The American Spectator

Chris BD| 1.7.10 @ 10:20PM

Hmm. I don't know. I'm not convinced that "Conor Friedersdorf is immune to irony" was an appropriate response.

Wouldn't irony need to be one of the letter's themes -- or at least its discernible motivation -- to level such a charge at one of its readers? Reynolds was basically faulting Friedersdorf for not connecting a bunch of dots that weren't laid out by the letter itself (or by Reynolds' link to it).

Friedersdorf made a simple point that stands on its own: If identity politics is bad for thee, it's bad for me. Reynolds then stepped in and essentially said, no no, you shouldn't interpret the letter on its face like that, nor should you should interpret my unelaborated link on its face... rather, you should have read all this other stuff into it and conclude with this other interpretation.

That strikes me as a bit unfair. And it's *definitely* unfair to say, "Sorry, I didn't feel like explaining my derision of you because I didn't want to ruin my pithiness."

It's hard not to escape the feeling that Instapundit's original link, just like the letter itself, was actually quite earnest -- and that "irony" was merely a convenient way to rebuff embarrassing criticism after the fact.

pst314| 1.7.10 @ 10:43PM

Chris BD, are you actually Conor Friedersdorf? I only ask because it seems that light bends around you too.

DaveP.| 1.7.10 @ 10:46PM

Chris, I'll point out that there is no actual, codified need for anyone or anything to announce its irony content. You must be thinking of that other thing, the one that's in breakfast cereals.

Lazy Jack| 1.7.10 @ 11:01PM

I read that article and it did not resonate as identity politics. Here were my thoughts after reading it:

There is no argument that, considering the figures quoted here and mere observation that women are roughly half the population, that these policies will hit women hard. Woman entrepreneurs, for example will be victimized just the same as any other business owner. If they are the sole earner in a family, they will take the same garnishment of wages as male earners. If they are managers of households, they will have to deal with all the new red tape and figure out how to make ends meet as taxes and fines increase, or as their spouses lose jobs. If they are in two income households, they will face even greater stresses as they try to increase income to offset the very real coming tax burden. In other words, because of their integral role in our society, they will have an equal share in the pain. And, since the healthcare bill is of dubious constitutionality, they will lose some of our precious rights just a fast as men.

The powerful argument here is that Democrats and so-called progressives, who presume to own the woman’s rights movement, really just use it as window dressing. For years the drumbeat has been that Republicans are the barefoot and pregnant crowd and are therefore morally reprehensible (In addition to all the other things for which they are reprehensible). The myth that Democrats do more for women is exactly that, a myth. It is even more interesting that because of the Democrats’ treatment of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the last election cycle, the feminist movement appears to have fallen deeper in love with the party.

Rahm and David, Keith and Rachel helped create the new Little Rascals and the He-Man-Woman-Haters-Club. Yet Democrats still are viewed as the only place a woman can go to protect her civil rights, at least if you watch any of the big networks or read a majority of the editorial pages around the country. If you believe that the government will treat a sick woman or a child, or god forbid, a man, with the same compassion, conscience, competency, and efficiency as a private doctor or a family member, then this is the bill for you. For those of us that have read both the house and senate versions of the healthcare bill, we know that these policies will generally mean one thing: equality in the form of equal misery.

Best,

Lazy Jack

For more on the conscience of government, see:

http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....onscience/

Lazy Jack

Chris BD| 1.7.10 @ 11:09PM

"Chris BD, are you actually Conor Friedersdorf?"

Uh, no. Have you ever read an argument?

I'm a regular Instapundit reader; I don't even know anything about Conor Friedersdorf. Neither of those facts is relevant to my point.

Reynolds' "irony" post was confusing. And now that it's been explained, it strikes me as unfair (and a stretch).

Chris BD| 1.7.10 @ 11:21PM

"Chris, I'll point out that there is no actual, codified need for anyone or anything to announce its irony content."

That's right. There's not. That's not the point.

The point is that Friedersdorf made a self-sustaining point: "I don't like when the right plays identity politics too." Reynolds responded by saying that Friedersdorf was missing the "irony." Such a response necessarily requires this irony be discernible -- either because it is stated outright, because it is contextually implicit, or because there is a shared understanding among the relevant readers.

Clearly it was none of those, which means either Reynolds was clumsily covering his tracks, or was making an unfair demand of someone ("you must share my understanding of the broader context in which I choose to interpret this letter").

Again: I couldn't care less about Friedersdorf, and I'm an Instapundit fan. And I thought this was a weak effort on Reynolds' part.

