Fucking Progressives and Their Identity Politics

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Kanmuk_Sealclubber, Aug 27, 2017.

?

How much gash will Agrul slay on OKCupid?

  1. None. No gash need worry.

    3 vote(s)
    30.0%
  2. Some gash.

    1 vote(s)
    10.0%
  3. A moderate amount of gash.

    2 vote(s)
    20.0%
  4. A lot of gash.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Agrul will be to gash slaying what Hakahairball is to being stupid.

    4 vote(s)
    40.0%
  1. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    10,375
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-arpaio-pardon-encapsulates-trumps-identity-politics/


    AUG. 26, 2017 AT 6:23 PM

    The Arpaio Pardon Encapsulates Trump’s Identity Politics
    Trump, not Bannon or Gorka, is behind the president’s latest moves.
    By Perry Bacon Jr.

    Filed under The Trump Administration

    [​IMG]
    President Trump’s policies don’t seem to have changed in the wake of high-profile staff changes.
    NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP / GETTY IMAGES

    The trio of major announcements made by President Trump’s administration on Friday night — the departure of national security aide Sebastian Gorka, the pardon of former Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the release of a formal memo from the president ordering the Pentagon not to accept transgender people as new recruits in the armed forces — illustrate two important things about the president’s governing style.

    First, one of the defining features of the Trump administration is that he embraces a kind of conservative identity politics, in which he promotes policies supported by groups that he favors and that may have felt marginalized during Barack Obama’s presidency. The second is that Trump’s support for those policies is not contingent on the presence of ousted aides like Gorka and Steve Bannon, who agree with him on these positions.

    The memo banning transgender recruits and barring the Pentagon from paying for future sex reassignment surgeries delighted conservative Christian activists, a core part of Trump’s base. Similarly, during his campaign, Trump had strong support from unions that represent police officers, border security agents and other law-enforcement personnel, a group that until recently included Arpaio.

    And Arpaio has long been a hero to groups strongly opposed to illegal immigration, which were vital to Trump winning the GOP nomination. Arpaio was convicted last month of criminal contempt of court for ignoring a 2011 federal court order that barred him and his department from considering race when making law-enforcement decisions. Arpaio argues that his tactics, which a court ruled illegally targeted Latinos, were simply an effort to enforce existing immigration law.

    “So proud of you, Mr President!” author and conservative activist Ann Coulter said on Friday.

    Obama, in contrast, ended the ban on openly transgender people serving in the military, strongly defended the Black Lives Matter movement as it questioned police tactics across the country, and pushed for citizenship rights for undocumented immigrants.

    It’s still not clear what other actions Trump will be able to take to please his base on immigration — whether he will be able, for example, to build a wall on the United States-Mexico border or get rid of the DACA program, which effectively protects roughly 1 million young immigrants from deportation — as the courts and Congress also have a say.

    But the two moves Trump made Friday illustrate that the president himself is likely to continue to govern using this brand of conservative identity politics. It is perhaps his most consistent governing philosophy, a kind of unifying theory for understanding a president who frequently seesaws back and forth in other policy areas.

    On economic issues, for instance, he has abandoned many of his campaign promises that angled in a more populist direction. Trump has not yet dramatically overhauled NAFTA, declared China a currency manipulator or defended Medicaid against budget cuts proposed by congressional Republicans. On foreign policy, he has also bowed to more establishment-friendly stances; this week, he reversed himself on a major campaign position when he called for extending the war in Afghanistan.

    But on identity issues, it seems, the president is determined to push forward with his campaign promises. He is threatening a government shutdown if Congress does not fund the border wall and refusing to abandon the travel ban on people from some majority-Muslim countries, even after it was repeatedly struck down in the courts. In a recent speech, he staunchly defended law-enforcement officials, noting that he supported giving them military equipment.

    A week before Trump pardoned Arpaio and enacted the transgender military ban, Bannon, one of the leading White House voices advocating for a confrontational, identity-politics-style approach, left the administration. On Friday night, Gorka, a Bannon ally and a major administration advocate for blunt rhetoric on identity issues, such as using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” also departed abruptly. If Trump really wanted either of these men to remain in the administration, it is likely they would have.

    So what we dubbed the “Bannon Wing” of the administration earlier this year has lost its namesake and, in Gorka, one of its most prominent voices. Gorka, in a letter to Trump that was quoted in The Federalist, wrote, “it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are — for now — ascendant within the White House.” (“MAGA” refers to Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”)

    In his letter, Gorka says he will serve the president from outside the White House because, “Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months.”

