U.S. Politics: There's Identity Politics, On Many Sides

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Seriously, my head is going to explode if I hear another Republican complain in one breath about Democrats trafficking in identity politics and in another say America is a Christian nation and we need to protect statues that lionize white supremacists.

[James Arryn]

In that case I greatly fear for your head. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rippounet,

That's an interesting question, The fact is, the democratic political process, by itself, has little to no value. For it to function, an educated and well-informed citizenry is necessary. In other words, democracy is not just about voting or taking decisions ; it's also about the conditions that allow the people to gain power through such actions. Democracy is precious because the implementation of conditions that make it possible also brings great progress to society as a whole.
But conversely, take away the pre-conditions that allow the democratic political process to function properly and it completely loses its value. This is, in fact, what is happening in many Western countries today, as many people feel that the entire political process is a sham. So my answer is that the case for genuine democracy is very strong ; "democracy" as it exists today on the other hand is getting increasingly hard to defend.

I agree that Democracy and Representative Democracy are a long way from perfect.  So I want to be very guarded when I ask this... are you suggesting that if those pre-conditions do not exist that Democracy or Representative Democracy should be set aside?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Seriously, my head is going to explode if I hear another Republican complain in one breath about Democrats trafficking in identity politics and in another say America is a Christian nation and we need to protect statues that lionize white supremacists.

The United States is not and has never been a "Christian Nation".  Being a Nation made up largely of Christians is not the same thing as being a "Christian Nation" and those spouting the "Christian Nation" crap seem to miss this point.

[Mexal]

Giving the direction we're going and the total lack of effort to fix it (or even investigate it), I doubt we'll be able to trust our elections in 2020. New article from NYT about voting system "glitches".

Quote

The calls started flooding in from hundreds of irate North Carolina voters just after 7 a.m. on Election Day last November.

Dozens were told they were ineligible to vote and were turned away at the polls, even when they displayed current registration cards. Others were sent from one polling place to another, only to be rejected. Scores of voters were incorrectly told they had cast ballots days earlier. In one precinct, voting halted for two hours.

Susan Greenhalgh, a troubleshooter at a nonpartisan election monitoring group, was alarmed. Most of the complaints came from Durham, a blue-leaning county in a swing state. The problems involved electronic poll books — tablets and laptops, loaded with check-in software, that have increasingly replaced the thick binders of paper used to verify voters’ identities and registration status. She knew that the company that provided Durham’s software, VR Systems, had been penetrated by Russian hackers months before.

“It felt like tampering, or some kind of cyberattack,” Ms. Greenhalgh said about the voting troubles in Durham.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

In that case I greatly fear for your head. 

As I fear for your saliva laced fingers.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As I fear for your saliva laced fingers.

...? 

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I agree that Democracy and Representative Democracy are a long way from perfect.  So I want to be very guarded when I ask this... are you suggesting that if those pre-conditions do not exist that Democracy or Representative Democracy should be set aside?

No. I personally think representative democracy is still better than nothing. OGE was asking me what the case for democracy was if we could no longer believe that the truth would eventually dominate the public debate ; I truthfully answered that the less faith you have in the truth prevailing and the more difficult the case to make becomes. This doesn't mean I, myself, wouldn't try. In fact, as a young scholar and teacher, I believe this to be my duty. But I'm worried that my job is going to be increasingly difficult because words are twisted on a daily basis and some meaning and subtelty is easily lost (in translation, ha ha). My first lesson of American history 101 will be teaching about the meaning of "republic" and "democracy," so as to explain how some American organizations and intellectuals were later able to weaken democracy in the name of economic freedom while quoting Madison -though they weren't doing it quite openly, of course. My point is, I guess, that talking about history requires developing critical thinking more than ever. Perhaps I'm wrong on this last assertion ; a postmodernist would probably think that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