Agreed.| 1.7.10 @ 11:23PM

Chris BD:

I agree with your assessment. It seems by "identity politics" they mean catering to a pre-existing set of interest groups that is already identified with your side

The response could be summed up in terms of: "Well, women aren't a group that we [the Right] pander to regularly, so this isn't identity politics."

It's still pandering, and it's still identity politics.

pst314| 1.7.10 @ 11:29PM

Uh, no. Have you ever read an argument?

Have you ever read a joke? It struck me that both of you are so dense that light bends around you, and it seemed unlikely that there was more than one neutron star with access to the internet....

Agreed x 2| 1.7.10 @ 11:43PM

To those of you who think this is not identity politics:

Let's say Barack Obama and the Dems explained that "Jesus would support healthcare reform" and "without this health overhaul, Christians will be hardest hit."

Would that be identity politics? Because if you don't see the commonality here, I think there's some very serious cognitive dissonance going on.

Identity politics encompasses a larger sphere than leftists manipulating their interest groups along the traditional rhetoric of "the oppressed" and their cadre of college-educated Oppression Studies majors.

When you use a certain defining characteristic of a person as a reason to be for/against something, you are undermining both traditional concepts of humanistic liberalism and conservative rule of law--that law should only be legislated on the basis that it is applied equally across the citizenry. That practice of argument by income/status/race/gender/reglion is the very definition of identity politics.

comatus| 1.8.10 @ 12:04AM

You kids, nowadays, with your highfalutin irony. Back in my day, a little satire, a little parody, and once in a while some outright mockery were all we needed! This confusing irony thing...you hipsters...no good can come of it.

My lawn? Get off it.

JorgXMcKie| 1.8.10 @ 12:31AM

comatus: threadwinner.

I don't know exactly where an overactive sense of earnestness comes on the "killing any possible interest in listening to your opinions" but it has to be up there pretty far.

Lighten up, you bozos.

Agreed x 3| 1.8.10 @ 12:57AM

The problem is Instapundit's "he has no sense of irony" isn't clearly a self-effacing joke, given that the criticism in the article is leveled directly at Reynolds. On the other hand, if it's a joke at the expense of Friedersdorf, it's embarrassing and way off the mark.

The thesis of Friedersdorf's article is "The Triumph of Identity Politics." So, if what Reynolds is doing is in fact identity politics, then there is nothing "ironic" about Friedersdorf's statement, merely Reynolds' inconsistent behavior, which makes Reynold's comment either obstinate face-saving or incredibly obtuse. Either way, it's bad form.

That is a totally different matter than the above-linked article trying to defend Reynolds on the basis that the "Why Women Will be Affected By This Worse" article is somehow not identity politics because it is fashioned by the Right by "using the language of the left", which is an entirely separate issue of idiocy.

Given that Reynolds actually linked this American Spectator article, thinking that somehow it "explained" something, makes me think he either doesn't know what irony is or he can't see that his incredibly hypocrisy....

Which, would be truly ironic.

Gene Fama| 1.8.10 @ 2:00AM

I agree with Conor on this one. Conservatives shouldn't yield ground on liberal myths. Mentioning "class," race, gender or any other Marxist claptrap in "irony" is a tempting way to make liberals eat their own garbage—but if it risks letting their terms define the debate, it does more harm than good. Before you know it you'll be where we are now, hearing Fox News routinely refer to ObamaCare as "healthcare reform."

Bob| 1.8.10 @ 7:05AM

Let's see... Republicans are disproportionately male, extremely white, and old... Perhaps they shouldn't even mention anything about identity politics.... You know, glass houses and such...

martin j smith| 1.8.10 @ 7:46AM

I think that since the Democrat Party uses identity politcis as the base of their criticism and demonizing of of the right, I feel it is appropropriate to throw it back in their faces.

Here is but one example ( but its a 2 fer. )
Obama and the Democrats are very willing to be tolerate the existence of the current Iran regime even in the face of large scale opposition. Yet, this regime and other in the regime make women second class citizens and as as Achmadinadjad says: the concept of a gay individual does not exist in Iran. How do major Women's groups and for that matter Gay civil rights groups respond to that ? I might also add, that within our nation there are "honor killings" when women or girls deviate from whatever the rules are socially. So I would say--use the very concept of identity politics politically against the Democrat Party.
Now as aside:
On Bob, a troll,Seminar poster etc.
He supports the lies of the left.
I know many of you poster feel thje need to"correct" or at least challenge Bob. I can understand that. But as for me I say this
: You aint nuttun but a troll dog,trollun all the time,
You aint nutton but a troll dog,
your no friend of mine.
You can post here all you want but I wont wont spend my time."

