David Brooks and the Trope "Everyone does Identity Politics But Me"

[Milchshake]

I swear, David Brooks must be contractually obligated to write this once a month. Or woke independents just just derive pure joy from psychological projection. Either way I just wish this trope would die.
As long as there is more than one person in the world, there will be identity politics, even if they're twins.

So much of this conservative inveighing against the Democratic Party's practice of "identity politics" is mere concern-trolling- "We think that it would be in your own best interest to abandon large swaths of your voting base, because we really want what's best for you, yeah, that's the ticket." BAsically the Otter gambit from Animal House. That Democrats would focus on economic concerns that Democrats already do focus on, that they don't know about, because Fox won't tell them, and come to think of it, neither will the MSM. Their advice is worthless, their concerns are moot. Ignore them all.

Brooks brags that the GOP is again the Party of Ideas, with many ideas to combat "hyper individualism" as he calls it, seems like a euphenism for uppity minorities.

The centerpiece of his article highlights National Review’s Jonah Goldberg’s forthcoming mangnus derpus: “Suicide of the West.” Well James Burnham already used that title for a book, and jeez it just oozes with idenity politics.

Other conservatives are rising to defend that order, including National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, who later this month comes out with his epic and debate-shifting book, “Suicide of the West.”

Goldberg points out that for eons human beings were semi-hairless upright apes clumped in tribes and fighting for food. But about 300 years ago something that he calls “the Miracle” happened. It was a shift in attitude. For thousands of years, societies divided people into permanent categories of race or caste. But, Goldberg writes, “the Miracle ushered in a philosophy that says each person is to be judged and respected on account of their own merits, not the class or caste of their ancestors.”

That belief, championed by John Locke, or a story we tell about Locke, paved the way for human equality, pluralism, democracy, capitalism and the idea that a person can have a plurality of identities and a society can contain a plurality of moral creeds.

It also proved to be the goose that laid the golden egg. Economic growth exploded. The American founding asserted that Lockean ideas are universal. And nothing had ever succeeded like America. Between 1860 and 1900 alone, America’s population doubled and its wealth grew fivefold.

But we have stopped teaching about the Miracle, Goldberg says, and stopped feeling grateful for it.

Tribalism was always there, lurking under the surface. It returns now as identity politics, which is reactionary reversion to the pre-modern world. Identity politics takes individual merit out of the moral center of our system and asserts that group is, Goldberg says, “an immutable category, a permanent tribe.” Identity politics warriors claim they are fighting for social justice, but really it’s just the same old thing, Goldberg argues, a mass mobilization to gain power for the tribe.

A miracle 300 years ago! The phrasing sounds more like evangelicalism than serious political science.

If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it’s that John Locke permanently ended caste systems, and that Lockean liberalism cannot coexist with any kind of caste system. The United States is a perfect example, given by the complete absence of caste, let alone genocidal violence against groups based in part on fallacious arguments that they were not using the land they possessed productively, or chattel slavery, or white supremacist authoritarian enclaves persisting well into the 20th century.
Anyway, this history of colorblind liberal individualism is now being threatened by IDENTITY POLITICS.

[33kamous3]

Oh look, another Never-Trump GOP Conservative has written an abstract pseudo-historical thought experiment so they can talk about John Locke instead of the actual things that are going on in the real world.

I agree that tribalism caters to the weak and fearful, but to say that it's all predicated by "hyper individualism" seems absurd. We're talking about a society that is pathologically obsessed with constant connectivity and social networking. Take away the phones and media platforms for a day and see how well we "hyper individualistic" people would cope without the constant affirmation and validation of their tribal allegiances. If anything, I'd say tribalism is predicated on the opposite of hyper-individualism, which would be the willful abdication of the personal responsibility in the process of questioning, researching, and forming opinions, and the submissive comfort of entrusting an authoritarian "Big Man" with all of the wealth/power/responsibility, and then waiting to follow their lead on whatever issues arise. You'd think that a nation of hyper-individuals would be able to come to their own conclusions about things, but Brooks seems to be saying that we were first made to be too individualistic, then we got scared and threw that away to join tribes, and now we're in a shitshow. But all the while, he's still maintaining and perpetuating the same tired right/left paradigm that vainly attempts to define the tribes that he claims to think are flawed and destructive. Not only that, but he appears to be blaming in on one tribe and saying that the other is now "fighting fire with fire".