No. I personally think representative democracy is still better than nothing. OGE was asking me what the case for democracy was if we could no longer believe that the truth would eventually dominate the public debate ; I truthfully answered that the less faith you have in the truth prevailing and the more difficult the case to make becomes. This doesn't mean I, myself, wouldn't try. In fact, as a young scholar and teacher, I believe this to be my duty. But I'm worried that my job is going to be increasingly difficult because words are twisted on a daily basis and some meaning and subtelty is easily lost (in translation, ha ha). My first lesson of American history 101 will be teaching about the meaning of "republic" and "democracy," so as to explain how some American organizations and intellectuals were later able to weaken democracy in the name of economic freedom while quoting Madison -though they weren't doing it quite openly, of course. My point is, I guess, that talking about history requires developing critical thinking more than ever. Perhaps I'm wrong on this last assertion ; a postmodernist would probably think that.

Okay.  I just wanted to make sure.   

Democracy sucks... but its better than anything else we've ever tried over the long term.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

...? 

Quote

Only an idiot washes golden liquid mana from heaven off their fingers. Lick, you bloody Visigoth, you.

 

[OldGimletEye]

On comparing “the market of ideas” with government interference into markets.

I’m not really aware of any fairly precise models of how to best “optimally” regulate truth. Nor am I really aware of how one would go about testing things empirically.

When you’re talking about regulating markets, however, or government interference into markets at least we have all sorts of theory that suggest departure from your basic Econ 101 textbook. And we have some pretty strong empirical observations that overturn or question the "free market" fundamentalist story.

I'm not really sure if we have a model of optimal model of truth regulation, nor how we would go about testing that empirically.

[Jo498]

One model for "truth regulation" would be peer reviewed science. This is very probably too restrictive and narrow but it would be one option that is in place and could be studied. On the basis of such a study one could come up with broader options that would be applicable to a press that needs to publish news fairly quickly and not after months of peer review. I still feel squeamish about this because I think free speech should include the right to be stupid, wrong and offensive (within some restrictions concerning personal defamation).

As for the rise of rightish parties in Europe, I do no think that this has anything to do with e.g. laws forbidding certain opinions being uttered publicly (like holocaust denial in Germany). The main reason for this is that a certain percentage is royally pissed of with the last decades of dominant policies and by some of them that mainstream is perceived as center-leftish (which is mostly nonsense because those policies are usually more center-rightish) and there seem more parties on the right rising to the occasion than on the left. (One reason probably being that the more leftist left mostly vanished in the 1990s and the center left degenerated to centrists who don't give a shit about the bottom third of society.)

[James Arryn]

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Lol, you actually expect me to remember things I've said? Have you seen me post? I'm basically an idiot. Anyways, nicely done. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Lol, you actually expect me to remember things I've said? Have you seen me post? I'm basically an idiot. Anyways, nicely done. 

I think anyone who has read your history and/or foreign policy posts would say otherwise.

As for me, I remember EVERYTHING, including, for example, conversations I had with childhood friends and when I cite them to them it freaks them out. It’s a blessing and a curse.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The United States is not and has never been a "Christian Nation".  Being a Nation made up largely of Christians is not the same thing as being a "Christian Nation" and those spouting the "Christian Nation" crap seem to miss this point.

Correct, but the point stands that those spouting it are absolutely engaging in identity politics and they are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans. I just wish people would throw it back in their faces when they try to attack Democrats and liberals for trafficking in identity politics. Hell, almost anything could be construed as identity politics at this point.

[OldGimletEye]

Quote

Well for starters, I would expect experts to make fewer mistakes. Then, if Cochrane was from the Chicago school, I would be interested to know if corporate funding was involved in his career. And finally, you are already pointing out a pretty good solution here. Experts are held to higher standards than most and are called on the mistakes they make ; assuming the media does its job and makes sure everyone knows about it when a gaffe is made, it would prevent many falsehoods from being spread and believed.

I don’t think he is taking corporate money. He’s just a person with some right wing beliefs. So right wing in fact it leads him to making some basic errors. He might make fewer errors but his errors, if taken at face value, would have been extremely costly. And he might even get believed more because he was an "expert".

