
The End of Identity Liberalism - carsongross
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html
======
jimbokun
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...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html)

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)#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_\(speech\)#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...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-democrats-
loss_us_582a23eae4b0c4b63b0e041b)

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

[https://soundcloud.com/keepinit1600](https://soundcloud.com/keepinit1600)

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

~~~
r00fus
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.

------
jimbokun
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-...](http://www.npr.org/2016/11/17/502476139/were-not-going-away-alt-
right-leader-on-voice-in-trump-administration)

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.

~~~
throwanem
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.

~~~
jshevek
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.

~~~
throwanem
They hate him, all right. He's half Jewish. That's enough.

 _Did_ white supremacists coin the term, though? I haven't been able to
substantiate that, either.

~~~
jshevek
I definitely shouldn't have said 'coined', since coining usually refers to the
first time that the term is used in a particular way. I have no idea if white
nationalists coined the term.

I meant to say: 'brought the term to a level of prevalence such that their
definition for the word is the most common usage', but even with that watered-
down concept of "coining", I don't even know for certain that this is correct
- that it was white nationalists who first did this.

~~~
internaut
Spencer is not a white supremacist (he says) but a white nationalist. He was
the one who coined the term alt-right.

I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.

I don't think either of the two would be eligible to join Aryan Brotherhood or
any group of genuine article white supremacists.

I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be
sharply defined. Mixing the terms is like using socialism and communism
interchangeably.

I myself am NRX but not any kind of nationalist because I believe that model
for determining an in-group is too hit and miss. Don't forget that nation
state nationalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Note the paradox of
nationalists working together across borders, classical nationalism is going
meta.

~~~
throwanem
> I'm positive Milo is a patriotic Yiannopoulos Supremacist.

Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I think
more than most. He uses the trait, though, rather than letting it use him, and
he's been doing God's work since before it was cool.

> Note the paradox of nationalists working together across borders, classical
> nationalism is going meta.

Is that so paradoxical? History is replete with examples of nations allying
for mutual benefit without dilution of anyone's sovereignty.

As far as in-group determination goes, I'm not sure I see why it can't be made
to work on roughly the lines of the classical American model - that is, a
privilege earned in exchange for bringing specific and substantial value. A
lot of countries do this even today, usually under the rubric of some kind of
points system. Such schemes have been slandered in the US under the name of
"immigration quotas", but, again, this has occurred as a matter of political
expediency - one cannot, after all, import captive voters by the million in
the presence of such a system. It worked for us for many years - those of my
ancestors who weren't transportees earned their citizenship that way. It works
for many countries today. It could very easily be made to work for us again.

> I think the distinction between 'nationalist' and 'supremacist' should be
> sharply defined.

It _is_ sharply defined. But in a political environment where nuance is
anathema, no one pays the distinction much heed. Progressives equate the
concepts for reasons of political utility, and their narrative has such
hegemonic power that even rejecting this bogus prior for what it is takes some
effort of reason and will. To try to convince anyone else on the matter is
much harder still. (And ethnic nationalism, or supremacism, or whatever you
want to call it, complicates the issue still further by being for the most
part a lot of damnfoolishness. What matters is culture, not race. Regarding
the latter as metonymous of the former indicates a failure to have fully
thought the matter through.)

Well. Their narrative _had_ such hegemonic power, anyway. That's taken quite a
blow in the last couple of weeks, and whatever else comes of a Trump
presidency, that by itself strikes me as worthwhile. It won't be easy, I
think, for anyone to unring that bell. My immediate concern is that we start
working to reduce the breaches their quest for power has driven into our
polity, rather than crowbarring them still wider. Notwithstanding Schumeresque
tantrums about Toronto, we all still have to live with one another. That
progressives have so forgotten this is all the more reason for us to bear it
firmly in mind. Let us comport ourselves so as to earn the favorable judgment
of history, and the rest will attend to itself. Let us do otherwise, and a
generation from now our kids will be fighting the same damn war in the same
damn trenches.

~~~
mercer
> Oh, to be sure! All gay men are narcissistic to some degree, and Milo I
> think more than most.

That's quite a bold statement. Can you elaborate more on this or provide some
evidence (honest question, I'm not trying to get into an argument)?

~~~
throwanem
> That's quite a bold statement.

Oh, I don't think so.

I don't have any n=20 psych undergrad studies to cite on the subject, but I do
have a reasonable degree of firsthand experience with gay men, in bed and out,
and it's that experience which gives me to espouse the conclusion you quoted.
That conclusion is also not unique to me, or for that matter even original;
the man from whom I first heard it, quite a few years ago now, is not only
himself gay and much more widely experienced than I am, he's also a great deal
more intelligent and insightful, possessing a widely accomplished intellect
and the postnominal letters to prove it. He and I have disagreed, whether
seriously or for fun, on almost everything - but nothing I've seen gives me
reason to doubt this claim in particular.

I get the impression that "narcissistic" in this usage might be read as some
kind of denigration, as though I'm alleging that all gay men have a
personality disorder. This is not the case. If anything, I think it's just
that the focus of our sexual interest, specifically on people who much more
closely resemble us than is true for straight men, tends to intensify what I
might describe as the narcissistic aspect of male sexuality in general - and,
again, the word "narcissistic" doesn't imply a disorder. You don't need to
fall in love with your reflection to find worthwhile looking in a mirror every
now and again.