I think this is a way for these guys (Republican Never-Trumpers and woke independants) to hedge their bets and hide their heads in the sand until it all blows over, at which point, no matter what happens, they can say "See, I was being so cautious and intellectually balanced by not taking a stance on any relevant issue and I wasn't wrong".

[Xeones]

Trump, Cruz, and Santorum are republican candidates who ran heavily on identity politics and won or came close to winning the nomination... And democrats are playing identity politics?

[Felya]

Trump, Cruz, and Santorum are republican candidates who ran heavily on identity politics and won or came close to winning the nomination... And democrats are playing identity politics?

There was a difference... Trump ran on identity politics of superiority of his supporters, by hanging on the ‘real American’ tag. In fact, Indiana lost business because our VP chose to create laws based on identity of bathroom goers. DNC runs on everyone is normal, RNC runs on you being the real American.

[Rukh]

There was a difference... Trump ran on identity politics of superiority of his supporters, by hanging on the ‘real American’ tag. In fact, Indiana lost business because our VP chose to create laws based on identity of bathroom goers. DNC runs on everyone is normal, RNC runs on you being the real American.

Trump ran on imagined cultural threat to the white man.

[Felya]

Trump ran on imagined cultural threat to the white man.

Yep, I’ve had arguments spanning weeks on this forum, trying to point it out. This is what he did...

2014: Why Business Leaders Are Obsessed With Sun Tzu’s Ancient Military Guide, “The Art of War”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...n_5003283.html

Six Principles of Sun Tzu & the Art of Business
http://www.suntzustrategies.com/reso...t-of-business/

3) Use foreknowledge & deception to maximize the power of business intelligence.

“Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril” Sun Tzu

To find and exploit your competitor’s weakness requires a deep understanding of their executives’ strategy, capabilities, thoughts and desires, as well as similar depth of knowledge of your own strengths and weaknesses. It is also important to understand the overall competitive and industry trends occurring around you in order to have a feel for the “terrain” on which you will do battle. Conversely, to keep your competitor from utilizing this strategy against you, it is critical to mask your plans and keep them secret.

5) Use alliances and strategic control points in the industry to “shape” your opponents and make them conform to your will.

“Therefore, those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him.” Sun Tzu

“Shaping you competition” means changing the rules of contest and making the competition conform to your desires and your actions. It means taking control of the situation away from your competitor and putting it in your own hands. One way of doing so is through the skillful use of alliances. By building a strong web of alliances, the moves of your competitors can be limited. Also, by controlling key strategic points in your industry, you will be able to call the tune to which your competitors dance.

@Connal for attention to the bold...

[D Luniz]

300 years ago, funny, rather sure my mom and dad remember Jim Crow, a glorified caste system, and they are barely in their 60s

[Endus]

The nonsense about the Lockean "miracle" is particularly galling.

Many so-called "caste" systems in history had mobility between "castes". The Romans are a good example, at many points in their history. Ancient China, as well. Among others; those are just really big examples.

And the principles he's talking about? Egalitarianism, social mobility, pluralism, democracy, these are ideas that the GOP have traditionally opposed, for the last half-century (and the right-wing even longer).

Egalitarianism? The GOP are the party that have opposed racial equality, gay marriage rights, women's health rights, religious acceptance of non-Christians, etc.
Social mobility? Even without digging into their programs, look at their rhetoric, how they try and get people to identify as "coal miners" or "assembly line workers" or "farmers" or the like, intergenerationally, rather than moving on to better employment opportunities. This isn't just policy, social immobility is deeply ingrained into their rhetoric.
Pluralism? See most of the stuff about Egalitarianism. See all the moaning about attacks on "family values" just because some people have different values. Etc.
Democracy? The GOP are the party responsible for the worst gerrymandering, for attempts to disenfranchise voters along partisan lines, and so forth; democracy to them is a game to be won, not a societal means of providing checks and balances, where you should ever listen to the actual will of the people.

If the GOP wants to turn their backs on their last half-century of history and step into the light, they're free to, but let's not pretend they've made any efforts to do so.

[NYC17]

https://www.gq.com/story/david-brooks-trump-whitewater

[Edge-]

Jesus, this is how deep Brooks is having to dig nowadays? I once used to respect the guy, but this is a pointless, tone deaf puff piece divorced from reality.