And, yes, his mistake did get called out by Krugman and others. And yes pointing out other people’s intellectual gaffes and errors is extremely important.

The problem I have with just relying on "experts" is that ultimately it rest too much on arguments to authority. Ultimately the validity of a statement doesn't rest upon the speaker. It's possible a "non expert" might have something useful to say once an awhile.

Quote

The government doesn't, that's what universities are for. At most the government can judge which universities aren't actually upholding academic standards while academia isn't that bad at policing itself without outside interference as long as corporate funding is limited and/or controled.

By most people’s standards Harvard University is an excellent institution. But, is also the home of people like Robert Barro (Josh Barro’s dad) and Martin Feldstein.

And I believe that both Barro and Feldstein are wrong often. In their case, the wrongness isn't like the blatant gaffe that Cochrane made, but has more to do with the many of the assumptions of the models they like to work in ie walrasian market clearing, strong assumptions about Rational Expectations, etc.

Also George Borjas works at Harvard and has written a lot about how immigrants affect native wages. He finds a significant impact. But, most of the profession that has studied this issue disagrees with Borjas. They don't find much of an impact at all.

So a lot of not very left friendly opinion gets in. And you know what? Let these guys argue with their models. I think it's an important discussion to have.

Also, I'm more fine with regulating how much airtime one can buy to promote their "truth". It's when the government gets into the business of saying what is or what isn't the truth is where I have a bit more of a problem.

Quote

Sure, but that's not actually relevant here. Fact is, I could be arguing for regulation of the marketplace of ideas while being on the right. Some are.

Which it seems to me reinforces my basic point about left wing authoritarians and right wing authoritarians. Each present their own “reasons” for limiting speech and I think we, or at least us Civil Libertarian types, should have a healthy dose of skepticism about their “reasons”.

The fact is of course that a lot of people on the right, here in the US, are being pretty hypocritical about Free Speech or Civil Liberties, when many of them were all about supporting George W. Bush and his civil liberties over reaches, and are all about Trump violating people’s civil liberties, like with this Arpaio thing, and cheering when Trump wanted to torture people and so forth. And they rightly need to be called out on it and their bullshit exposed.

@Rippounet

[James Arryn]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think anyone who has read your history and/or foreign policy posts would say otherwise.

As for me, I remember EVERYTHING, including, for example, conversations I had with childhood friends and when I cite them to them it freaks them out. It’s a blessing and a curse.

Thanks for being gracious, but I'm afraid that like 85% of what I write is a drivel machine attached to a 'my view on everything must be heard' battery. 

Edit, your memory surplus put me in mind of this amazing passage from MacLean's A River Runs Through It:

“Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. 
I am haunted by waters.”

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Correct, but the point stands that those spouting it are absolutely engaging in identity politics and they are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans. I just wish people would throw it back in their faces when they try to attack Democrats and liberals for trafficking in identity politics. Hell, almost anything could be construed as identity politics at this point.

You are absolutely correct that the Republicans and the radical right are playing the identity politics card.  Sadly, it is working for them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Thanks for being gracious, but I'm afraid that like 85% of what I write is a drivel machine attached to a 'my view on everything must be heard' battery. 

Edit, your memory surplus put me in mind of this amazing passage from MacLean's A River Runs Through It:

“Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. 
I am haunted by waters.”

 

Eh, 99% of people do that. I wouldn’t be too down on yourself.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You are absolutely correct that the Republicans and the radical right are playing the identity politics card.  Sadly, it is working for them.

No more or less than it does for Dems. The only difference, as always, is that the Dems play defense and fight on the Repub’s ground. Fools they are for that.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 In an Effort to Relieve Tensions North Korea Challenges U.S. to a Dance Off

 http://gizmodo.com/north-korea-appears-to-challenge-the-us-to-a-dance-off-1798690750?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Gangam style