Senator Harry Reid's newly surfaced comments prove that the left is obsessed with identity politics.
Last week, I took a lot of heat for my article on "Obama and the Left's Insulting Identity Politics." I asserted that the left was obsessed with racial justice, diversity, and identity politics. That from the DNC's selection of Obama as the primary candidate, to the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, to Obama's own selection of Amanda Simpson, the first transgendered appointee, time and again the left has let identity politics trump merit and used political correctness to stifle dissent.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - zingzing
"identity politics"=the right's obsession with race. you manipulate race as bad as anyone.
27 - zingzing
"If that's not using race to manipulate, then I don't know what is."
this, thus this.
28 - Jeannie Danna
I am in favor of centralized federal management and bigger government as the only solution to our ills....
Since the rights and protections of the individual is left up to which party won the majority in their state in the last election..
We yo yo from one state to the next...California is trying to lower carbon emissions at the same time as taking marriage rights away from gay couples. Washington is working on recycling more. New York is doing nothing to get us to a green environment and we know what LA, SC, MO are resisting any change by declaring a opt out Health Care if there is a public option, bailout money earmarked for the poor, and an extension of unemployment benefits for the jobless. Give Texas and Arizona koodos, they are placing wind-farms in the equation!
After having read this article, I would like to defend Senator Harry Reid by saying "I believe he had in mind the shallow and closed minded voting populace we have out here and realized that most identifiable white voters are prejudiced."
He knew we had to win..
29 - Jeannie Danna
Oh, I forgot to mention the great states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia...they are holding on to that filthy coal!
lobbying really hard!
30 - The Obnoxious American
"After having read this article, I would like to defend Senator Harry Reid by saying "I believe he had in mind the shallow and closed minded voting populace we have out here and realized that most identifiable white voters are prejudiced."
Thanks for proving my point Jeannie, your characterization of Reid's mindset is precisely why the left's practice of Identity politics is insulting and insincere. Note the very last paragraph of my article:
"Republicans stand for a conservative interpretation of the constitution as a guide for governing, abiding by the wisdom of the framers. Perhaps the Democrats should drop the pretense of their faux morality and have the guts to run on their real platform of a continuous reinterpretation of our rights, in favor of centralized federal management and bigger government as the only solution to our ills."
After all, even you agree that Reid's comments reflect not morality but pure political calculation. Using race no less.
31 - zingzing
oa, what do you think of the southern strategy?
32 - Jeannie Danna
I agree with Cindy, Too much BOLD looks like a sock stuck in pants...
I want to quote STM now.."G-day":)
33 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
Somehow you missed the second and third paragraph in my article. Here it is, in bold, so you won't miss it this time:
" I admitted that in order to "keep up with the Joneses" on the left, and not appear completely out of touch, the right has engaged in identity politics as well, most notably with the selection of RNC Chair Michael Steele, as well as, in an attempt to share the claim of a "historic presidency" with the Obama candidacy, with the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate in 2008.
The difference however, is that the right isn't a proponent of identity-based government legislation that intrudes on our lives, such as affirmative action and quotas, all of which actually wind up hurting race relations further, while not really solving anything. Meanwhile, the so-called true believers on the left actually practice a much more dishonest form of manipulation, setting race relations further and further back, by making a spectacle of every first "hyphenated-American" this or that, and promoting flawed and divisive legistlation pandering to minorities in an effort increase the size of their tent and get more votes. "
You've succeeded in getting plenty emotional but in terms of proving the thesis of this article wrong? Not so much.
34 - The Obnoxious American
Zing
I'd also recommend reading the last paragraph too (which I quoted for Jeannie). In fact, try reading the whole thing.
35 - zingzing
so what do you think of think of the southern strategy?
36 - roger nowosielski
"even you agree that Reid's comments reflect not morality but pure political calculation. Using race no less."
Well, it does reflect morality, sort of, because Obama was more acceptable for not being "the stereotypical negro."