Identity politics gained traction on the left, but now the Trumpian right has decided to fight fire with fire.

This kind of shit. Fuck. Off. Identity politics existed long before conservatives started bitching about it in recent years, and they've been long used by both political parties extensively, and in far more gross and divisive ways than just about anything we see nowadays.

I used to have respect for Brooks as a reasonable voice amongst conservatives. I may have disagreed strongly with him on issues all the time, but I could respect the rigor behind his arguments and his thought process and articulation of his positions. But seeing the kind of nonsense he's been writing over the last year or so makes me thing he's struggling for any sort of relevance in the modern era and flailing about helplessly.

What, Brooks is excited that there are a handful of young conservative writers who are capable of writing articles without calling for women to be hanged for abortions or for the genocide of entire religions? He's blaming liberals for the kind of "rugged individual" mentality that conservatives spend decades supporting, in direct contradiction to the more communal and group-based approach of the left? Fuck off, David Brooks.

[Dacien]

It's really strange to watch the left and the right argue over who engaged in identity politics first.

[Rukh]

It's really strange to watch the left and the right argue over who engaged in identity politics first.

I don't see much argument-- unless you were planning on saying something?

[Endus]

It's really strange to watch the left and the right argue over who engaged in identity politics first.

Because you're not paying attention.

The right are complaining about the left using identity politics, while using identity politics themselves in nearly every bit of messaging they use, and pretending, dishonestly, that identity politics is a new thing.

Us on the left are just pointing out that the whole complaint from the right is pants-on-head moronic. You can pretty safely dismiss anyone bitching about "identity politics" as having nothing at all to say that's worth hearing.

[PC2]

It doesn't matter if everyone is equally guilty of identity politics. All that shows is that the idea hasn't received enough criticism in general. Societies flourish due to policy merit based politics. Identity based politics is just a poor approach that makes identity groups the target of criticism instead of the policy.

[Endus]

It doesn't matter if everyone is equally guilty of identity politics. All that shows is that the idea hasn't received enough criticism in general. Societies flourish due to policy merit based politics. Identity based politics is just a poor approach that makes identity groups the target of criticism instead of the policy.

The only time the groups become the target of criticism is when people are prejudiced against said groups from the outset. So really, all you're doing here is defending prejudice, as if it were a virtue.

[PC2]

The only time the groups become the target of criticism is when people are prejudiced against said groups from the outset. So really, all you're doing here is defending prejudice, as if it were a virtue.

No I'm saying when it comes to politics don't be prejudiced against groups be prejudiced against the policy you think needs to be improved.

[Endus]

No I'm saying when it comes to politics don't be prejudiced against groups be prejudiced against the policy you think needs to be improved.

...

The reason identity groups get brought up is when policies work to marginalize, disenfranchise, or otherwise negatively impact that group. There is no distinction. You're manufacturing a straw man that does not exist.

[Milchshake]

Jesus, this is how deep Brooks is having to dig nowadays? I once used to respect the guy, but this is a pointless, tone deaf puff piece divorced from reality.

Watching the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour conditioned me to assume that Brooks was a reasonable guy for years. But the conditioning broke around 2004.

For awhile I assumed Brooks was just a conservative without a party. But he consistently supports;

• Republican government that produces upper-class tax cuts
• Republican government that produces deregulation
• Republican government that produces neoconfederate judges

A Never-Trumper is still a Never-Democrat no matter how much they complain about Democrat Identity Politics.

[PC2]

...

The reason identity groups get brought up is when policies work to marginalize, disenfranchise, or otherwise negatively impact that group. There is no distinction. You're manufacturing a straw man that does not exist.

The reason identity groups get brought up is because of tribalism. If you want to help marginalized people the best strategy is to find and then promote the policy solution, as opposed to personal appeals to their identity.

[Endus]

The reason identity groups get brought up is because of tribalism. If you want to help marginalized people the best strategy is to find and then promote the policy solution, as opposed to personal appeals to their identity.

Again, all you're doing here is flagrantly misrepresenting the facts to pursue a straw man. It isn't "tribalism", at all, in any useful sense whatsoever. What those on the right label as "identity politics" is people finding and promoting policy solutions.

Add it to the list of completely imaginary threats the American right wing have decided to be afraid of, right alongside "cultural marxism" and "the gay agenda".