Thats all folks .

Bob| 1.8.10 @ 7:58AM

You just did spend your time... Too bad your lyrics don't match your actions.... But that's what I expect from right wing fanatics like you... It's appropriate that you used the Porky Pig ending... If the hoof fits, you know....

And by the way, I do not defend the Dems using identity politics. The difference is that Republicans are a perfect example of identity politics as much as the Dems. No one gets a get out of jail free card on this one.

ThomasD| 1.8.10 @ 7:59AM

"I don't even know anything about Conor Friedersdorf. "

"or because there is a shared understanding among the relevant readers."

Ironic or irrelevant? You decide.

serr8d| 1.8.10 @ 8:39AM

From the very first line of the Congresswomen's letter... "As we reflect on what the past year has meant for our families, it’s clear that President Obama’s policies are hitting women especially hard." and the clue given RE: the addressee "Dear Mr. President" ...it is clear (OK, well-nuanced, but still obvious, unless you think these ten women are blissfully unaware of The Joke) that most of us starboard-side need be alerted to the embedded irony overarching the rest of the letter. We should keep tongue in cheek and go along for the ride.

The left skated right over that first line. I'm surprised that many others, who should have known better, did too.

Delayna| 1.8.10 @ 9:10AM

Why is anyone objecting to this? The left has been using Alinsky tactics against us for decades. It's far past time to throw *their* rules in *their* faces, and see how well they live up to their stated ideals. In this case (as in all others I can think of), the answer is: poorly.

Next up: welfare vs. the Black family!
medicare vs. seniors!
public education vs. children!
There really are some people who think those programs have done more good than bad--and some of them will no doubt attempt to make that claim.

martin j smith| 1.8.10 @ 9:35AM

Let add additional conflicts within the Democrat Community- so to speak in identity politics issues.
Lets take Gay Marriage . In the New York State and New Jersey, Gary Marriage legislation was brought down. Why ? Because among others in Black and Hispanic religious Communities there is strong opposition to this. And, ironically--by supporting illgeal immigration the very people who support Gar Marriage will defeat it because the Hispanic population is large lyChristian,Catholic and care only about their interests --not Gay civil rights. They will vote down any Gay civil rights actions --I would bet on that.
Another example, an offshoot of one I mentioned above regarding Islamic Radicals and Women and Gays has to do with terrorism and political correctness.
While I was glad to hear that Obama uttered with words War on Terrorism, his policies and actions have to prove that he gets ... For example,closing Gitmo is a NO NO. Bringing Terrorists into Civilian Courts is a NO NO. Any further attempts to hide incidents such as that of Ft. Hood wilol be seen by most people( about � ) for what it is. Obama better pray hard that he does not have to face another incident for if he does, and fails to take the right steps, politicially he is dead meat.

delayna| 1.8.10 @ 9:55AM

Good point! Our side needs to put pressure on the natural fracture lines within the Democrat coalition.

serr8d| 1.8.10 @ 9:35AM

Heh. My comment above answers Confused Conor quite pithily. Unless you believe that the ten Congresswomen are as clueless as is Confuzzled Conor.

But CC posts from True Slant, the publication that's also called home by Barrett Brown, the twisted sister who is currently kept as a cute, cuddly Raaaaacist! attack-pug by Charles (Andrew Sullivan) Johnson. There's not much good bubbling up out of True Slant, so we'll have to give CC an attunement allowance.

Willy S| 1.8.10 @ 3:07PM

To mix a few metaphors, it appears that most of you on both sides of this issue are gazing at a tempest in a teapot embedded in your own navels. Plus, you sound like my kids. "It's ironic.". Is not. "Is too". Sheesh.

Clay Barham| 1.8.10 @ 6:18PM

Everyone has heard the term, “Don’t make waves,” and “Don’t rock the boat!” However, no one has ever seen a boat going anywhere that was not making waves and rocking from side to side, making the placid water choppy. This is the conflict we face today, in America, whether to continue welcoming the wave-making pebble-droppers or secure the peace of the pond. Governing elite tell us the interests of the pond, the community, are more important than are the interests of the individual, the pebble-dropping wave makers. However, pebble-droppers made America what it is today. They gave form and shape to our American Evolution. Pebble droppers made us prosperous and only they can keep us prosperous. Without pebble droppers, America will have no prosperity, no growth, no entrepreneurs, no small business and no new jobs. The problem is found in the difficulty government managers have in controlling the pebble droppers and the results of their disturbing behavior. See SAVE PEBBLE DROPPERS & PROSPERITY on claysamerica.com

pallet racking| 1.9.10 @ 10:30AM

http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com