Conor Friedersdorf
responds to my
post from Thursday, about whether a
letter from a group of GOP congresswomen titled “Dear Mr.
President: Your Policies Are Damaging Women the Most” constituted
a distressing example of the right engaging in identity politics.
(He actually spends most of his post arguing, somewhat fairly,
that Glenn Reynolds lets his writing suffer in the service of
pithiness. Showing the courage of his anti-pithiness convictions,
he goes on about this for more than two thousand words.) He
quotes one of our commenters, “Agreed x 2,” who writes:
To those of you who think this is not identity politics: Let’s
say Barack Obama and the Dems explained that “Jesus would
support health care reform” and “without this health overhaul,
Christians will be hardest hit.” Would that be identity
politics?
That’s a great example, because it’s a type of rhetoric that
liberals do in fact engage in (remember “Jesus was a community
organizer?”), and because — setting aside the semantic argument
over what is and isn’t “identity politics” — it isn’t
problematic in the same way as traditional identity
politics. It may be wrong and it may be silly, but it is not
an attempt to enforce entrenched orthodoxy by elevating group
loyalty above individual freedom of conscience. Like the
Congresswomen’s Obama-hurts-women letter, it’s an attempt to
challenge orthodoxy. It’s a subtle distinction, but it matters.
Conor totally misses this distinction, and ends up conflating the
Congresswomen’s letter with race-baiting. Or at least alleged
race-baiting: He links to his own critique of Rush Limbaugh,
which groups some genuinely troubling quotes about race with
several quotes that aren’t terribly troubling (at least not in
the same way). This is why, while I’m broadly sympathetic to what
I take to be the Friedersdorf project — urging the right to
police itself and avoid turning inward and succumbing to
groupthink — I often find his commentary quite frustrating. He
diagnoses the pathologies of the right like a doctor who thinks
every little sniffle is pneumonia.
Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 1.9.10 @ 11:42PM
Mr Tabin,
For a lad who's mission is to prevent we rubes from succumbing to groupthink, Conor is oddly tolerant of statist policy whilst disdainful of independent libertarian-leaning conservatives such as Palin. It ain't pretty.
Reynolds succinctly notes that the rouge-boys of the GOP are being disintermediated by the internet. The same thing has happened to the squishies in the intelligentsia, who have totally misunderstood the nature of the electoral "middle" and badly over-estimated their own importance. The merciless "crucible of public discourse" has become their gapin' crater.
We're not looking for warmed-over excuses in defense of statist institutions and we're not looking for condescending, inexperience youth telling us how to tie our boots... We are looking for winnable candidates and deliverable policies that will reduce government at all levels and optimize individual liberty and responsibility. Our purpose is genuine roll-back. Conor and his ilk are not mission-ready, so they're being left behind, deep in their crater they can't get under-foot.
Too bad... the action in 2010 will be spectacular.
josemarie | 1.10.10 @ 12:21AM
Join the conversation about the Obama Health care plan at http://www.obamahealthcareplan.org
martin j smith| 1.10.10 @ 8:20AM
I think the issue here is this: Who sets the terms of the debate ? As long as Conservatives-Republican play defense, they are giving the Democrats full play to set the terms.
What should be done is something like this: Call Democrat leaders out on their hypocritic policy statements. Republicans and Conservatives believe in one people= All The American People, not Balkanization of America. And, we are the Party that listens to what the people are telling us.. The main thing in this vein is to make sure you live up those standards
pallet racking | 1.10.10 @ 9:40AM
http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
lain | 1.10.10 @ 9:25PM
nike outlet
adidas outlet