~~~
mercer
Thanks for the answer. FWIW I appreciate your contributions and even though we
probably disagree on many things, I really like the way you're going about
things in here.

~~~
throwanem
You are most welcome, and thank you very much for your kind words!

------
rm_-rf_slash
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
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.

~~~
mercer
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.

------
pjlegato
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.

~~~
throwanem
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.

~~~
pjlegato
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.

~~~
throwanem
The moderators do sometimes unflag articles to foster discussion of
controversial political topics, and they did so at least once in the immediate
wake of the election. I don't think they have to do so every time, and in
general, the quality of discourse here is sufficiently high that it's hard to
make a strong case against the way they do their work.

I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the
front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own
right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to
genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves
as irrelevant as they please.

~~~
grzm
I agree with everything you say here, and you're well-spoken and civil,
someone I would be happy to engage with. Right up until your last two
sentences. Why are those necessary? What do you they add to your message? How
welcome would you feel if you read something like this?

 _When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we 'll be here.
In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please._

I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them.
But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around,
and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers.

I _want_ to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN
has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you
how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I
hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the
only one.

I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by
users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because
in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it.

Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.

~~~
throwanem
This is an entirely reasonable and meritorious criticism. I appreciate it.

Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long
time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the
resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt
has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of
backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is
good.

But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually
indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to
do better next time.

------
hyperion2010
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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a-dominant-
identity.html?rref=opinion)

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

------
egberts1
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
What do you mean by forced intersectionality and unforced intersectionality?
Can you expand on this?

~~~
benbenolson
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.

~~~
egberts1
Wow... best kept secret. Thank you, benbenolson.

------
nickbauman
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_mueller
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
> 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.

~~~
m_mueller
I truly think that if this thinking prevails, then liberalism in the US is
doomed.

Sorry to become preaching here, but for the love of science, stop caring about
race, gender snd ethnicity so much, instead care about _class_. There are at
least as many white folks with no means to get ahead than black folks - and we
haven't yet considered the other major ethnic groups. What you should care
about is the 'glass ceiling' installed for a whole class of people who cannot
offer their sons and daughters the chance to move up anymore. Liberals need to
get back to tackling issues, not identities, that make the American nation
such a divided one. And the obvious one to me is education. Forget about
affirmative action, make high quality education accessible for _any_ capable
resident. Having less in-group vs. out-group thinking will follow
automatically when people start thinking that everyone gets a fair chance
again.

~~~
nickbauman
I'm all for doing whatever works. But white people aren't getting arrested for
being white. They aren't getting redlined for bad loans. They aren't having
their schools having resources getting directed away from them because the
student body us predominantly white. It doesn't just cleave along lines for
some. It cleaves along matrices.

~~~
m_mueller
Tbh. it's hard for me to imagine how the government can fail so hard as to
have racist resource allocation for education. How hard can it be? You have
state level funds for public schools right? Divide by nunber of pupils, have
some budget controlling, done. How can resources even be redirected, if not
for everyone in the state? Who's deciding this? Are they relying on
sponsorship? If that's the case then get rid of that and raise taxes and
public funds accordingly. I firmly believe that schools need to be
egalitarian, everyone deserves the same resources and care at the start of
his/her life, with the only exception being special care students.

------
PaulHoule
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.

------
return0
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?

~~~
jimbokun
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.

~~~
r00fus
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.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
Decades of scandals and corruption might have had something to do with it,
too. The Democrat nomination process was rigged from the beginning which was
necessary for Clinton to win given her high negatives and the fact that there
was a candidate who was largely scandal-free that had generated a huge
groundswell of support (Sanders). I personally think Sanders is an idiot, but
I respect that he is a principled person in a way few other politicians on any
side are.

Then there's Clinton's penchant for insulting large sections of the country
every time she opens her mouth (much like Obama). On top of that, the naked
prostitution of much of the mainstream media for her campaign. The media has
long stopped pretending to be impartial, but this time around they didn't
pretend to be anything other than in the tank for Clinton.

Then there's the fact that Clinton simply isn't a likable person. She's old,
ill, has a shrill voice and tons of baggage with substantially more coming out
every week during the final months of the campaign season with Wikileaks.

These are all things that Obama lacked in 2008 and 2012. There are a lot of
lessons for Democrats to learn from this election, but I'm not sure they will
learn them. (Ditto the Republicans for that matter.)

------
forkandwait
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...

~~~
ConceptJunkie
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
Obligatory PG reference: "Keep Your Identity Small"
[http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)

------
doublevea
I'll believe it when I see it

~~~
cnnsucks
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.

------
ryandrake
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
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.

~~~
ryandrake
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.

~~~
linksnapzz
Yes, age matters. People of all races get older and vote with more experience.

