From the AP / Breitbart:
Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and held in “unforgivable” conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida’s hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.
“The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake,” Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. “The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States.”
Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been “indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.”
“Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it’s wrong,” Gore said. “I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country.”
I shouldn’t have to say this, but just as we wingnuts are accused of being kneejerk apologists for Bushco, I have no doubt that progressives and liberal anti-war Dems will rush to Mr Gore’s defense¹—and in fact, as I was writing this, Newsday‘s Ellis Hennican responded to a question about Gore’s decision to disparage the US over its treatment of Muslims directly after 911, before an audience in the country that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers, with the quip: “At least he didn’t shoot anyone.”
Hennican went on to note that “we need Muslims if we are going to win the war on terror,
and so “treating them poorly is just stupid. And we shouldn’t do it”—which of course is nothing more than a transparent string of vague, pathetic bromides meant to cover for Gore’s inflammatory rhetoric that had the US “indiscriminately” rounding up Muslims and housing them in “unforgivable” conditions—a scenario that harkens back to Japanese internment after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and one that simply did not take place in this case.
In the wake of 911, the US collected visa violators; and we have since been more circumspect with the way we hand out VISAs to Saudis. This is a measure of self defense in a war—and one that Al Gore would have us surrender in a show of “friendship.” It is also one that Gore remarkably argues is “playing into al-Qaida’s hands”—the idea being that the Saudis, whose society allows no other religion, keeps women virtually enslaved, and tolerates no offense to Islam—are incapable of accepting that other countries might wish to guard their social prerogatives, particularly in light of an attack.
Gore delivered his speech from a conference that banned Denmark in the midst of an ongoing Islamist propaganda offensive against the west over issues of free speech, freedom of religion, and universal rights. That, in consideration of the political climate and of the venue, Gore decided to go for the applause of appeasement to the Muslims-as-victims crowd—a part of the westernized identity politics strategy I have gone to great lengths to point out is now being adopted by some Muslim leaders as a way to shut down debate—shows just how important is the structural debate within our own country between proponents of individual liberties and universal rights, and those of identity politics, the multicultural base for which, once it enters public policy, provides for a strong measure of self-policing within ethnic/religious communities—with separate rules established for separate groups based around an idea of cultural sensitivity and a respect for Otherness that, at base, fails at precisely the point that matters, but not before setting up the conditions for entitlement and structural relativism that almost force the hand of western concession.
Which is precisely, by the way, how you end up with some provinces in Canada defending a measure of Sharia law under a perversely Orwellian interpretation of “separation of church and state”—even though the principles of Sharia are often anathema to the fundamental principles of western liberalism.
The idea, of course, is the old saw of progressivism: who are we to judge?—a question that arises out of a distorted idea of equanimity that confuses tolerance with non-judgmentalism.
But tolerance as a concept has no force without the application of judgment in the first place; after all, if we didn’t judge, we wouldn’t be “tolerating” anything. Instead, we’d simply be permitting everything, and there could be not overarching rule of law that could coherently constrain any actions under a system in which actions are contextualized by a thousand individual codes.
In debasing himself and his country—dishonestly, repugnantly, and with the revolting cynicism of a politician looking to win over a particular identity group—Al Gore exhibited the dangerous and necessarily anti-liberal side of multiculturalist dogma. Without stating so explicitly, Gore in effect apologized for any “offense” our laws may have given Muslims in the wake of an attack on our country—a concession that the feelings of that “group” should have taken precedence over the concerns of a sovereign nation under attack. This is the transnational impulse on proud display—and at its most baldly problematic. There is no inherent right to overstay your visa, and in the wake of an attack by (mostly) Saudi al Qaeda members, there is certainly every reason to be more circumspect with the way visas are handled, and visa violators accounted for.
Gore finds such protection of his own country “thoughtless,” and the application of our own visa and immigration laws “abusive,” particularly against Muslims—the sentiment echoed by Ellis Hennican when he noted that “we need the help of Muslims” if we wish to win the war on terror. And from the liberal-Democrat perspective, in order to get the help of Muslims, you must not insult them in any way, real or imagined—be it with cartoons or by enforcing visa violations.
