What’s so bad about identity politics?
Some progressive commenters were critical of my statement that I oppose identity politics. And when you read the following, it’s not hard to see why:
Both with a zest for the controversial, the litigious, and the troll, Kobach and Thiel have also each collected enemies in their political crusades. They both inveigh against identity politics, the Washington establishment, and a globalism that doesn’t put America first.
That makes it seem that opposition to identity politics is a hard right position. But are these people actually opposed to identity politics, or do they have their own form of identity politics?
Kobach has since advised Trump’s administration on implementing a “Muslim registry” that would have specifically tracked immigrants to the US from Muslim-majority countries. He’s also weighed in for the administration on voting issues, was considered for Cabinet posts by a transition committee on which Thiel served, and earned Trump’s endorsement during his unsuccessful bid for governor of Kansas in 2018.
A lot of people who say they oppose identity politics are actually white nationalists, and Kobach certainly seems to fall into that camp:
But part of their alliance can be explained by more personal reasons. A key lubricant binding Thiel to his new candidate is Ann Coulter, the conservative provocateur who last week called Democrats the “antifa party.” She is close with Thiel, and is a Kobach super-fan.
In case you don’t know, here are some of Coulter’s views on immigration:
“This is a whole different kettle of fish we’re getting now, and I just don’t understand, there are these silicon chips in people’s brains, where they have to say, ‘Diversity is a strength, we’re a nation of immigrants.’ Obviously false, but Republicans have this silicon chip saying, ‘Oh, we’re fine with legal immigration, it’s illegal immigration.’ Well, who do they think blew up the Boston Marathon? Who’s flying off to fight with ISIS? Who are all of these Hmong immigrants raping little kids? … Sacrificing animals, who’s doing the genital mutilations? These are legal immigrants, Republicans! Wake up!”
So when I say I’m opposed to identity politics I don’t mean the same thing as many conservatives mean when they oppose identity politics. Indeed I consider white nationalists to be a far greater threat to America than “woke” young people. Immigration is a core American value; it’s what built this country. With all their flaws, at least woke people and I share that value.
HT: Matt Yglesias — And yes, let a billion flowers bloom.
Tags:
28. July 2020 at 10:05
The anti-immigrationists are fighting a losing battle, so it’s probably moot. Ironically Trump lowered legal immigration but had little to no effect on illegal immigration. Which should surprise no one with any clue as to to how governance works.
The equilibrium for better or worse is probably a few decades dominated by identity politics with a significant percentage of white idiots solidifying around a dubious identity.
28. July 2020 at 10:21
The problem with expressing opinions is that it’s typically easy to find a reprehensible character using similar language with different meaning.
28. July 2020 at 10:31
Skeptical, I’d go further; it seems like illegal immigration rose under Trump by more than legal immigration fell.
Garrett, Yup. And then there’s the problem that people are always reading into one’s statement things that were never said.
“What he said sounds like stuff said by person X, and thus he must believe Y and Z”
28. July 2020 at 11:42
Thiel and Eric Weinstein have a far more complicated take on immigration than you understand.
Fundamentally, it’s about the need to increase the status / wages of scienists doing pure science. And getting it out of the university system that also taches undergrads.
You should really dig in they are smarter than you on the subject.
Worrying about low skilled immigration is silly, they need biometric Guest Worker Visas, so they can enter, work and leave, and family stays back home.
They’d still welcome an entreprenueral class who don’t use the welfare basket.
A great example is sending all CCP family members and their money back to China formt he western world, and WELCOMING the other 80% who come with money to be students and entreprenuers.
28. July 2020 at 12:42
Identity politics made sense for the GOP for tactical reasons, it helped them win the last election. Hillary wouldn’t stop talking about it, Trump just had to get in.
The Democrats fractionate their own base every time they talk about “identity politics”. The GOP is less likely to get hurt, their base is different, whiter and more uniform, when you have the greatest identity behind you, not much is fractioned.
I still prefer the last election campaigns, at least there were still intensive democratic debates. Biden’s current strategy seems to be to avoid as many debates and discussions as possible.
I read that in the US you can vote long before the actual election date. North Carolina begins on September 4, followed by Pennsylvania on September 14 and Michigan on September 19, and at least ten more states will follow, weeks before the first presidential debate on September 29.
About 40 percent of voters are expected to vote early. It’s an election without debates and without a fixed election date, now it becomes more clear why the GOP is so afraid. Trump would have to catch up massively in order to retain theoretical chances, but when 40% have already voted, there’s much less to catch up.
28. July 2020 at 13:16
Morgan, You said:
“Thiel and Eric Weinstein have a far more complicated take on immigration than you understand.”
I’d guess that I know more about Thiel’s views on immigration than you do.
