Political Coalitions, Personal Grievances, and Tribalism

I hope personal animus among members of potential coalitions doesn't lead to squandering chances for big reforms.

***

While the disparate treatment and tactical patience employed against the Bundys and their accomplices in Oregon is painfully unfair and a blatant double standard compared to those employed against racial and criminal justice activists in so many instances, the conviction motivating those in Oregon and shared by their conservative supporters across the country, that mandatory minimum sentences are deeply unjust, may suggest that a/the broad coalition that is necessary to actually effect this reform maybe newly possible.  This potential opportunity not be neglected or dismissed unexplored.

***

Similarly, the fight to protect the shrinking middle class and instead grow it by fighting for the betterment of poor and working-class people maybe bolstered by leveraging the fissures in the conservative and Republican base that,
while always obscured but present, have become starkly clear of late.

The neoliberal view, that people's incomes earned in the market reflects not only their marginal product value but also what they deserve and are nearly on the level of natural fact, and that to facilitate otherwise by affecting either their market or transfer incomes would be to distort the market mechanism to the detriment of both the intended beneficiaries and us all, has long been openly wielded to oppose helping some segments of society economically (and covertly wielded against others for the same purpose).  This deployment of ideologyThe deployment of this ideology has long been successful; the neoliberal view has long enjoyed broad support.

But now that it has been openly turned against has openly been turned against; has been turned openly against many of those who, previously, it had opposed only covertly, and who previously comprised the bulk of its broad support, the dominant neoliberalism may see the struggle against it, to promote the economic interests of those it has stymied, reinvigorated by the support of newfound allies and growth of the opposing coalition.

Danger of Identitarian Deference: After its Cause Wins, Does it Reverse its Position?

Having a rule of identitarian deference or other standard of identity politics under which some people's view is given more weight than others in accordance with who has the least power is dangerous because, once the disadvantaged cause in question that righteous/virtuous people are fighting for and for the purpose of fighting for which identitarian deference is established/practiced gains support and power and begins to win and becomes dominant, then it wouldn't lose the benefit vantage of identity, and opposition what in fact. 

In concrete terms, for example, Emma Sulkowicz has more power in some ways than Paul Nungesser; after all, one was supported by a multitude including elected officials and the other was not. Similarly, racial minorities have more social power and white supremacists and the KKK do at this time in this country. 

Should the arguments between these camps then really be settled by, or addressed by giving any (argumentative/discursive) benefit/advantage to, privileging the side with less power?

Free and Public Speech and Value-Neutrality: Public Sex & Nudity, Body Image, Social Roles, Sexual Assault, Media and Other Representation, and General Activism

David Frum scoffs at efforts to remove or change a large public billboard advertisement for a fitness product that features a sexy, fit woman in a small bikini
as obviously wrong

But if we already have and accept laws against public/the public presentation of drug use (public drinking) and public nudity and public sex actions and even depictions, pictures or video, of nudity and sex acts, then surely we've already violated value-neutrality, and certainly have violated (freedom of speech's) content-neutrality of/for (regulation of) public speech and expression.  

So what's the problem then with further restricting public speech some degree tighter than it is now, even if just to include images and media that uphold/propagate social roles and impossible ideals, and lead to body negativity, body image health issues and psychological issues in high numbers, and sexual assault issues, and gender identity issues, and economic and educational and racial bias/racist prejudice,
given how bad we know these things are right now (and how bad the various ideas to address them are right now, and how bad the general politics of the issue is--not amenable to good solution/policy/practical conclusions/choices and very amenable to false accusations, bad arguments, etc.)

I oppose regulating all speech that is contained to those who positively consent to hearing it, but unless you want to be forced to allow public nudity and public sex acts and/or depictions of them, (etc)...


---

dafd
My little reading on culture has shown how people pass down values and attitudes (culture) intergenerational and socially/in a socially diffuse way.
To the extent that the culture passed down can be the CoP
it may be inferred that people need positive role models, since they need "models for life"/examples of living, etc.
This is why gender and racial and queer representation is important, especially with regard to not only positive examples but much less negative stereotypical examples that reinforce negative stereotypes.