I hope you're not suggesting though, OA, that America is free of prejudice, regardless of what quarter it emanates.
But as I said before, the ways of politics, the machinations and manipulations, are of no interest to me - not from any intellectual, conceptual standpoint. They're part of the game.
37 - THE REFOUNDING FATHER
T.O.A.,
I think you are spot on with this quote: "Perhaps the Democrats should drop the pretense of their faux morality and have the guts to run on their real platform of a continuous reinterpretation of our rights, in favor of centralized federal management and bigger government as the only solution to our ills."
They might as well just add FDR's Second Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
- THE REFOUNDING FATHER
38 - The Obnoxious American
Sounds outdated for one. Here's wiki's definition:
"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party (GOP) method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting opposition among the once segregationist South to the cultural upheaval of New Left, Vietnam protests, the Hippie culture, Gun control, Abortion and to desegregation and Civil Rights."
I have to say I am not aware of any incidence of the GOP using desegregation as a campaign platform, either in the 21st century, or in all of my time paying attention in the 20th (which I'll admit is limited). That said, I seem to remember something about the Dems filibustering civil rights legislation that the right was forwarding. Hmmmm.
Now, aside from the specific issue of desegregation, the rest of the issues are bona fide GOP platforms. We ARE against Gun Control, we don't support Abortion (though for me this is more of a moral question than a question for the state). We are for family values, which I suppose is the opposite of "Hippie Culture" (Chuckle).
Not really sure what your point is here. Should the GOP not use the campaign platforms that they stand on, to motivate the base? Of course they should, just like the left does. This doesn't mean they should be manipulating the masses with race as Reid is wont to do. And if they did, I wouldn't support it. And obviously, I call it like it is and I have a long track record of supporting what is right for the country, not the party. If there is a specific instance that you are referring to that is racially distasteful (and I am not suggesting there haven't been on both sides of the aisle), I'm not approving of it.
None of this conversation changes the points raised in the article.
39 - roger nowosielski
The problem is - the original formulation of "our rights" tends to reflect "privileged morality." By all reasonable accounts, the concept of morality aims at the universal.
So "bigger government," while not ideal by any means, can definitely be viewed (by the enlightened some) as a remedy - to restore the nation to its true bearings and godly intent.
And since we claim to derive our heritage from God's intents and purposes, shouldn't we at least try to live up to our concept of manifest destiny by being true to these words?
40 - zingzing
oa, the southern strategy was used by republicans to exploit racism in the south to gain votes. i wouldn't say its in effect today, at least not as explicitly as it once was, but basically, when johnson signed the civil rights bill, he stated "we've just lost the south" and the republicans jumped on it. they manipulated racial tensions (and backed the interests of racists) in order to gain votes.
and it worked. and thus, the south is now solidly republican instead of (as it was) democratic. good use of racism for political ends!
i'd say that's a bit worse than electing a black man into office.
but i'm sure you can figure a way that it's not.
either way, this stuff has been going on forever. so, is your sudden indignation mere ignorance, or for political ends? and if it's the latter, doesn't that make you just as guilty as those you are criticizing?
41 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
I'm not quite sure how the cause of "promote and defend democracy throughout the world" is assisted by a giant government that taxes it's citizens out of wealth, while detailing the rules around every aspect of their lives. Unless there is some other manifest destiny you're referring to.
42 - zingzing
and i'm not sure how small government translates to starting multiple wars, but you know, politics...
43 - The Obnoxious American
Zing
We can go back through history and delve into the wrongs promoted by both parties and as I intimated by the left's opposition to civil rights legislation is just as bad as the rights exploitation of racism in the 60s and 70s as well as both parties support for slavery for much of this country's history.
None of this history means that what Reid said or what the Dems continue to do is right and I have every right to call them on it. And frankly so should you.
44 - Zedd
I think the word "Negro" is funny. Are there any still around?