Christian, You said:
“I still prefer the last election campaigns, at least there were still intensive democratic debates.”
Really? I must have missed those “intensive” debates.
28. July 2020 at 13:41
Scott,
My main pushback to your statements on identity politics is that they seem to be selective. Identity politics to me is coalitions or alliances based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual identity, or other cultural identity groups, and more specifically I think we are usually talking about politicians appealing to a sense of grievance or marginalization felt by the identity group. I personally think identity politics can be both good and bad. I think cancel culture can be problematic. However, I also think that there are groups in this country who are genuinely marginalized, and that identity politics have been an effective tool in the past for reducing the marginalization. On this blog’s comment section, identity politics clearly means left leaning identity politics, mainly racial and sexual identity. You often offer white nationalism/supremacy as the counter example of right leaning identity politics. I think appeals to white evangelicals and rural whites are equally or more consequential forms of right leaning identity politics. Having a narrow definition of identity politics which only includes the least sympathetic identity on the right strikes me as bias. Does your definition of identity politics include white evangelicals and/or rural whites?
My other pushback is that addressing systemic racism, and overt racism, requires more than just not being racist, because there is a significant contingent of actual racists on the other side. We need some anti-racists, which probably means we need some identity politics.
28. July 2020 at 14:06
Scott, I agree. I think the RW identity politics is as bad or worse than the left’s wokeness. They both suck though. In the case of the hyper-woke Robin DiAgnelo type “White Fragility” fans: it borders on being a cult, but then so does the AltRight.
However the Right wins the cult wars with QAnon, which is 100% bat sh*t crazy.
28. July 2020 at 14:17
“I consider white nationalists to be a far greater threat to America than ‘woke’ young people.” Why? Look, for example, at cancel culture: The “woke” have canceled many more than the white nationalists.
28. July 2020 at 14:32
Scott,
Well, Hillary played too much on safety and she used too many prepared phrases. But there were also some clashes and arguments.
Also the GOP primaries were interesting, you didn’t have to like Trump’s positions (I would have preferred the Romney of 2008 on the issues), but he stood up to established GOP positions a few times, which made the debates interesting because there were conflicts and different positions to choose from.
In that sense Biden reminds fatally of Hillary: don’t say anything wrong, everything is well rehearsed, the election is already won anyway.
I think you just have mood affilitation or TDS here. The (GOP) debates were quite interesting, and Trump was a skillful debater back then — when one can separate technique from content. It’s actually even more skillful if one can actually sell the content Trump had in mind.
28. July 2020 at 14:33
Romney of 2012 ofc. Time really flies.
28. July 2020 at 14:42
Philo,
The Right engages in cancel culture too, and not just white nationalists. Look at Liz Cheney for example. She’s being cancelled for insufficient loyalty to Trump. Same with Jeff Sessions. It doesn’t matter what their CR rating is, insufficient loyalty cannot be countenanced. Also remember the boycotts of Nike and coffee makers? Lol, maybe not very successful, but they won’t hesitate to cancel you if they feel like it.
Plus Trump is happy to try to cancel what he doesn’t like. He keeps trying to keep books he doesn’t like from being published, for example. The government trying to stop political speech: that’s explicitly what the 1A is about. Another tactic used is to file lawsuits to cost their critics money. That’s the David Nunes approach.
At least when the woke cancel you it looks good on your resume when applying to Fox or OAN. You’re sure to get interviewed by Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan and maybe sell a book or two. There’s nothing they like more than apostates from the left.
29. July 2020 at 00:29
For the US, I care less where immigrants come from, but that numbers be restricted.
The US cannot build housing or infrastructure.
Scott Sumner says the US should not even try on infrastructure, as the US is so clumsy at it. It doesn’t matter what Sumner says about housing, as new residential construction is effectively criminalized along the coasts.
There is also the unpleasant topic of using immigrants as de facto labor busters.
Lower wages and higher housing costs, and the American dream goes up in smoke—maybe literally.
Sumner once posited that the Hong Kong riots were about housing costs. There is probably some truth in that.
See Portland, Seattle, NYC, Chicago, L.A. Will it get worse?
In low-cost housing Japan there is social stability.
29. July 2020 at 03:23
“A strong hint that xenophobia is not the root of opposition [to labor in-migration] is that history is replete with individuals who have shown great enthusiasm in putting aside personal prejudices when self-interest has been at work; one need look no further than the slave trade whose indifferent greed brought migrants (forcibly) across borders to nations as diverse as Brazil, Saudi Arabia and the United States. In fact, what can be gleaned empirically from a study of history is that xenophobes and xenophiles can be nearly indistinguishable in their enthusiasm for welcoming migrants, when doing so advances
self-interest.”
http://www.oit.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_protect/—protrav/—migrant/documents/publication/wcms_201871.pdf
Basically, Weinstein says labor immigration has benefits but not for the employee class as a whole. He has some solutions, but they are unworkable.