Identitarian Deference in Abortion Rights Rhetoric

I just realized another long-standing example of "identitarian deference" that I never noticed/recognized before:

"it you don't have a uterus, you do not get a vote"

"if you're not a woman, you don't get an opinion on this issue"

This is a very long-standing, from as far back as I can remember following politics, argument/piece of rhetoric/retort used by pro-choice women (and even some men) on the left to argue against pro-life men.

When in the past I've been thinking about how best to argue against some of these more risky/destructive tendencies, I've tried to recall previous examples of identity politics and identitarian deference ad hominems to show how the approach is fallacious; I especially tried to show them examples of conservative ad hominem fallacies that they might have decried as fallacious at the time and still would have the partisan amenability to that judgment.
But I was also trying to identity past examples of erroneous identity politics and identitarian deference in general, including on the left, in order in part to discover whether recent developments, in identity politics and PC--especially on campus, really represent a change on the political scene, whether there really was something new.
Even when I was recently casting about for specific identifiable examples of earlier lefty identitarianism, I didn't think of this.  Could mean nothing, but could be because of how deep this was engrained and normalized...

***

Incidentally, the current line on gender identity and trans rights would invalidate/preclude this rule anyway, since men and women can no longer be assumed to have penises and vaginas, respectively, and in general that there is no external way to determine whether they have a uterus or not--and asking them is rude and verifying is assault and insult.  

Identity Politics and Abortion Argument

Is this post, on the idea of a universal positive right to an abortion, an example of or does it contain any instances/examples of "identity politics"?  In the good sense of the term as used by those who profess its value?

At least in style it seems to me not; maybe in some sense about the content, since it directly concerns only part of the population, it is.  But so if it does count as identity politics for its content--despite or without regard to its style--then I only have a problem with the style of identity politics.

Judith Butler & Trans-vs-TERF

So is Judith Butler a TERF or not?  "Gender performativity" makes it sound like she would be, similar to as RRC is accused of being.

But she gets absolved in this post?

It sounds to me like she escapes the label now only because she refrains from and declares her intention to refrain from spelling out that conclusion or talking about this particular opinion at all.

We agree, radfems and trans theorists, that gender is an oppressive system of unequal social classes, so radfems and you can't blame people for how they choose to deal with that oppression.

Gun Control Coalitions

Those who favor increasing the accreditation requirements to purchase, own/possess or carry, concealed and not, should consider making common cause with the purveyors of such services; it seems plausible that it's in firearm instructors' and shooting ranges' interests to require people practice and take safety courses, maybe demonstrate competency, and it might be in that industry's interest to hold a high bar for passage, to facilitate additional spending on courses and instruction and practice for second attempts. Part of the medical industry, psychologists and psychiatrists, could find a financial interest in this too if undergoing a psychological evaluation was required, on top of the ethical support for it they have as members of the medical profession.

This would peel off some parts of the gun community, and provide authentic/effective spokespeople to advocate for the effort to those sympathetic to the gun community. 

Is the Fight Against Inequality or Poverty?

As the Iron Lady did in very quotable fashion, many conservatives today continue to accuse liberals of fetishizing economic equality to the point of willingness to sacrifice the living standards of all, including the poor, to promote it. As Margaret Thatcher put the charge, liberals "would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich".

This accusation made towards liberals is false almost without exception. For just one example, here's Matt Yglesias refusing to trade living standards for equality. In this case, even though economic recessions may reduce income inequality by cutting the incomes of the rich more than those of the poor, Yglesias nevertheless opposes recessions and so declines the living-standards-for-equality trade because absolute living standards for all outweighs income equality.

Yet, many liberals have indeed claimed the struggle against economic inequality as their own. How ought their position be interpreted? While there might be other valid reasons to oppose inequality, the most undeniable reason to do so, and thus the most effective grounds on which to make the case, is that inequality implies inadequate living standards and poverty that are avoidable.