sure. In-group and out-group. But there's also a power element that you're not considering. Black vs white is in-group and out-group, but one of those groups is disenfranchised. That's where the racism comes in. It is anything but meaningless.

SubiculumCode• 10 years ago

This is the ending of neoliberalism, with its focus on identity politics while staying cozy with business, and the re-dawning of the FDR liberalism.

CPLX• 10 years ago

I certainly fucking hope so. Your optimism is encouraging at least.

return03• 10 years ago

Was identity politics a concrete thing or a construction? It seems HRC bet her entire campaign on that and it backfired spectacularly. Were they hoping that it would catch on? Based on what evidence?

jimbokun3• 10 years ago

Probably just hoping the Obama coalition would just automatically flow over to her, with no specific outreach on her part.

Most of them did (the biggest share of popular votes) just not quite enough to win the Electoral College.

r00fus2• 10 years ago

Clinton was down over 5M votes compared to even Obama in 2012.

Either the voting machines were hacked, or she did an abysmal job in outreach... her hiring of David Brock (of Correct the Record) to essentially character-assassinate Sanders supporters might have had something to do with her loss - she won the battle then lost the war.

RCortex2• 10 years ago

Bet her entire campaign? A piece of her campaign, but not the mainstay by any means. Identity politics was a core of trump's campaign.

return03• 10 years ago

Well probably the #1 word in her campaign must have been "women" (personal opinion)

jimbokun3• 10 years ago

I honestly believe Obama largely steered clear of identity politics, which is why he won the Presidency twice.

He came onto the national scene in the 2004 Democratic National Convention with a lyrical speech about all of the things shared by both people in the "Blue States" and the "Red States".

"The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul...

And I honestly believe Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech will go down as one of the best and most important speeches in American history, for describing the frustrations of both whites and minorities when it comes to discussing race in America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)#...

I have also recently noticed Obama and some of his surrogates getting in not-so-subtle digs at Clinton in recent days.

“I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win in Iowa. It was because I spent 87 days going to every small town and fair and fish fry and VFW hall.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-democrats-l...

Heard similar comments from former denizens of the Obama White House in the Keepin' it 1600 podcast.

https://soundcloud.com/keepinit1600

So maybe even Team Obama is frustrated at Clinton's "identity politics" over reach.

r00fus2• 10 years ago

I can imagine Team Obama is very very upset at how Clinton lost. I can also remember the 2008 primaries, and how Team Obama seemed to be, in many ways, the opposite of Team Clinton.

jimbokun3• 10 years ago

Also, the AltRight is explicitly about adopting identity politics for the white majority.

"I care about us more. That's all I'm saying. But I respect identitarians of other races. And I actually can see eye to eye with them in a way that your average conservative can't."

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going-away-...

And of course, many are arguing Trump's campaign was an appeal to white identity, although I realize a lot of Trump voters take issue with that characterization.

jshevek4• 10 years ago

The term "alt right" is used so inconsistently by the media, the term has become nearly meaningless.

There appear to be many people who consider themselves 'alt right' who have no interest in 'white identity.'

throwanem10• 10 years ago

I know a number of people who proudly adopt the label, none of whom had even heard of Richard Spencer before NPR and the like started talking him up. I haven't been able to find anyone who even knows anyone who thinks it's accurate to call Richard Spencer the, or even a, leader of the alt-right.

If anyone can fairly be said to stand in that role, it'd be Milo Yiannopoulos, so I suppose it's not entirely unreasonable that someone at NPR confused his picture for that of Spencer and stuck it on the linked transcript. On the other hand, it's not reasonable to call Yiannopoulos a white supremacist, either, so overall I'm not sure what to make of the piece, except to say that I'd think twice about taking it at face value. There is a great deal of nuance here which NPR has no reason to represent fairly, and every reason not to.

jshevek4• 10 years ago

I agree it is not reasonable to say Milo is a white supremacist, in fact they seem to hate him. This says something, I think, about how the term alt right is used.

While white supremacists coined the term, they clearly don't own it anymore. Whomever Milo is the leader of, they don't overlap well with white supremacists. alt-right.

mc32• 10 years ago

I hope that does not happen [and hoping the new admin does not succumb to the allure]. It was bad enough with the manner in which the left embraced identity politics to further their causes [good as they might be] because it didn't seem to lead to constructive politics, but rather the opposite because there was one big group of disenfranchised population which was disregarded and often dismissed with 'white privilege'. They might be white, but economically they share little with the professional class.