From there, it is not a long bound to avoiding “offense” by being more circumspect about how we treat homosexuals and women—or at least, how we allow these “diverse” communities who live within our great multiculturalist society to treat such matters themselves.
This will be the great triumph of progressivism: church and state separated—and multiculturalism as social policy encouraged and enforced—with the end point being a west so frightened of giving offense that it allows the “recontextualizing” of what constitutes a universal right (which will mark the effective end to individual liberty), and the rule of law being “expanded” to allow for such “culturally sensitive” issues as forced female circumcision and the stoning of homosexuals—all protected by the ACLU under an appeal to the constitutional mandate to keep church and state separate, and to protect invidual identity groups from being targeted by the government on the basis of their race, religion, or ethnicity.
****
More, from Tigerhawk, Michelle Malkin, and Powerline, Captain’s Quarters, Instapundit, LGF, Ace, Ankle Biting Pundits, and RCP.
See also, Terence Jeffrey from Human Events Online and the American Thinker. And Pajamas Media‘s Roger Simon, “The Weak Horse Returns”
****
update: Whats4lunch quotes this bit of my post:
Which is precisely, by the way, how you end up with some provinces in Canada defending a measure of Sharia law under a perversely Orwellian interpretation of “separation of church and stateâ€Ââ€â€even though the principles of Sharia are often anathema to the fundamental principles of western liberalism
…and writes:
Jeff, the story you reference is rather old and you should know that:
1. The Ontario government is currently taking steps to amend the law and ban all faith-based arbitration in the province.
2. The effort to ban faith-based arbitration was largely spearheaded by feminist and Muslim activists.
3. The most vocal critics of the ban are Jewish groups, who have been using faith-based arbitration in the province since the 19th century.
None of which seems to square with your arguments against identity politics.
But such an analysis misses the point entirely, and reinforces just how pernicious the effects of identity politics really are when their structural assertions are not given a full airing.
To wit: I am aware of the pushback against the move to allow a measure of sharia family law in Ontario. But that fact doesn’t change my point that the original justification comes from a particularly dangerous way of thinking about public policy that proceeds directly from the underlying philosophical problem animating multiculturalism as a social organizing principle.
Whats4Lunch is simply wrong to use a clash between identity politics groups over whose group interest is ascendent (what he describes is simply a second-level struggle over will to power between competing groups, which, in a “pluralist” society going down the collectivist road, follows naturally upon the first level struggle to define the official narrative of an individual identity group has been established)—or to point out that it was identity groups responsible for the pushback in the first place— to suggest that either of these dynamics militates against my arguments condemning identity politics.
Instead, what Whats4Lunch observes speaks more to the dynamic I discussed here with respect to Reza Aslan’s Slate piece.
The battle for control over particular issues between Canadian Muslims and Canadian Jews and Canadian feminists can all be solved by pointing out that these are each CANADIANS first, and that CANADIAN LAW, which is based on the universality of western liberalism, is the only IDENTITY GROUP (the joining together of disparate people by a common and legally enforced social contract) that matters.
****
¹Mahablog, for instance, notes that the Justice Department agrees with Mr Gore’s assessment and cites the release of an OIG report that proves such. From the DoJ summary, “‘While our review recognized the enormous challenges and difficult circumstances confronting the Department in responding to the terrorist attacks, we found significant problems in the way the detainees were handled,’ said Inspector General Fine.” Now perhaps this is just me nitpicking, but the very fact of an investigation and a publically released report shows that the US was concerned with treatment of detainees—and that any “abuse” were uncovered and corrected.
Compare this to Al Gore, 3-years later, standing in SAUDI ARABIA and cherrypicking instances of poor treatment of Muslims (which in the vast majority of cases were simply technical procedural mistreatments) for the rhetorical purpose of suggesting that such mistreatment was routine and a part of Bush administration policy as a means of Democratic party pandering to a key identity group whose support it wishes to have in advance of upcoming elections. Consider, too, that he offered this execrable pander in the context of ongoing rioting over Muslim protests over cartoon depictions of Mohammed which have been used to make the case for western insensitivity to Muslims, and as a tacit excuse for the violence of the uprising.
