0
0
0
I'm not sure his conclusion...that identity politics and victimhood competition are on the wane...is true. I still see a great deal of gas remaining in the identity politics gas tank. The media and liberals continue to make use of it wherever they see it providing a power advantage, and average Americans (the majority) earns the moniker "silent" over and over again.
The Problem of Competitive Victimhood
Posted from nationalreview.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Correctness
Political Correctness
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
Both sides play the identity politics game; that isn't just a "liberal" thing. Conservatives just choose different types of identities besides race. They do it with gun owners ("They're coming to take your guns!"), Christians (the "war on Christmas!"), business owners (the "job creators"), married couples ("an assault on marriage"), the blue-collared working class ("makers vs. takers"), etc. Both sides have their talking points that play to target groups.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Interesting perspective. I would distinguish between identity (ie, "this is me, I was born this way) and factions based on religion, policy, or economics. The difference being, you will always have your (single) identity, but you may be a member of multiple factions at the same time, some of them conflicting with others on any given policy. And you can change factions (change your religion, position on guns, or move up from working class to middle class), but you will always be your race, or gender, or sexual preference, or lack of gender. Both sides play to factions, but only the left plays to identity.
(1)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
Col Joseph Lenertz - I disagree. I still think the right plays to identity. The main difference is the GOP's voters are a much more homogeneous population. Therefore, they need other tools to subdivide and target accordingly.
So, what's more important, the specific tool being used (a static or a malleable identity) or the effect being created (subdividing and targeting with tailored messages)? I think the latter is much more important. They both do it.
So, what's more important, the specific tool being used (a static or a malleable identity) or the effect being created (subdividing and targeting with tailored messages)? I think the latter is much more important. They both do it.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
OK. So you think union membership is essentially the same as gender or sexual orientation. Well, we stay opposed on that point. I'm just thinking of the Federalist Papers, when the first time I read them I was confused by the desire (Jay's, originally, I think) for LOTS of factions in order to preserve a large republic. Every voter would see themselves NOT as a single monolith but rather as a member of a religion, AND a union member, AND a woman, AND a health care provider, for example. I worry that the number voters who identify themselves as a single entity and view every policy through that single lens, is growing. And IMO, that growth is nurtured by the left.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
Feel free to put words into your own mouth, but please don't try to speak for me. I do not think that "union membership is essentially the same as gender or sexual orientation". However, I do think that union membership, as an identity, can be used for political purposes, just like gender or sexual orientation.
I think people choose for themselves how they want to identify. I identify as a male, and as a Caucasian, and as a Southerner, and as a Christian, and as a gun owner, and as a member of academia, and as a veteran. Whether or not any of those change over time is immaterial, and one does not overwhelm all of the others. What matters is how/when political parties try to use those identities to appeal to me (and/or try to get me to oppose other parties) to get me to vote for them. That is identity politics. Both sides do it.
I think people choose for themselves how they want to identify. I identify as a male, and as a Caucasian, and as a Southerner, and as a Christian, and as a gun owner, and as a member of academia, and as a veteran. Whether or not any of those change over time is immaterial, and one does not overwhelm all of the others. What matters is how/when political parties try to use those identities to appeal to me (and/or try to get me to oppose other parties) to get me to vote for them. That is identity politics. Both sides do it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Like most things in politics, the emotional things get votes. This is why one group screams racism, misogyny, deplorable, and any number of other epitaphs as opposed to actually talking about the issues. The other side is just as bad the terms libtard and snowflake come to mind. This is why we see over and over again the political establishment talking about issues like abortion. Pro life or pro choice doesn't much matter unless Roe v Wade is overturned. Same sex marriages the same thing. Talk about getting back to family values, is another emotional yet completely meaningless dialog. Of course the average person is a moron and is led around by the nose by their preferred flavor of rulers. As long as the politicians and the media keep stoking the flames, this will continue. Very few people seem to understand that the media and political establishment have a vested interest in keeping us divided. The media gets more viewers and sells more ads. The politicians scare the hell out of people into voting for them thus keeping their jobs for another term and keeping them firmly in control. Until people wake up and see what is actually going on, this won't be going away.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google