A perspective on the Left and identity politics

[Pindar]

I was reading a piece:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"England’s National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) has voted for an academic boycott on Israeli institutions of higher education that do not renounce Israel’s “apartheid policy.”

[...]

"Also today, the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the largest labor union in Canada, voted in favor of a boycott of Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians.

Are these boycotts anti-Semitic? Maybe not, but, as I noted the other day, they are hypocritical, sanctimonious, and deeply wrong. No one is demanding a boycott of Russian academics over Russia’s occupation of Chechnya and the atrocities committed there (which dwarf, to put it mildly, Israel’s human rights abuses in the occupied territories). Or, as Ari Paul points out in an article at Reason.com, a boycott of Chinese academics because of the occupation of Tibet and other assorted abuses by the Chinese regime. Or ... sadly, the list could go on and on.

Partly, this double standard is rooted in the all-too-familiar leftist mentality which strenuously condemns bad behavior by Western or pro-Western governments while turning a blind eye to the far worse misdeeds of communist and/or Third World regimes. (It’s not quite clear into which category Putin’s Russia falls.) But the movement to boycott Israel is especially repulsive because it combines this anti-Western, anti-democratic bias with an element of “picking on the little guy.” No one in his or her right mind, even among the British intelligentsia or Canadian public employees, would propose boycotting American institutions because of the occupation of Iraq. Why? Because, obviously, such a boycott would cripple any institution’s ability to conduct its business; in the case of an academic boycott, it would cripple a country’s academic life and scientific research. But lashing out at Israel as a proxy for America is something one can do with minimal inconvenience.

An American boycott of any institution that participates in this shameful enterprise would be an appropriate response. It would be too much to expect the American Association of University Professors, but the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Teachers should step up to the plate."

that included this commentary:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I’d simply add that I think one of the prime reasons the Western left, for all its purported “progressivism,” is so concerned with punishing Israel is that Israel, like, say, Michael Steele or Thomas Sowell, has wandered off the progressive plantation and rejected the narrative assigned it by those who presume to speak for a larger identity agenda. Which is to say, kibbutz culture has given way, over the years, to a strong capitalist system—and so Israel is considered by many on the left to be a traitor to the cause of worldwide socialism, just as surely as Steele and Sowell (among others) are considered race traitors for rejecting the political narrative assigned them by those who have assumed the mantle of “authentic” blacks.

This then lead to the below statement by a blogger which I thought some might find interesting:


"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.

If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.

If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's not true at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Duke Malcolm]

Have you never seen a socialist speak? Perhaps you do not have them there, but the Scottish Socialist Party and Scottish National Party both just propose ill thought-out policies and if anyone says anything against it they shout at them and call them "imperialist", "Tory", "selfish" or someother such name...

edit:I might as well add George Galloway -- you saw him take on the Senate committee. It was beautiful, but exactly as described above.

[Lemur]

It's so true, only one end of the political spectrum uses emotional arguments. I've never seen a right wing person descend to that level. And when Malin describes progressives as "cockroaches," or Coulter says that the best way to talk to liberals is with a baseball bat, or when Limbaugh states that "what's good for al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party," or when Robertson and Falwell blamed the ACLU and the People for the American Way for the 9/11 attacks, well, that's not emotional.

That's just truthiness.

Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?

[Pindar]

Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?

Yes. Emotionalism and/or incoherence is no reason for a death sentence. The hyperbole of the question does illustrate the point in some fashion however.

[Lemur]

Well, lawyer, if over-the-top humor counts as yet another confirmation of your thesis, let's tackle this from another angle.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology. Where's your evidence for this? I know leftists can be blind, screaming idealogues, but so can right-wingers.

The perspective you put forth applies equally well to any idealogue of any party anywhere. How you construe this to apply to only one group is puzzling.

[Goofball]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."

Riiiggghhhht....

You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

[Pindar]

Riiiggghhhht....

You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

There you go! Spoken like a true dyslexic agnostic insomniac.

[Ironside]

There you go! Spoken like a true dyslexic agnostic insomniac.

And that dyslexic agnostic insomniac only destroyed your starting post entirely.

As your starting post concludes that the left's anti-Israel stance on is based on emotional issues, not rational ones.
And as a proof of this ,you refer to Goofball who is a very pro-Israeli from a emotional base.

Goofball, Goofball!

[JAG]

Wow, this thread has just proven to me exactly why members of this board hold Pindar in such high esteem! How did I not see it before? Great thread!

[Pindar]

And that dyslexic agnostic insomniac only destroyed your starting post entirely.

As your starting post concludes that the left's anti-Israel stance on is based on emotional issues, not rational ones.
And as a proof of this ,you refer to Goofball who is a very pro-Israeli from a emotional base.

Goofball, Goofball!

I don't understand your post. I don't think you understood my reply to Goofball. If you look at Goofball's title under his name you will note: dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I referred to his title when replying to him. I then added a smiley wink. My reply was not related to Israel. It dealt with what I thought was a funny reply from Goofball.

[Ironside]

I don't understand your post. I don't think you understood my reply to Goofball. If you look at Goofball's title under his name you will note: dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I referred to his title when replying to him. I then added a smiley wink. My reply was not related to Israel. It dealt with what I thought was a funny reply from Goofball.

Certainly. But he still destroy the starting point of your original argument.

Sure, people often are emotionally involved and not logically involved when it comes to politics, but it's not particullary bound to any political colour.

I mean claiming that

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

and then not see that in many cases the same thing happens (for some people) when it comes to abortion, gun laws, big goverment etc is walking through life with blinkers.

[Hurin_Rules]

"Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos."

Um, and why exactly couldn't you add 'conservatism' or 'neo-conservatism' or 'moral absolutism' to this list?