45 - Zedd
While I don't think it was appropriate for Reid to make that comment, it certainly doesn't compare with someone who said:
"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either"
Referring to a candidate whose position was:
"All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches".
It's quite a bit different. No argument to be made really. Let's close shop fellows!
But they both referred to the "Negro". I don't know why that's so funny to me.
46 - roger nowosielski
"The giant government," to use your own turn of phrase, OA, has been made necessary precisely because the idea of "universal rights" have taken a backseat.
And I'm not even talking about the world at large. The locus is none other than US itself.
You may object, of course, to taxation rates on the wealthy. But what I find more disconcerting is the whole masses of, yes, Americans, living their lives in "quite desperation", not to mention relative poverty and state of dependence. Definitely not anything to brag about.
So the notion of "rights" is rather empty in that context. As long as poverty, material and intellectual, is a permanent feature of American life, as long as our own citizens are destined to live their lives unenlightened and in darkness - and yes, in the midst of richest nation in the world and the world of aplenty - then yes, appeals to rights do indeed sound shallow and hollow.
Nothing more than ideology.
47 - zingzing
oa--you're correct in saying that history doesn't make anything right. (although if you really look at it, it's not left vs right that made civil rights, it's north vs south. and those dems that filibustered? yeah, they were in the "conservative coalition." and several of those dems that voted against the legislation became republicans shortly thereafter.)
but politics is politics and gunning for votes is the name of the game. it's a shitty game, but to suggest that the left is more guilty than the right is wrong. you have your base, we have ours. it's not our fault that minorities side with us. you make plays for your groups, but because they're mostly white, it's more rare that your plays can be construed as race-based.
what are "faith-based initiatives" but a play for religious votes? why promote a totally repugnant, charisma-free former business leader who likes to shoot people in the face if you're not looking for business and gun nut votes?
it's the same damn thing.
48 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
I'd say the difference is that the GOP is running on actual platforms that mean something. The left is using identity politics merely to get minorities to their side. Perhaps you can suggest that there is no difference. But there is a distasteful difference.
Also I don't think most minorities "side with [you]". Lots of hispanic and black people share their religious ideology completely with the GOP. It's primarily those who view America as an ATM and provider of benefits and entitlements, you know, the leeches, of any racial or other background, who side with you.
Roger,
As far as those Americans living in quiet desperation - what are they waiting for? The whole point of this country is opportunity. Not hand outs. But you can't have both and if the left succeeds in what they want to do, opportunity will wane for even more Americans. Should that happen, expect lots more desperation, and not all of it quiet.
49 - zingzing
oa, the gop's platform is just as much designed to get votes as the dems' is. hence their sudden religion when they discovered the religious right. and the left believes in their platform. we get minorities to vote for us by actually giving them a role in the party. what's wrong with that?
50 - zingzing
but it's obvious that we don't give them a role in the party just to get them to vote for us. and what part of our platform do you think we don't believe in?
51 - roger nowosielski
OA. This country has bred a loser mentality in great proportion of the population. I find it disconcerting to say to least, and a symptom of a major malaise. You, on the other hand, are coming out with platitudes.
It's our own people you're talking about, not just strangers. Should it be a course for concern?
Sticking to your own point of view and your own ideology, however well intended, just doesn't account for this phenomenon. Apparently, a great many of our people do not share your sense of upbeat and optimism. Something had gone awry, my friend, and your patriotic appeals to the goodness and virtues of America apparently are falling on deaf ears.
52 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
Not really. Some aspects of any political platform are pandering, but I'd argue that any republican that does so, ceases to adhere to the spirit of the party and I won't make excuses for it - it's wrong.
It should be about sticking to the constitution not redefining it. That's the central point. Beyond that, you have a lean towards smaller government and encouraging the private sector. These are real platforms.
Universal Healthcare? What's that but a give away, using someone else's dollars. Cap and Trade? What's that but a major tax - even libs admit it wont help with Global Warming. Environmentalism? You mean the half baked science that results in socialism?
