A perspective on the Left and identity politics

[Kralizec]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.

Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.

Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.

Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives. It is an assault not just on their identity, because it attacks what they perceive as objectively right. Because their convictions are divinely inspired, either through clear revelation or imbued in their nature by their creator, any deviation from their convictions is wrong. This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents. Either because of rational reasoning, or inherent moral virtue they have chosen the right faith. Below them are all the apostates, the unbelievers, the heretics and the pagans, who either irrationally deny the truth of God, or because they are inherently immoral and are not capable of recognising that wich is truly right. This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.

[Pindar]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.

Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.

Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.

Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives...This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents...This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.

Hello,

Your statement reflects something I already posted:

"Positions where the conclusion is taken as inseparable from an given identity can lead to the very issue I think is noted in the first post. In the religious arena this is easy to see: a religious fervent who disavows a child who tells them he is gay might be an example. The perceived religious viewpoint moves the fervent to reject what is taken as inimical to their belief even if that includes their own blood. I think the commentaries' authors would argue a similar rhetoric informs the general identity politics of the Left where the opposition must demonize the opposition because the opposition is a direct affront to the self."

Given the comparison: do you agree that the identity politics of the Left leads to the conclusion of the original commentary?

[Kralizec]

It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.

[Proletariat]

Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.



edit: link 4 teh lazee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046...Fencoding=UTF8

[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]

It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.

It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?

[Pindar]

Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.



edit: link 4 teh lazee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046...Fencoding=UTF8

Sowell is an interesting fellow.

[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.

[Pindar]

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

I don't follow you.

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 have not made any exclusionary claim. The reason I put forward the commentary for replies was I thought the charge made was interesting. It interested me, because the critique of identity politics would actually place it parallel to religious sentiment as a simple example. This would explain the emotionalism and provide context.

It doesn't seem many of the replies have challenged the conclusion, but have instead been either hostile or wanted to point to other groups as well. This suggests the author may have got it right.

[Byzantine Prince]

Pindar, the point of the author is obvious to anyone with common sense IMO. Certainly if people's values/ideas are challenged then that offends their egos. It isn't that insightful. The trick is to distance your ego from the issue, and see it more clearly without bias, which is what philosophy has taught us. This is the point right?

I think a lot of people identify with the Left, so it offends them that you only pick on the left, and leaves them questioning your own motivations for doing so.

[Ironside]

I don't follow you.

Well, your first quote basically says that the criticism of Israel is hypocritical (somewhat valid, in some cases that criticism goes too far) and that it's some way of punishing US while not really punishing the US.
The second one if speculating that the left's dislike of Israel has something to do with that they are supposed to feel betrayed by Israel.
Then you got a piece about the left (and only the left) being too emotionally obsessed by politics.
With no added information, the easiest conclusion drawed is that getting emotionally obsessed by politics is a very common phenomena on the left (and only to the left) and the anti-Israeli policy is a very big prove of that. Goofball, who is pro-Israeli and very emotional about that, proves that the bolded part is wrong.

Now if you intended something different with your original post, see below.

I have not made any exclusionary claim. The reason I put forward the commentary for replies was I thought the charge made was interesting. It interested me, because the critique of identity politics would actually place it parallel to religious sentiment as a simple example. This would explain the emotionalism and provide context.

It doesn't seem many of the replies have challenged the conclusion, but have instead been either hostile or wanted to point to other groups as well. This suggests the author may have got it right.

The reason is that as BP suggested it is formulated in a poor way for a balanced discusion. I won't get any decent responeses if I posted a claim that "the average American would make a chimpanze cover thier head in shame for being related with those stupid idiots" and didn't add that the true debate I wanted was the quality of the lower American school system. Most Americans here would feel insulted and point out that this was wrong, or that this isn't a particular American issue but would exist in other places too. In this case it would probably contain quite a few insults too in there anyway. Now an American known for having issues with the school system and known to be a proud American could probably get away with this, but not a Europeian.
Or to put it simple: You can't expect posting an article consisting of a negative view on something and that the article put it only on the "other" side and get a reasonable discussion. Unless you actually add what you really want to discuss and that you're not fully agreeing with the attack that the original article contains (unless in that very rare case that the article is true, but then the debate would have a different behavior pattern).
As for the seriousity. This is the Backroom, people here debates politics way more seriously here than they would do in real life. Life and death issues here can be barely noticible in real life.

