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.

[Proletariat]

Uhm, if the original arguement threw out Al Franken and Micheal Moore as examples, than maybe the Limbaugh and Coulter counters would be appropriate. I don't think it was aimed at the cable tv-cheerleader riff-raff.

[Lemur]

Nevertheless, my question still stands. What evidence exists that leftists have a greater emotional and personal investment in their ideology? As I posted in an earlier thread, there was a lovely experiment that showed partisans, both left and right, use the emotional part of their brain rather than the rational part when confronted with questions that were unfavorable to their chosen candidates. No report that either group reacted more emotionally.

The original post strikes me as a gussied-up flame, imputing a negative human characteristic to a group with whose politics the poster does not agree, and without a shred of evidence to back it up.

[Vladimir]

No time for an intelligent response. Good thread Pindar!

[Lemur]

As to another point made in this flame-ready thread, the post regarding how staunch leftists are unyielding and illogical in their pursuit of orthodoxy, again, this is a characteristic of many political movements. Example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wing and a prayer: religious right got Bush elected - now they are fighting each other

Campaigners who fail to keep the hardline faith face threats and intimidation

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Wednesday May 31, 2006

In his consulting room in a suburb of Montgomery, Alabama, gastrologist Randy Brinson is a worried man. A staunch Republican and devout Baptist, Dr Brinson can claim substantial credit for getting George Bush re-elected in 2004. It was his Redeem the Vote initiative that may have persuaded up to 25 million people to turn out for President Bush. Yet his wife is receiving threats from anonymous conservative activists warning her husband to stay away from politics.

"They've been calling my house, threatening my wife," said Dr Brinson. "The first time was on a day when I was going up to Washington to speak to Republicans in Congress. Only they knew I'd be away from home. The Republicans were advised not to turn up to listen to me, so only three did so."

The reason he has fallen foul of men whose candidate he helped re-elect is that he has dared to question the partisan tactics of the religious right. "Conservatives speak in tones that they have got power and they can do what they want. Only 23% of the population embraces those positions but if someone questions their mandate or wants to articulate a different case, for the moderate right, they are totally ridiculed."

In his office in Washington DC, Rich Cizik, vice-president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the largest such umbrella group in the US, is also feeling battered. His mistake has been to become interested in the environment, and he has been told that is not on the religious right's agenda.

Mr Cizik, an ordained minister of the Evangelical Presbyterian church and otherwise impeccably conservative on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research and homosexuality, believes concern for the environment arises from Biblical injunctions about the stewardship of the Earth. The movement's political leadership, however, sees the issue as a distraction from its main tactical priorities: getting more conservatives on the supreme court, banning gay marriages and overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling.

"It is supposed to be counterproductive even to consider this. I guess they do not want to part company with the president. This is nothing more than political assassination. I may lose my job. Twenty-five church leaders asked me not to take a political position on this issue but I am a fighter," he said.

Another Washington lobbyist on the religious right told the Guardian: "Rich is just being stupid on this issue. There may be a debate to be had but ... people can only sustain so many moral movements in their lifetime. Is God really going to let the Earth burn up?"

Such partisan tactics are perhaps to be expected in a divisive political climate, with both sides excoriating each other in moralistic terms in a way that has not been seen in Europe for many years - and which is increasingly incomprehensible to many Europeans.

To Judge Roy Moore, who was unseated as chief justice of the Alabama supreme court in 2003 for refusing to remove a five-tonne granite monument on which were carved the Ten Commandments from the court's foyer, that just shows how far Europe has slid.

Judge Moore, campaigning in the state's primaries to supplant the incumbent Republican governor, during a visit to address a women's club in the town of Enterprise, told the Guardian America was falling into Godlessness, too: "That's it, we're going the same way England is now, without God. Is it true that Islam is taking over there?" he asked.

This is a common idea in rightwing circles and, if some of the arguments sound overheated - a recent radio discussion in Virginia on stem-cell research took it as read that only Christians were capable of moral decisions - the religious right has reason to fear that its reach is declining.

"I would rather put my .38 pistol in a child's room than put a computer or a television set there. The devil's crowd is working how to get to your children," declared Brother Richard Emmett in his Mothering Sunday sermon, broadcast to audiences in eastern Tennessee. There is a sense that some of the evangelists - using the medium that Brother Emmett reviles so much - may have overreached themselves. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson have embarrassed their followers by antics such as blaming the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 on "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make an alternative lifestyle ... to secularise America".