That Gore is a class act. It’s a real shame he didn’t win the election in 2000. A real shame.
That’s some scary shit.
Is Gore playing the ‘good cop’ or the ‘bad cop’?
Nate,
The nutty cop.
Its the guilt by association that gets you. He should have stuck to going there to sign oil contracts or something.
Whats interesting about this is they accepted it as consentual arbitration. If its in your software EULA, our courts here will impose on you a consumers rights Sharia. There is something classically liberal with sacrificing women and consumers on the altar of “consent.”
And if we are to say “you cannot consent to that?” Will we be accused of being (contemporary) liberal nanny staters or conservative upholders of traditional ideals?
The one thing I can say about your posts actus, is I am never surprised at how far you are willing to bend a concept to make it equivalent to something else. Let’s just hope that your girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/fist, doesn’t play as loose with concepts such as monogamy or honesty, as you seem willing to with regards to sharia.
I don’t know.
Given a choice between riding with Ted K and hunting with Dick, at least the person Dick shot survived unlike Mary Joe K.
turing word: big as in “Big Deal”
To suggest that “terrible abuses” were committed against Arabs in the U.S. in the wake of 9/11, when speaking to a gender segregated audience in a country that treats women as slaves, sets a new standard for the tone deaf and wilfully blind–but Al Gore is just the man for the task.
And actus, right on cue, is ready to defend Al Gore’s right to say the indefensible.
Pavlov’s dog is drooling!
I’m obviously making an analogy.
I’d rather he publish mohammed cartoons.
Actus, inquiring minds want to know.
And then wanted to extend it to cases involving family disputes, AFAICR.
And, really, comparing sharia and EULAs? I hope you’re a better lawyer than you are a person, because if you’re not, your clients are being denied competent council.
Yes, actus, well done. And when you watched ‘one of these things is not like the other’ on sesame street as a child, did you get the feeling those puppets were lying to you?
I guess I’d better get rid of all my, <ahem> questionable software. Don’t want Adobe or Microsoft cutting off one of my hands.
I wasn’t aware that any Japanese had been interred … except perhaps those who died while confined.
The funny thing is, even the wahabi-ists don’t roll with Gore. He takes the air right out of any room he is in. Truly a buzz-kill.
Right. Taking the classical liberal line where we allow women to give up their rights on the altar of “consent.” Though not so much because they could appeal them. Which to me sounds the same is if the government was never involved—so long as the appeals were de novo and reverted to family law rather than sharia law.
They’re both ways that we consent away our rights. The Sharia one at least preserves your right to challenge in a court, the EULA? Often you lose your right to sue. They differ in how much we give away. But in the end are the same radical expression of the classical liberal ‘consent.’
Does anybody but me ever get the idea that actus is actually Jeff, having us on? Because, wow. Oooh, shh, shh, here he comes!</prison whisper>
Is this identity politics thing some demon child of corporate law? Saying that a “people” enjoys a right rather than a “person” enjoying a right, when the “person” within the “people” is demonstrably not enjoying the right – it’s hard to fathom.
I suppose it is only fair to you actus, that I point out that the opt out clause, which in EULA terms would be not to buy the product, or not to install it, carries with it a death sentance under sharia.
Not that this thought doesn’t give Bill Gates a woody. If he could, if he only could….
Jeff, the story you reference is rather old and you should know that:
1. The Ontario government is currently taking steps to amend the law and ban all faith-based arbitration in the province.
2. The effort to ban faith-based arbitration was largely spearheaded by feminist and Muslim activists.
3. The most vocal critics of the ban are Jewish groups, who have been using faith-based arbitration in the province since the 19th century.
None of which seems to square with your arguments against identity politics.
Diffus —
I am writing these things in the composition field while trying to tend to a two year old. I am going to make typos and confuse buckshot with birdshot in my aim to get these posts up in a timely fashion.
If you note errors, I’d appreciate you email me with them and I will make the corrections. But your commenting solely to suggest a brand of proofreading superiority (I don’t even proofread, generally, until well after I’ve posted, and have some free time) is very very very tiresome—not to mention rude and presumptuous in its very public presentation.