    Gorka is right, in that the staffers associated with Bannon are decreasing in number. New chief of staff John Kelly does appear to have the power, with either Trump’s approval or his acquiescence, to make the White House staff more establishment-friendly and less Bannon-like.

    In the long run, dumping Bannon, Gorka and the like could move the administration’s policy away from more controversial moves, like the Arpaio pardon.

    But right now, the recent staff changes appear to be mostly about easing tensions between various White House staffers and formalizing the processes governing the flow of information to the president. Kelly, according to published reports, is truly in charge of the White House structure in a way previous chief of staff Reince Priebus was not.

    But the way the Trump administration governs has not fundamentally changed. And it’s easy to see why. Look at one part of what Gorka wrote — the phrase “outside of yourself.” Trump appears to believe in the MAGA mission. In the eight days since Bannon left, in addition to pardoning Arpaio and moving to block transgender people from joining the military, the president has attacked those calling for the removal of Confederate monuments and suggested that the news media is intentionally trying to increase division in the country.

    In a YouGov survey conducted before the pardon was formally announced, opinions on pardoning Arpaio were split along partisan lines: Most but not all Republicans backed it while most Democrats and a plurality of independents opposed it.

    Donald Trump plays to the base, example No. 1,345 or so. In other words, Donald Trump doesn’t need Steve Bannon or Sebastian Gorka because he already has Donald Trump.
     
  2. Samassi Abou

    Samassi Abou TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    6,180
    Right wing politicians have always exploited identity politics to win elections and then screw over the working class people who voted for them.
     
  3. Red

    Red TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    22,195
    No gash is safe from agrul. His p equal v
     
  4. Vlaara

    Vlaara Maaruk the Mighty

    Post Count:
    24,294
    NSDNV
     
  5. Vlaara

    Vlaara Maaruk the Mighty

    Post Count:
    24,294
    You have forgotten the face of your father.
     
  6. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    10,375
    I don't know what NSDNV means. If it's No Synth Did Not Vote, I don't put Synth options because it is the most retarded of all our stupid in-group memes.

    TZT has big hopes for Big Agrul. He better not let us down like every other person I've let myself care about in my life.

    "Identity Politics" is redundant. Which is why I find the popular attack on "the Left" for engaging in them to be largely absurd.
     
  7. Vlaara

    Vlaara Maaruk the Mighty

    Post Count:
    24,294
    Yes we already know you don't care about tradition and meaning. By the way that's a Nice Post Count Faggot.
     
  8. AgelessDrifter

    AgelessDrifter TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    46,053
    This seems like a strange position. It's perfectly clear what's meant when we say "identity politics" as distinct from just "politics," all questions about its merit aside
     
  9. Ssalam

    Ssalam TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    6,757
    The right has team politics (as does the left). It's lame, but it's not unreasonable. It is essentially the prisoner's dilemma in action. While I wish voters were more principled, a fractured base will lose power unless both sides are willing to be equally principled. This is never going to happen, thus you end up with team politics.

    This is not the same as identity politics. Identity politics is literally tied to class, race, sex or gender, and progressives actively seek to recruit and mobilize voters along these lines. You shouldn't vote for x because you're black, or you can't want x change because you're a woman. Republicans did/do something similar with Christians, but that group was divided and marginalized over homosexual marriage.

    Conservative or liberal identity isn't a thing. Conservative and liberal are labels that attempt to define people based on their already held beliefs about the government. Same with liberal. If they didn't believe in conservative policies, they wouldn't be conservative. That's not the same when it comes to black, woman, gay or white, male, straight.

    Likewise, Trump identity isn't a thing. One isn't inherently pro Trump. They made their choice to support Trump, then support him because they are on his team.
     
  10. CanadaEQ

    CanadaEQ TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    17,745
    I have it on good authority that Trump won b/c the left was a bunch of meanies and called the right stoopid.
     
  11. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    10,375
    It *IS* vaguely understandable what people mean when they talk about identity politics. But I find it problematic for the following reasons:

    1) Identity is a driving force behind much (almost all?) of politics. Influence group X with action Y.

    2) I don't think stable, trait-based identity indicators (height, sex, ethnicity, IQ, etc) are inherently better or worse indicators to base categorizations on than environmental-based identity indicators (gender, religion, class, geography, birthplace, political alignment, TZT posting, etc).