Yes, the left has a real platform, but to get there they run on pandering. As I said at the end of my article:
"Perhaps the Democrats should drop the pretense of their faux morality and have the guts to run on their real platform of a continuous reinterpretation of our rights, in favor of centralized federal management and bigger government as the only solution to our ills."
Or to quote Alexander Tyler:
""A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."
Now which party does Tyler's quote most closely resemble? One guess.
53 - The Obnoxious American
Roger #51,
I'd argue that a large part of this is due to the points raised in Dave Nalle's recent article on the history books. When I was growing up there was much more education around freedom the private sector, etc. Things have changed, what they teach has changed, and now people believe in big government. This is why Nalle's article was so important.
54 - roger nowosielski
"Perhaps the Democrats should drop the pretense of their faux morality and have the guts to run on their real platform of a continuous reinterpretation of our rights . . ."
But why should they drop it if it is not pretense. And it's certainly arguable that it's not a pretense for all.
Indeed, perhaps "reinterpretation of our rights," as spelled out in the Constitution, ought to be the main order of business. Why? Because any talk of rights why the people has been neglected, undereducated and ill-prepared to deal with the challenges of the 21st century is empty.
And who's to say that this project, or platform as you call it, is not prompted by some (no doubt foreign to you) concept of morality?
Centralized government is definitely not a solution, but something has got to be done to save the people. The capitalist system and the wealthy - John Wanamaker and the like - have obviously failed.
It's the people, OA, their well-being and their welfare - what is any country's most valuable asset. Yet your learned discussion conveniently bypasses this all-important point. You speak of rights and of individuals, and of individual rights, spewing out a two-hundred-year obsolete ideology, ignoring all the while that ours is a sinking ship.
Sorry, OA, I have no tolerance for this kind of thinking. Good luck to you.
55 - roger nowosielski
OK, perhaps we've reached a middle ground. You argue that the ignorance of the masses has been rooted in poorly administered public education; my contention is that it's more a result of our all-materialistic value system. But honestly, OA, I don't really believe that the essence of our public education is to rely on the government. However poor, any education instills in a person a sense of self-reliance, confidence, and all those good things. Granted, there are always some who won't respond, but there are also those who do. But you choose to lay the blame on the education system rather than the system itself. There are no longer opportunities to succeed, OA, not on a scale you envisage, and certainly not for all those who would welcome success. People don't believe in America anymore. Perhaps that's the point I'm pressing.
So it's not a matter of big or small government, not a matter of public or private sector, just a matter of loss of faith.
It is written.
56 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
People never believed in America, it's about what Americans believe in. You can whistle past the graveyard all you like, but the fact is, Americans coming up during WWII had it more difficult than we can even imagine, yet they presevered. We have it way easier than they do and all we can do is imagine more and more reasons why we can't succeed. And this same victim mentality is one espoused by the left. Look at the discussion in Dave's article about the importance of unions. Ford invented the car, not unions. I'm not saying unions don't have their place, but when we teach kids several pages of history on unions and skip over the history of individual American ingenuity, I think the victimology starts to pervade society as a whole.
Also, in your prior post you say
"Indeed, perhaps "reinterpretation of our rights," as spelled out in the Constitution, ought to be the main order of business. Why? Because any talk of rights why the people has been neglected, undereducated and ill-prepared to deal with the challenges of the 21st century is empty. "
Have you read the constitution? What part of "All men are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights" don't apply to the 21st century? What part of that doesn't directly apply to the so-called neglected? And who is supposed to be paying these poor neglected folks attention?
Sorry, but the solutions to any minority's ills is right there in the constitution and the bill of rights, as envisioned by the framers. Just like it was a solution for the minority who came to American and started this country.