What I can see happening is poor/disadvantaged of all races coalesce around their shared economic frustration so that the major parties begin to address the economics which affect them so negatively in a comprehensive manner.

ryandrake2• 10 years ago

Let's not start the funeral quite yet. It can also be argued that this year was a probabilistic outlier: Archie Bunker Conservatism played their last lottery ticket and improbably won. A last dying gasp before the country's measurable, inevitable demographic changes continue on their way towards obsoleting its political views.

apkostka• 10 years ago

Not sure if you read it, but the article argues against this exact point. The longer a demographic is a part of the American political process, the more politically diverse (and less predictable) they become. The article gives the remarkably high percentage of latinos who voted for Trump.

ryandrake2• 10 years ago

I read it but I disagree. Identity is not just wrapped up in race--age matters too. History has shown that political change comes with generational change--one funeral as a time. "Latinos" may become more diverse and less predictable year after year, but people (and their political views) don't tend to come back from the dead.

return03• 10 years ago

Interesting that people are looking forward to racism.

postcarnival• 10 years ago

a precursor to the fall of the American empire

egberts12• 10 years ago

The failure is the liberals overexerting the intersectionality into that those of "FORCED intersectionality".

America and the people are always about "UNFORCED intersectionality".

Yet, the Democrats will continue their 9-year slide at representation until they get this.

admstockdale• 10 years ago

What do you mean by forced intersectionality and unforced intersectionality? Can you expand on this?

benbenolson• 10 years ago

I'll take a stab at it.

One of America's many excellent traits is that it is a huge melting pot of diverse cultures and races, that all get along and individually work toward achieving the American Dream. This is the driving force that brings us as Americans together, a strong work ethic and a belief that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. However, forced intersectionality is when policies force businesses and the government to diversify their workforce, and unforced is referring to this diversification happening naturally, without the intervention of regulations and explicit calls for diversification.

forkandwait• 10 years ago

I wish their were a labor wing of the Democratic party.

The sooner we lose the identity bullshit the better. Of equal rights need to be championed, but so do classic thing like safety, consumer protections, public education, minimum wage etc.

Oh wait, Bernie won my primary...

ConceptJunkie2• 10 years ago

There is a labor wing of the Democrat party: the unions. The problem is that this time around a lot of the people they represent voted for Trump.

The identity nonsense is a major problem, including the fact that by claiming anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, or that the only reason people didn't vote for Clinton is that they are sexist, but I don't see that going away. The sad thing is that it does the most harm to the idea that there is still is racism in this country. The problem isn't anywhere nearly as bad as it's blown up to be, but by constantly crying wolf, they are taking away any meaning from the charge.

When the only thing you complain about is racism, people start tuning it out. Worse, when people are dealing with the drumbeat of constantly being accused of racism, especially when the majority of them are not, they are bound to not take the accusers or the problem seriously.

7402• 10 years ago

Obligatory PG reference: "Keep Your Identity Small" http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

pjlegato2• 10 years ago

Why is this flagged? Is a well reasoned discussion of the entire future direction of American politics -- where Silicon Valley is -- somehow less relevant to the tech industry than "The Troubled Friendship of Leo Tolstoy and Maxim Gorky" or "Volkswagen plans 30k job cuts worldwide," both on the front page right now?

I suggest that there is a systemic bias on Hacker News: any article about identity politics that is less than unabashedly laudatory on the theme is almost immediately flagged -- though they often receive numerous upvotes and generate substantial and rational discussion.

throwanem10• 10 years ago

The user base of Hacker News is strongly informed by, and representative of, a very specific political strain, so it's not terribly surprising to see an article like this, which questions the foundation and value of one of that strain's core tenets, get flagged to oblivion by users.

I don't think it would be reasonable to assume the mods behave in a similar fashion. Were that the case, I can't imagine I, for example, would still be able to post here at all, let alone to do so and be seen by people who don't have showdead turned on in their profiles - I spent all yesterday arguing against gay marriage! I've run into ideologically driven suppression of discourse enough places on the Internet to recognize its absence when I see it.

Instead, I see a genuine commitment on the part of the moderation team to free and reasoned discussion, even when it tends in directions which I can't help but imagine make them uncomfortable. That's something which, especially in times like these, can't be too highly regarded, and it is in large part why I continue to consider participation on Hacker News a worthwhile use of my time.

pjlegato2• 10 years ago

It would be great if the mod team expressed such a commitment by manually reviewing flagged articles to remove the flag and prevent any further flagging in cases such as this, where it seems that the article was flagged for no other reason than that many HN readers disagree with its content and wish to suppress the diffusion thereof.

Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag." "Flag" is supposed to be for spam and grossly off-topic articles, not for articles where you happen to dislike the author's conclusion.

The End of Identity Liberalism

Related Stories