    3) De-legitimizing certain identity indicators (e.g. gender, sex, race, culture, religion, etc) in favour of others (class, levels of patriotism, scientism, religion, geography, etc) is just shifting the FOCUS of identity delineations. It isn't destroying identity politics altogether (hence the redundancy comment)

    4) On a related note, if you are going to do #3, then you need to have good UTILITARIAN reasons based on sound evidence and data. The vague idea that race or sex identifiers lead to tribalism, but class or religious ones don't is not the inherently true and objectively dominating argument that people seem to think it is. What do the numbers say?
     
  12. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    7,256
    I guess technically you could call both identity politics if you are arguing semantics, but that would impractical. Let's call both tribalism, which in general is problematic mainly because they prioritize "their side" winning over reason and truth. This is why it is so divisive. The Trump crowd seems pretty fact-resistant so you have a point here, but I still think it's fair to single out leftist identity politics because it is larger and more institutionalized. It's academic ties and vague references to post-modernist philosophy has actually entrenched it in large parts of society. This veneer of legitimacy makes it much more a threat to reasoned debate, and hence our future, than any group of howling "deplorables".

    The right has its pseudo-science too, but look at the reactions to the fairly tame bits that ended up in the controversial internal Google memo. The guy posted an internal memo and ideological opponents leaked it and crushed him in front of a world-wide audience (it made the news in Sweden), even for the bits that seemed pretty close to the actual science. There is no doubt which side holds more power. Therefore I don't think it's unfair to say that the recent alt-right movement is an answer to (leftist) identity politics, perhaps much like identity politics may have been an answer to the racists of yore.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  13. AgelessDrifter

    AgelessDrifter TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    46,053
    Am I the only one that feels like it's suddenly gotten really common to equate leftism with post-modernism in the past few months?
     
  14. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    10,375
    Velox - Before you edited that post, you concluded with "you could call them both identity politics, but that would be impractical"

    I bring that up because it is largely my point. It's impractical to focus on "identity" politics, because all we do is shift around the focal point of identity, not remove it form the equation. Going from race/gender/sexuality to "working class vs globalist elites", or "liberals vs conservatives", or "the 1% vs the 99%", "scientists vs luddites", etc, is keeping identity salient, it is just focusing on different ones. And any advocating for any particular group can be vulnerable to the same errors in logic, abuse of power, or any other problems you highlighted with the modern progressive left. A focus on class can be polluted by shitty philosophy and pseudo-science in the same way a focus on race can be. Post modernism has roots in Marxism, after all.

    So "identity politics are bad" often translates to "focus on THESE identities, and not THOSE identities". I find the anti-IP movement largely to be an attempt to delegitimize the importance of identity X, Y and Z (usually race, culture of gender) in order to privilege identities A, B and C (usually class, political alignment, or scientism). And you can't do that without arguments based in data and utility. You can't really delegitimize X, Y and Z by broadly dismissing the very notion of identity, and then turn around and ask people to focus on the identity categorizations that you prefer they focus on.

    The idea that large parts of the movement shoudl be condemned for their pseudo-scientific, bullying horseshit is something I agree with 100%.
     
  15. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    7,256
    I actually moved it up front since I realized that was perhaps what you were aiming at. I agree with your point then, "identity politics" of any flavour is dangerous, especially pseudo-scientific ones (the Nazis used pseudo-science to institutionalize their racism as early as 1940), but I think it's important to stress that it's not an either-or. It's easy to casually make a lesser-of-the-evils argument in cheering on leftist lynch mobs, online or otherwise. That just makes things worse.
     
  16. Utumno

    Utumno Administrator Staff Member

    Post Count:
    44,338
    this is one of those kanmuk posts that looks like it has some rly good points but upon first reading and a half-hearted 2nd round, my brain couldn't parse out the bits that would be most insightful so i gave up
     
  17. John Zee

    John Zee Good news everyone!

    Post Count:
    3,322
    why are we talking about this and straight up ignoring warren h8ting on kanmuk.

    warren whats with the tension man, its like ur not zen anymore.
     
  18. Arogarn

    Arogarn TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    20,782
    Coulda had a wingman
     
  19. Ssalam

    Ssalam TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    6,757
    Warren was never zen.
     
  20. Vlaara

    Vlaara Maaruk the Mighty

    Post Count:
    24,294
    I haven't had a drink in 3 and a half years or so. Makes a man grumpy.