It is an interesting point: One can be the rankest, most vile racist, verily even a slaver, and also a vocal proponent of labor immigration.
29. July 2020 at 12:08
Scott,
Anybody who argues for a certain policy based on vague notions of core values, rather than by factual basis on whether it benefits Americans or not is a complete idiot.
Ann Coulter is dishonest when it comes to Hispanic immigrants, but she is right about the crime rates of the some immigrants, which are actually somewhat high. Granted, not as high as African Americans, but fairly high nevertheless.
Some immigrants contribute to the prosperity of the country, some contribute to the disorder of the country.
You go on and on about how China will be super rich, in part to the great Culture of the Chinese, but then say America should not discriminate against any migrant, regardless of if they come from backwards cultures. Does that make any sense? If China can maintain their great culture, why shouldn’t America?
Something I have noticed is that Whites who claim to not be White nationalists usually tend to favor some other group even more than Whites. It’s not so much that they are not tribal, but just not tribal to Whites. Your loyalty is probably to the East Asians. My guess is you are the type of person who would not like mass immigration into Japan or Korea, but think America should risk its prosperity and imports lots of foreigners.
29. July 2020 at 14:31
bb, You asked:
“Does your definition of identity politics include white evangelicals and/or rural whites?”
Yes. (I think I answered this in another post.)
Philo. The white nationalists have much bigger goals, such as making America whiter and more corrupt.
Christian, You said:
“I think you just have mood affiliation or TDS here. The (GOP) debates were quite interesting,”
You call it mood affiliation, I call it good taste. I can’t imagine what sort of person spends time watching debates when there are excellent novels they’ve never read. Don’t people have something better to do with their lives?
Moldburg, You said:
“You go on and on about how China will be super rich, in part to the great Culture of the Chinese,”
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I don’t think China will be richer than America, and I don’t have a particularly high opinion of Chinese culture. (I like the culture in English speaking nations, and also northern Europe, at least if by culture you mean civic attitudes.) China has lots of problems, many of which I’ve discussed here. For instance, their war on drugs is even worse than ours. I could name dozens of other examples.
You said:
“Your loyalty is probably to the East Asians.”
LOL, now I’m sure you are confusing me with someone else.
You said:
“My guess is you are the type of person who would not like mass immigration into Japan or Korea,”
Your guess would be wrong.
And I’m not even going to waste time explaining what’s wrong with Coulter’s statement. Either you see it or you don’t.
29. July 2020 at 17:37
Well stated. I think it says a lot about people who accuse you of having a bias in favor of east Asians, perhaps because you’re married to someone of east Asian heritage. It says nothing at all about you, of course.
30. July 2020 at 11:15
Scott,
This is not a particularly good argument, because it is always true. There is always something better to do than watching political debates. You are right again, there are many excellent novels I have never read. The list is so big that I can only slightly reduce it until I die, even if I read my whole life through as often as possible. And you’re right again, there are few things in life that are better.
Nevertheless, I will not read novels my whole life. Watching political debates is a completely different category in life, it’s an extra time contingent, like cooking, or pooping, or sleeping, and you have to judge each one separately.
And you’re right again, one should watch only a few political debates, even if you’re a political junkie like me, but I do not adhere to it. I have seen many political debates, and about 1-2 GOP debates with Trumo 2016 were really exceptionally good, in terms of rhetorical skill and demagogy. It was almost as good as an excellent novel, one could learn more about rhetoric and the human condition in general than one might initially think.
30. July 2020 at 11:35
Christian, You said:
“were really exceptionally good, in terms of rhetorical skill”
LOL, Have you never seen people who are actually good at debating? Trump and Biden can barely complete a sentence. Trump’s just vomits out a stream of words with no real meaning.
Try watching a UK parliamentary debate sometime.
30. July 2020 at 12:36
@scott, christian
“were really exceptionally good, in terms of rhetorical skill”
My recollection is that some of the candidates actually debated the size of their penises. And somehow even that wasn’t entertaining.
30. July 2020 at 13:55
Scott,
we just seem to define rhetorical skill differently. It’s true, that in our subjective taste, the British sound much better. Johnson and Churchill come to mind, or Thatcher. Even Reagan had a lovely kind of “British style” from time to time.
I tried to neutralize our subjectivity a little bit: How many millions of people can you convince of yourself even though you obviously have no real experience or special qualifications for the office you are applying for?
How do you play off your opponents, who are professional politicians?
I think Trump was very interesting in this respect. If that is not rhetorical ability, then I don’t know what rhetorical ability should look like instead. It was kind of mind boggling and surreal, and hundreds of rhetoricians will still argue today how he actually did it.