[Pindar]

Well, your first quote basically says that the criticism of Israel is hypocritical (somewhat valid, in some cases that criticism goes too far) and that it's some way of punishing US while not really punishing the US.
The second one if speculating that the left's dislike of Israel has something to do with that they are supposed to feel betrayed by Israel.
Then you got a piece about the left (and only the left) being too emotionally obsessed by politics.
With no added information, the easiest conclusion drawed is that getting emotionally obsessed by politics is a very common phenomena on the left (and only to the left) and the anti-Israeli policy is a very big prove of that. Goofball, who is pro-Israeli and very emotional about that, proves that the bolded part is wrong.

I see. I actually read the final commentary not as a simple piece on emotional obsession, but that political conclusions can become tied to personal identity which may lead to the emotion and that this was indicated by the Left's identity politics. This is why the thread is titled as it is. It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.

As far as Goofball's ways and means regarding Israel I wouldn't know. His comment didn't mention Israel nor was it an argument nor was it emotional or angry. Rather, it was a comment on emotion in his arguments that I thought was rather funny which I think was the intent.

You can't expect posting an article consisting of a negative view on something and that the article put it only on the "other" side and get a reasonable discussion. Unless you actually add what you really want to discuss and that you're not fully agreeing with the attack that the original article contains (unless in that very rare case that the article is true, but then the debate would have a different behavior pattern).

I think one can present a whole host of theoretical issues where it doesn't require people to personalize. Earlier I gave the example of a possible religious exchange where one might utterly reject the notion Jesus was Divine. Jesus being Divine is considered a fundamental principle for orthodox Christendom. Now, if a religious fervent got emotionally out of sorts because of this rejection by another then I think its natural to ask why? The rejection of Jesus as Divine is not a personal indictment or an insult per say, but the fervent may still get emotional because their religiosity is tied up in their sense of self. If that same rubric applies to the Left's identity politic then that is telling.

As for the seriousity. This is the Backroom, people here debates politics way more seriously here than they would do in real life. Life and death issues here can be barely noticible in real life.

Quite! I'm actually surprised by the hostility, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. If the blogger's commentary was off then it could simply be dismissed. It doesn't seem really anyone has challenged his conclusion. Rather, the tact has been to argue other groups are equally inclined. I think the references to the religious right are the most telling because it is their religiosity that is the operative. This would then suggest the Left's identity politic mirrors religious fervor.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people.

I don't see how politics is separable from identity. You can't believe "I am a liberal" without it being part of your identity. For who is "simple politics" not at all related to their identity?

Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos."

In my experience most leftists are not egotistical. Identifying yourself with an -ism that you believe is good will natural feed your ego a bit, but "central support" is a gross exaggeration.

"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."

"crucial structure" is another exaggeration.

"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."

I've met plenty of smart conservatives and stupid liberals, and I'm sure most leftists have as well. The blogger is essentially claiming that leftists have no powers of observation.

"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."

Not much to say here. His logic is fine, but since he based it on the faulty assumption that for leftists politics is a crucial support of themselves, it all comes tumbling down in the end.

I would say when leftists get emotional or angry when debating it is because they feel there are wrongs which must be righted, and conservatives are persistent in continuing what they see as injustice. Nothing to do with ego's or identities being threatened.

[Soulforged]

My argument against abortion in the public sphere is jurisprudential namely: I don't believe the Supreme Court can create rights ex nihilo. Rights must be a product of the popular will i.e. the amendment process. The U.S. Supreme Court's failure to allow for the popular will to demonstrate itself is one of the reasons for the political carnage on the issue today.

Interesting, what would have been of the US today if they ratified the Pact of San José. Anyway you've proved your point well, but still the point stands that you're one of millions, and the politic identity applies to the whole spectrum.

[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]

I don't see how politics is separable from identity. You can't believe "I am a liberal" without it being part of your identity. For who is "simple politics" not at all related to their identity?