57 - roger nowosielski
Sorry, OA, but I don't always believe in the Bible. Besides, you're talking ancient history when you're referring to the WWII period. We were still innocent then, babes in the woods. Little did we know the sins of our past were going to come to haunt us with a vengeance. And now we're paying the wages.
And no, OA, I'm not talking about minorities. I'm talking about Joe-Six-Pack, be he black, white or red. So let's face it, we have produced, by any number of causes, a dysfunctional population - good for nothing. You say it doesn't matter now. I say nothing else matters more. So unless you're going to argue now it's "people failure," I'm going to argue it's system's failure," constitution or no constitution.
And yes, beliefs matter. Americans don't believe any more in this country. Not just the minorities but most of us in fact. The only ones who still do are those who have raped her, and the apologists like Nalle and yourself.
Again, I'm not attacking you, OA. Just voicing my honest opinion.
58 - The Obnoxious American
Are you suggesting that I'm regarding the constitution as some bible, handed down from God? I don't give it that much reverence, but I do think that the founders did think pretty heavily on it for years. As such we should give it a lot more respect - it's not a living document but rather a well thought out system - the best system human kind has ever seen. So yes we should give it some respect and not use temporary political power to try and remake the country in the image of Saul Alinsky.
As far as the malaise you mention, that's your opinion, and I can't really argue with you on it. But what your talking about is really an attitude, an outlook. I suspect that a booming economy and not a booming government or even educational system, is the real solution to the malaise you speak of. Tax increases and the various other policies promoted by Obama and his admin will not take us to a booming economy, but the government will surely boom.
59 - roger nowosielski
Not handed down from God, but a bible in a matter of speaking.
As to the rest of your comment, I have only this to say. To tie the well-being of a people to a booming economy is a very myopic viewpoint. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing for the people's health and general well-being as measured by their consumption patterns. I couldn't care less about Americans as consumers. In fact, it's precisely in bad times that the strength of the nation and the people counts the most - not when everything is honky dory. So really, I don't understand your standards of well-being and we're obviously taking at cross-purposes.
Some other time, perhaps.
60 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, your #57 and # 58 were very eloquent responses to OA.
I thought about my call for big centralized government last night and came to the conclusion that I was wrong... we need separate States here...but if we truly educated our people..boy, that would be nice :)
61 - Jeannie Danna
added to #60 Still, there are many good reasons for regulations.
62 - The Obnoxious American
Roger
I'm not sure what you are expecting from government, but people certainly won't and shouldn't get an emotional sense of well being from it. That's simply not government's role.
Please expound on the specifics you are looking for, if not economic stability (which the current admin has hurt) or law enforcement/national security (of which Obama has hurt the second).
Frankly, and with all due respect I think you're being a bit too high falutin, a bit too cerebral here. Government has a role and it also has it's limits. When people try to view government as something more than that is where we run into the problems we've seen throughout history.
I'll get my general sense of well being from my family, my faith and my friends. If you can't get that or are looking for that from Obama, then I feel bad for you my friend, and wish you the best of luck on your journey.
Jeannie,
Sounds almost like a conservative viewpoint. Nice to see you coming around.
63 - Arch Conservative
OA there are too many among us today that belive it is the government's role to provide for their every last need and desire. The idea that an able bodied, able minded adult, should do for themself rather than rely on the federal government makes their heads ache.
They believe in entitlements, equality of outcome and other such nonsense and seek to villify anyone who does not share their worldview as calluous and lacking compassion.
It's hard to take such people seriously, infatilized whining little, narcissiscts that they are.
Despite the mountains of evidence of the federal government's role in degrading the quality of life in this nation we have some of our very own on this website making mind numbingly imbecilic assertions that the solution to all of our problems is a larger federal government. The utter stupidity of some of my fellow Americans never ceases to amaze. How completely simple minded must one individual be to fail to recognize the the extremely corrosive influence those who have been corrupted by the power of national politics and corpratism have had on this nation and it's people over the last 40 - 50 years?
