Comments on: Speculation: How exactly are identity politics dangerous? What can be done about it?

By: Drew

Drew — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:09:24 +0000

Identity has both an evil and a good side. It can be a reasonable response to domination but it can also become a runaway excuse mechanism for doing nothing.

By: thag

thag — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:34:40 +0000

It has always been my belief that self-determination made a cuckold of democracy because it merely allowed nations to pick a new master. If we go into places like Iraq and Afghanistan there damn well better be some Lockean concept thrown into that place or else the idea is done before it is started. I agree with AK that this needs to be fixed: we don’t need to supply these people with more tyrannical groups they can choose from like a dinner menu — they need power besides the vote in a national election to pick dubious factions.

By: bs

bs — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:50:02 +0000

interesting. identity politics can be a feature of our system if we collectively value the way others exercise their rights: a populace with diverse interests and beliefs is much more robust in the face of authoritarianism. this is touched on by madison in federalist 51.

“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority — that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.”

the problem i see is not with permissiveness but polarization. there are precious few places where two people with opposing views can really wrestle them down to their bones: instead we see two separate medias catering to each side and little cross pollination.

By: David Sullivan

David Sullivan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:02:47 +0000

I believe that The reason Iran Holds so much sway can be taken Back to Darius and The Persian Empire. Persia and Egypt were both in the Nation Building Stage. The Arabs and Persians Have never gotten along and Hamas is An Opportunist Terrorist Group.
They have no loyalties to anyone but themselves The “Race” Card is alive and well. As long as the press humors them by referring to them as “Palestinians” They are a forerunner to Al Queada and terrorists

By: Tamara

Tamara — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:28:56 +0000

There you go, that’s what I am talking about! Now were getting down to the bones (anatomy) of the matter.