You've been nitpicking others' conclusions when your entire premise is flawed. In fact, it is ridiculous.

I'm really quite surprised you find this interesting Pindar. Do you also enjoy objective, non-emotional, purely-rational conservative shows such as The O'Reilly Factor?

[Pindar]

Um, and why exactly couldn't you add 'conservatism' or 'neo-conservatism' or 'moral absolutism' to this list?

I have made no claim they couldn't. I don't know how some would apply: neo-conservatism given its straussian impulse would be hard fit I would think.

I'm really quite surprised you find this interesting Pindar.

I've always found rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups interesting. You feel differently it appears. I guess not all things can appeal to all people.

Do you also enjoy objective, non-emotional, purely-rational conservative shows such as The O'Reilly Factor?

No, I don't. If I recall, O'Reilly doesn't put himself forward as a conservative.

[Hurin_Rules]

I have made no claim they couldn't.

The entire premise of the thread depends on a distinction between liberals and non-liberals. And it has yet to be demonstrated. (and no, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument is not getting emotional.)

I've always found rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups interesting. You feel differently it appears. I guess not all things can appeal to all people.

No, I agree with you there, I too find rhetorical postures interesting. Especially the ones that are patently biased and yet refuse to admit they are. I wonder what THAT says about the fragility of egos?

No, I don't. If I recall, O'Reilly doesn't put himself forward as a conservative.

I'm surprised you care about people rejecting labels that have been attached to them, since you've just done the same to a far wider group of people.

In any event, as several posters have noted, the proper response to such an obviously flawed rhetorical position is amusement. I'll just be sitting back and enjoying.

Thus do the inherent flaws of a priori reasoning manifest themselves.

[Pindar]

The entire premise of the thread depends on a distinction between liberals and non-liberals. And it has yet to be demonstrated. (and no, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument is not getting emotional.)

This doesn't follow does it. Pointing out some X has aspect Y in no way indicates Y could not be held by some other.

No, I agree with you there, I too find rhetorical postures interesting. Especially the ones that are patently biased and yet refuse to admit they are. I wonder what THAT says about the fragility of egos?

Then I don't know why you stated you were surprised I might find this interesting.

I'm surprised you care about people rejecting labels that have been attached to them, since you've just done the same to a far wider group of people.

I don't know what this refers to. I have not claimed some fellow was part of group X who says he is not part of group X.

In any event, as several posters have noted, the proper response to such an obviously flawed rhetorical position is amusement. I'll just be sitting back and enjoying.

Thus do the inherent flaws of a priori reasoning manifest themselves.

I don't understand your reference to a priori reasoning. The commentary is not a priori reasoning. It is a posteriori.

[Pindar]

The problem is that the starting post is saying a finer version of that the Empire State Building sucks.

Whether the focus is the suckiness* of the Empire State Building or no, the focus remains the Empire State Building.


*A very fun word.

Goofball's stance on the Palestine/Israel issue is known from earlier threads. Yeah I know that he was witty and you responded in the same way, but to simplify:
Starting thread: The left is very emontional about politics, especially about Israel.
Goofball: I'm very emontional.
You: See, I got proof.
Me: No you didn't.

Ahh, my friend, statements must be taken as given. One cannot imbue a position that isn't stated. Goofball's statement did not mention Israel, it wasn't an argument, nor was it emotional.

I don't think your simplification works either: I didn't take Goofball's statement as any proof text.

The thing that have stirred up all the mess is that the original starting post is an attack on the left. Not militant vegans or other extreme groups sneaking around in the outskirts of the left of politics, but the entire left. What's occuring then is that people who identify themself as the left, by thier own definition or others, will feel hit by it. Not because it's about themself, but as the statement has some truth in it when it comes to a group they identify with. Leaving the statement as it is, cannot then be left unrefuted without implying that it is true as a hole and not partly. The statement contains enough truth to make it impossible to simply dismiss it, but is so far from the truth that it cannot be left unrefuted.

If the statement has truth in it then whither the need to refute? If a perceived adjustment, say like such applies to a part and not the whole were thought necessary then one could easily state such without hostility or rancor.

And what's the left's Jesus so to speak? What argument, if correct, will have thier entire world view crashing down on them?

If the parallel holds the Left's Jesus would be the leftist ideology itself (the promised utopia as it were). Thus the orthodox would be those most loyal to the fundamental teachings and the political opposition the infidels.

[screwtype]

Goofball's statement did not mention Israel, it wasn't an argument, nor was it emotional.

Actually, Goofball's statement was an argument. He was responding to this statement of yours:

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."

To which he replied:

Riiiggghhhht....

You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Goofball's comment was clearly an ironical reference to the statement of the late NRA leader, Charlton Heston, when he said:

You can take my gun from me when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

The point being that Heston's attachment to his big metal penis extension was about as transparently emotional as it gets.

But it seems that Goofball's point went over your head Pindar. Hmmm...maybe there's something to that theory about progressives being smarter after all...

[Pindar]

Actually, Goofball's statement was an argument. He was responding to this statement of yours:

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."

To which he replied:

Riiiggghhhht....

You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Hello,

This is incorrect. An argument involves premises and a conclusion. The above is a statement.

Goofball's comment was clearly an ironical reference to the statement of the late NRA leader, Charlton Heston, when he said:

You can take my gun from me when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

The point being that Heston's attachment to his big metal penis extension was about as transparently emotional as it gets.

But it seems that Goofball's point went over your head Pindar. Hmmm...maybe there's something to that theory about progressives being smarter after all...

Prying one's gun from their cold dead hands predates Heston's use of it as head of the NRA. I have seen it on tee shirts and bumper stickers for as long as I can remember.