As for Harry Reid. I don't believe the man ever had any dignity. He's pretty mcuh gotten a pass on something that would have costed him seat if he'd had an R instead of a D after his name. I think he said it because he knows he aint a comin back next year so he figured he might as well go out with a bang. i hope this means we have more fireworks to look forward to from him between now and November.
64 - pablo
Obnoxius 66
"Have you read the constitution? What part of "All men are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights" don't apply to the 21st century?"
Uhhh thats from the Declaration of Independence pal, are you sure your an american?
65 - roger nowosielski
I don't know how plainer can I be, OA. America has created great masses of dysfunctional people. Your very complain about all those who are lazy and on the dole is an indictment to that very same effect, although you choose to place the blame on the people rather than the system. Yes, we built up people's expectations as to the greatest society on the face of the world and then we failed to deliver.
I don't see anything cerebral about what I just said. It's only your unwillingness to try to look at the state of the nation objectively - because it's so much easier to affix the blame on others - that you think 'tis so.
66 - roger nowosielski
And no, I have never said that government is any kind of solution. One way or another, this miserable state will continue regardless who is in the Oval office.
These are but the wages of the capitalist system which has made us into mindless consumers rather than good and informed citizens, by elevating material values and the material basis of success above all other values.
And the dumb public had bought it lock stock and barrel.
67 - Jeannie Danna
Bing, #63,
I bet if you or your family were buried alive in rubble you would want your government to save you!
68 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, #66,
Not Everyone!
69 - The Obnoxious American
Pablo,
You got me buddy, I always mix them up.
Arch,
100% totally agree, couldn't have said it better.
Roger,
A wise man once said that Capitalism is the worst system, aside from all of the others. You can hate capitalism all you like, but the alternatives your suggestions lead to would make capitalism look like a cheery day in the park. And the last 150 years has been a testament to just how productive man can be when he is allowed to earn his own way, set his own direction, in a free, capitalist society (women too). God bless America!
70 - Dr Dreadful
A wise man once said that Capitalism is the worst system, aside from all of the others.
Um, Obnox, that was Churchill and he was talking about democracy, not capitalism. Although he'd probably agree with you. :-)
71 - roger nowosielski
If you're correct, OA, then it definitely needs some fixing.
72 - Jeannie Danna
I find the content in many of these comments to be truly incredulous...
No Government! Don't make us a nanny state! Don't tax us! We don't want Health Care Reform!
Meanwhile, people are trying to dig their screaming loved ones out from underneath the rubble in Haiti with their bare hands..they don't even have a national guard.
?
Don't many of you see this?
73 - Dr Dreadful
And the last 150 years has been a testament to just how productive man can be when he is allowed to earn his own way, set his own direction, in a free, capitalist society
Exactly, Obnox. How productive man can be. Thing is, not everybody can.
Just as not everybody can thrive in a hot climate, so not every human is equipped to capitalize (so to speak) on capitalism.
Thing is, in modern, large-scale political/economic systems whether it be communism, democratic capitalism or social democracy, it always seems to be the same people who manage to thrive (well, provided they don't get shot!).
We may be created equal but we do not all possess the same abilities - and under these modern systems, a lack of abilities can absolutely handicap someone. I think we probably agree as to how this is best to be addressed; we just don't agree on the method.
All you can really say about democracy and capitalism, for the sake of your argument, is that they are the best systems we have invented for large societies - so far. I say we should keep working to evolve them into something better.
74 - Jeannie Danna
A chain is as strong as the weakest link...
I know, many slogans and pithy comments from Jeannie..balances
The clearest thought sometimes requires the fewest words.
75 - roger nowosielski
Perhaps we do possess more or less the same abilities - the highest percentile of the Bell curve excluded.
Consequently, I'd rather argue that as a society, we haven't done our best for a great many people to develop those abilities.
And I'm far from delimiting the notion of success here to mere material well-being, but to a kind of excellence in any area of endeavor.