More influential than either is James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts daily to the nation from the organisation's Colorado Springs headquarters. Focus on the Family refused to speak to the Guardian, saying "we have no interest in assisting your research", but Washington journalist Dan Gilgoff says Mr Dobson has moved towards an increasingly partisan stance. Mr Dobson endorsed Mr Bush in 2004 but also unsuccessfully rallied the faithful in defence of Judge Moore's monument and threw his weight behind Harriet Miers' disastrous candidacy for the supreme court last year. Nevertheless, Mr Gilgoff says, "people are scared of crossing him". Mr Dobson is one of those warning Mr Cizik off environmental issues.

But these are ageing leaders, with no comparable successors in sight. And, after years of campaigning against abortion and gays, they have not succeeded in getting their way on either issue. There have been victories, but the president's pledge of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual partnership has not happened.

That does not mean religion is going away as a lobbying force. Dr Brinson has started advising the Democrats on how to get more religion into their politics in the hope of winning the constituency back in the presidential race of 2008. And, if religious broadcasting grates, as one woman in Tennessee told me: "I just turn up the rock music on the radio."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.liberals-suck.com/

http://www.cafepress.com/allrightgear/189074

http://www.wanderlist.com/whyliberalssuck

http://whyliberalssuck.blogspot.com/

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/mrmagoo/20.html

http://www.urbanvancouver.com/aggregator/sources/289

These are all from the first page of a google search for "liberals suck".

[Byzantine Prince]

Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology.

Lol, Lemur, don't you see what just happened? He took something ironic you said to make a joke, instead of replying to the actual point you put forth. Now you ask again. What would happen if you hadn't said " Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?"? What would he say?

I think it's quite obvious that he has a bias, remember his pro-Bush thread. Pro-Bush!?! What do you expect?
It's still interesting that he put forth this topic, because it reflects what I think of him, someone apears intelligent superficially, but yet believes what he does.

[Lemur]

Byz, I don't think there's any reason to question Pindar's intelligence. There are plenty of smart people with whom I disagree.

What irks me about his original post is that (a) it imputes a universal human negative exclusively to people with whom he disagrees, and (b) in a very lawyerly fashion he distances himself from his unpleasant and ungenerous message by using quotes from others' posts.

[edit]

The whole thrust of his post is "Aren't people who think differently from me and mine a bunch of incoherent, emotional smacktards?" I mean, really. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this thread winds up as locked as his last one. Which will, doubtless, confirm his thesis that his opponents are all immature, illogical and generally witless.

[Redleg]

Isn't that always the result of stuck on emotional idealogue postions end up anyway?

Which is what the last two sentences of the initial post states

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."

And yes their are pundits on the right that have just as much of a problem, but with the diversity of left leaning political sprectrums there on the surface does seem to be a higher degree of it coming from the left versus the right.

[Kagemusha]

Ok i replaced certain keywords of this statement and can someone on the "right" deny this statement?

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


"Conservatism is 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 conservatism.

If one believes in conservatism, 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 conservatism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in conservatism, 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 right 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."

When one looks at a coin.There are two sides that look different.But are still same material and act in same purpose.

[Tribesman]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .

[Pindar]

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 did not make this claim. The idea is the identity politics of the Left and the emotional investment it typically entails.

The whole thrust of his post is "Aren't people who think differently from me and mine a bunch of incoherent, emotional smacktards?" I mean, really.

Actually, it's not. The interest of the post is the rhetorical posture it describes.

[Soulforged]

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .

Exactly, specially about gun control.

The first post in it's first pragraph clearly states "etc-ism" I think that he wanted to say any ideology in general, and not only the left. This followed by the fact that everything he states applies to any side of the spectrum. By the way, I agree with everything he said, and it has happened to me several times, I interiorized some conviction as part of my own identity and refused to believe otherwise, luckyly that has changed for the best. However I've my doubts about this thread: Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity? Wich would not be true since you're a religious being. Or that the majority of the so called right wind, specially conservatives, do not tend to interiorize such convictions? By the way, if you believe in all that you posted, perhaps you're proving that both sides are equal on this subject.

[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]

Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity?

Hello

I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.

[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.

[Soulforged]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.

But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.

[Pindar]

But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.

If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.

If I may wax in the mold of Henry James: perturbation about contrary views simply because of their contrariness is the work of an untutored mind and/or an indicator of a certain emotionalism run amuck.

