US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6221

On November 14 2016 06:19 IgnE wrote:



I think that Whitedoge is right insofar as he identifies a lack of a universal system of shared cultural values as the major deficit of the American Democratic left. Some have identified this problem as "liberal smugness." Others have called it plain old condescension. But I think that it is actually just a transformation and remanifestation of that age-old social glue: taboo.

Taboo functions as an important in-group indicator, signalling acceptance of cultural norms and a desire to uphold those norms in return for inclusion. The identity politics (broken down into its various forms, anti-racist, feminist, queer, etc.) that dominates the American left these days all originally started as justifiable critiques of the patriarchal, white supremacist cultural norms and structures of the 20th century. Taboo functioned then, as always, as an in-group signal. For women or minorities to succeed within the terms of American culture they essentially had to abandon their identity as women or minorities and hope to be accepted under the prevailing white male norms of the time. These norms were more or less explicit as civil rights movements started to tear down the structures that functioned to oppress some to the benefit of others. Laws against women in the workplace, miscegenation, and gay marriage have mostly been expunged from the books. And the critiques of how power structures oppressed women and minorities have worked to undermine a lot of the extralegal habits, customs, and unwritten rules made up the cultural milieu of 20th century patriarchal white supremacist culture.

But in a lot of ways identity politics is just a negation of the negation. The justifiable critiques originated as a response to oppressive power structures that erased the experiences of those were not white men. But there was no synthesis. For as much comedic value as Colbert got out of the "I don't see color" joke, it has its basis in the critique of Martin Luther King Jr. who, it should not be forgotten, advanced it unironically as a serious expression of his goals. The joke's substance is bound up in the phrase's co-opting by those who are deaf to the critique that precedes the dream, not the content of the dream itself.

So what happens when an ideology of negation is on the cusp of cultural dominance but still faces opponents? It develops its own set of taboos. The self-policing of the American left, "political correctness" gone amok, operates as an in-group indicator to starkly divide "us" from "them". Rather than an attempt to draw everyone into a positive articulation of values, there is a reactionary pressure to erect and assert new taboos as a way of enhancing social cohesion. It is a transmogrification of patriarchal power structures. I would, however, argue that in many ways this new expression of cultural taboo is "freer" than the old one, even if it cannot escape its original negation.

The task for the left should be to build a "universalizing" culture that enlarges the scope of human freedom. Contemporary identity politics seems, in many ways, to be a dead end to me, in part because it focuses on the essentially "negative" freedoms of being an equal capitalist prosumer.

On November 14 2016 07:13 Dan HH wrote:

Mathematically there's still a chance for it to change, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Assuming (separate) uniform distribution with the votes already counted in Washington and Utah, we can roughly estimate Hillary to get another 350k and Trump 300k from these two. Excluding these two, it's overall over 99.9% counted so we're talking crumbs in places that kinda cancel each other out anyway. +-200k from the current difference is the biggest change we can expect imo.

On November 14 2016 07:22 Nyxisto wrote:


But accepting contradictions/oxymorons is kinda the point of it. A big problem in the current atmosphere is that all contradictions must immediately be resolved. The Left wants to solve social injustice, the right wants to throw all the criminals out, decades of institutional failure are supposed to be solved by America 'winning' again. Living with contradictions and taking time is important in a liberal democracy, they're slow by design. Tension can be productive. The movement back to a localism on the left and right seems to be a symptom of painfully avoiding responsibility and uncertainty. Most religious fundamentalism for individuals often is explained by reducing anxiety and contradictions which the religious extremism resolves through strict rules. This seems to happen in a lot of secular groups right now as well.

On November 14 2016 07:11 CosmicSpiral wrote:


The STEM bias (truthfully not a bias towards STEM, but towards upward economic mobility) extends far outside the confines of the university. Currently in America, the general consensus is that you go to college/university to earn a degree for something that is both more complex and promises significantly higher salary than not getting a degree. Naturally, this trends towards whatever professions are on the rise; some years ago, law was the hottest thing around. Other fields that don't imply both are deemed worthless or a bad investment, especially with the issue of student loan debt. The humanities are regarded as something between anachronistic dabbling and career suicide; interdisciplinary study is not very popular either.

I doubt the "weakness of trade schools" magically pushed universities towards advocating enrollment into STEM fields. That's where the money (and investment back into the college) is.