I think a political stance may be a part of one's identity, but I don't think there is any necessity to it. In my own case my political views, like any theoretical posture I hold to, has an attendant rationale. I hold to P because of Q. If the Q should change or no longer prove warranted then the P is no longer held to. The holding to any particular P or its removal is not constitutive to my person or identity, but a reflection of the justification for the idea itself.

[Pindar]

Interesting, what would have been of the US today if they ratified the Pact of San José. Anyway you've proved your point well, but still the point stands that you're one of millions, and the politic identity applies to the whole spectrum.

The ratification of the Pact of San Jose would have become a treaty. Treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court via Judicial Review determines the bounds of the Constitution and as such could have ruled as they did irrespective of any treaty.

I don't think identity politics is a spectrum wide phenomena. I think it may apply to specific groups.

[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.

[Soulforged]

The ratification of the Pact of San Jose would have become a treaty. Treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court via Judicial Review determines the bounds of the Constitution and as such could have ruled as they did irrespective of any treaty.

So even if ratified, and against international custom, the US can unbind itself from any treaty, even one of human rights as the Pact of San Jose? Totally of topic, but the Courts here were used to do the same until a famous case (Ekmekdjian vs Sofovich, 1992), even if we've a continental system, jurisprudence has a lot of strenght. The one set by that sentence told that all articles on any treaty on human rights, that's ratified, is inmediatly operative regardless of what the text says or what the tribunals could say. Any case ruling otherwise would be repealed at the Supreme Court wich treats all this issues. However treaties do not trump our Constitution either, the same Constitution includes a number of treaties on human rights since 1994, and even those cannot trump the first half of the Constitution.

[Reverend Joe]

[Pindar]

So even if ratified, and against international custom, the US can unbind itself from any treaty, even one of human rights as the Pact of San Jose?

Yes. The same applies to the ratifying authority: the U.S. Senate can reject, void, amend or ignore any treaty it sees fit at any time. There may be international political fallout, but that is a question of prudence, not law.

[Ironside]

I see. I actually read the final commentary not as a simple piece on emotional obsession, but that political conclusions can become tied to personal identity which may lead to the emotion and that this was indicated by the Left's identity politics. This is why the thread is titled as it is. It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.

The problem is that the starting post is saying a finer version of that the Empire State Building sucks. And if that is because a building technique that was also used in Brooklyn Bridge, then the reaction will be simular to how this thread would look like, instead of arguing about the building technique in ESB and it's advantages and disadvantages.

As far as Goofball's ways and means regarding Israel I wouldn't know. His comment didn't mention Israel nor was it an argument nor was it emotional or angry. Rather, it was a comment on emotion in his arguments that I thought was rather funny which I think was the intent.

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.

Quite! I'm actually surprised by the hostility, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. If the blogger's commentary was off then it could simply be dismissed. It doesn't seem really anyone has challenged his conclusion. Rather, the tact has been to argue other groups are equally inclined. I think the references to the religious right are the most telling because it is their religiosity that is the operative. This would then suggest the Left's identity politic mirrors religious fervor.

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.
For example I occationally defends the youth on some matters, not because I feel hit directly as the criticism is usually aimed at the groups known as chavs, white trash etc, etc, but as they drag the hole group known as the youth into that group if I leave it unrefuted.

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

[Kanamori]

The author has it teribbly mixed up; he's attaching the wrong emotional complex to the quagmire of having their ideas challanged by the right. The only thing a lefty can do when confronted with these truths is to experience pure and unbridled amusement.

The show must go on!

[Kralizec]

It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.

You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.

So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.

[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 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.

[Pindar]

The author has it teribbly mixed up; he's attaching the wrong emotional complex to the quagmire of having their ideas challanged by the right. The only thing a lefty can do when confronted with these truths is to experience pure and unbridled amusement.

The show must go on!

I suggested that very alternative in a post or two above. Yet, interestingly, many of the reposes have been quite different.

[Pindar]

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.

Hue refers to an aspect or type. Moral hue would mean a type or kind of morality.

You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.

Difficulties with capitalization? OK, I can adjust easily enough: left.

So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.

Quite so.