Does that answer your question good sir?

[Lemur]

The interest of the post is the rhetorical posture it describes.

And you just happened to pick an example that depicts people whose politics are contrary to yours as the unfortunates in this "rhetorical posture"? I believe you; millions wouldn't.

[edit]

I'm going to be AFK for several days, but in the meantime, I would appreciate hearing a coherent argument from Pindar. If your thesis is that leftists with "identity politics" are more prone to having an emotional investment than any other group on earth in their ideology, please provide some evidence. Here is a link to a write-up of the brain study I mentioned earlier. Surely if Democrats were more inherently emotional, or rendered so by their beliefs, a measurable discrepancy would have showed up in the brain scans.

If you have access to tangible evidence which refutes the study, I eagerly await your reply.

[Soulforged]

If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.
Does that answer your question good sir?

My point was this. Do you argue against abortion from a religious point of view? For example. I know that several people do, in fact many jurist do, and the arguements seem to be all emotional. EDIT: At some point it seems imposible to separete yourself for a certain creed, whatever it's. In this particular case the dogma mixes up with issues that require a reality check.

[ajaxfetish]

Lemur made a very good point right at the beginning that the characteristics applied by this blogger to leftists (which seems quite a generalization to begin with) can just as easily be applied to the right (though that requires another blatant generalization).

I think the important things to remember are that the blogger's sentiments were opinion and not a reasoned argument-and should be treated as such-and that there is a great spectrum of personalities on both sides, neither mindless zealotry or reasonable contemplation being exclusive to one or the other.

Ajax

[Pindar]

And you just happened to pick an example that depicts people whose politics are contrary to yours as the unfortunates in this "rhetorical posture"? I believe you; millions wouldn't.

I didn't pick an example. I did post a commentary focused on the identity politics of the Left.

I'm going to be AFK for several days, but in the meantime, I would appreciate hearing a coherent argument from Pindar. If your thesis is that leftists with "identity politics" are more prone to having an emotional investment than any other group on earth in their ideology, please provide some evidence. Here is a link to a write-up of the brain study I mentioned earlier. Surely if Democrats were more inherently emotional, or rendered so by their beliefs, a measurable discrepancy would have showed up in the brain scans.

If you have access to tangible evidence which refutes the study, I eagerly await your reply.

The position put forward wasn't about emotional investment per say, but a larger rhetorical posture which can lead to an emotionalism. That posture was identified with identity politics and the personalization of issues. The topic sentence and lead sentence indicate the stance: "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." Do you see?

I can't comment on the study since I don't know the details. I can say that the emotional reaction of any given individual doesn't really relate to the initial post which is the rhetorical stance of the Left identified as an identity politic. Noting the Left with identity politics is not a new idea. If you follow political discourse this should not be new information. Two of the authors I reference made the same claim in this regard. If you disagree then put forward your counter.

[Pindar]

My point was this. Do you argue against abortion from a religious point of view? For example. I know that several people do, in fact many jurist do, and the arguements seem to be all emotional. EDIT: At some point it seems imposible to separete yourself for a certain creed, whatever it's. In this particular case the dogma mixes up with issues that require a reality check.

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.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All frequencies of the political spectrum carry the potential for over-emotionalism. Lefties, Righties, even Mugwumps can get caught up in the emphasis of their beliefs.

Identification with a political cause, with a political belief, with a philosophy of goverment can become quite an important component of one's identity. The quest to know ourselves, to define ourselves, is the driving force -- and many of us spend our whole lives in pursuit of a clear sense of self (in part because it is an ever-metamorphosing target).

To remove emotionalism from politics, you would have to remove emotionalism from humanity. I do not think this likely.

A studious effort to downplay the emotive in favor of the factual and demonstrable is probably the best for which one can strive.

[Papewaio]

When I was living in Taiwan they had the Presidential elections. It was like a massive sports event with people running on emotions.

For myself an Aussie elections are where you vote on economic and social policy. It just isn't that exciting when it comes down to two parties that only significant difference is colour preference... red or blue.

ALP = Australian Labour Party.

Which is funny since the government is the Liberal Party... hence they are also ALP.

There is a larger difference but when viewed against the backdrop of the entire worlds spectrum of political choices it seems that the two main parties are playing safe and have very similar polices.

However the industrial reform may in fact create a significant enough change to make voting out the incumbent worth the effort.