If I didn’t know better, I’d even suspect you of trying to turn long and detailed posts into YOUR ability to correct them for their minor, first-draft deficiencies.
Whereas, personally, I’m trying to provoke conversation on the ideas involved.
I hope I articulated that clearly enough for you. Because again, I have no time to proof this comment at present. Not when my son is pulling DVDs off the shelf and painting them with the nipple from his milk bottle.
You know, if I had known a bit more about this consent agreement and the multiculti gyrations associated with it, I would have made bombing foreign people a religious mandate, so we could have gotten a pass on military strikes in all sorts of places.
Or something about co-dependency and abusive relationships.
I forget.
The whole issue surrounding the charge of “indiscriminately” rounding people up is not only a canard, but inherently false, as there was nothing random about it. Aliens were targeted for immigration violations and connections to suspected terrorists.
This was not Captain Renault rounding up “the usual suspects.” Aliens were detained/arrested on immigration violations–these are folks that have broken the laws of our country. They were held in detention facilities used DOJ and INS.
Are there legitimate criticisms in the IG’s report? Of course there are. But they mainly relect upon middle managers supervising the processing and flow of a surge of detainees through the justice system. It’s the problem of bureaucracy and not policy.
And of course, I’m having trouble locating the phrases “terrible abuses” and “unforgivable conditions” in the IG’s report.
Yet Gore is making a policy issue out of a bureaucratic problem–and his implicit suggestion is to NOT investigate 9/11 so as not to inconvenience any Arabs.
A failure to investigate, interrogate, detain, and arrest those parties most closely associated with Al Qaeda, and the 19 hijackers, would’ve been a dereliction of the duties a President is Constitutionally sworn to uphold.
We are indeed better off not having elected someone whose instincts are so out of touch with the threat of, but also the response to, terrorism.
And finally, noting for the record, this report from the IG was released in April 2003–nearly three years ago!
Can we talk about something a little more relevent to 2006?
Actus, I’ve never heard anyone else make this argument, classical liberal or not, for women alone or for all people. On the contrary, the way I understand it, you simply cannot give your rights up, regardless of what you sign.
Although, your focus on women and consent makes me think you’re preaching from some gender-feminist, “all sex is rape” screed.
Honestly, I think you’re making this “classical liberal line” up, fashioning a strawman out of the need to deny that classical liberalism does a better job defending rights than leftist “liberalism”.
TW: Of course, I’m open to evidence to the contrary.
Whats4lunch —
I am aware of the pushback in Ontario. But that doesn’t affect my point that the original justification comes from a particularly dangerous way of thinking.
And you are wrong about how the clash of identity politics groups responsible for the pushback militates against my arguments condemning identity politics. Instead, it speaks more to the dynamic I discussed here with respect to Reza Aslan’s Slate piece.
The battle for control over particular issues between Canadian Muslims and Canadian Jews and Canadian feminists can all be solved by pointing out that these are each CANADIANS first, and that CANADIAN LAW, which is based on the universality of western liberalism, is the only IDENTITY GROUP that matters.
Al Gore ventures into the heart of a shame-based culture and delivers—an apology.
Algore(TM)—delivering poorly timed and tone-deaf screeds to gails of laughter and dropped jaws since the turn of the century.
Sure you can. You can agree to settle a case where the terms are secret. There goes your 1st amendment rights to talk about the settlement.
Bargained for rights. Please. Modern liberalism is all about stepping into the bargain and preventing some bargains from being made.
Actus —
Again, you try to confuse the issues. If women want to wear burkas, by all means, let ‘em have at it. But the fact that they are disenfranchised and isolated makes it difficult to discern, with any degree of accuracy, what exactly they want.
And in a classically liberal society run by the rule of law, if we as an ENTIRE CULTURE make it illegal to stone homosexuals, the “consent” of a minority group forming withing the sovereign nation is irrelevant.
Which is why it is important to make these folks Americans or Canadians or what have you first and foremost, and not to allow for any kind of social justification that celebrates balkanization.
Diversity of culture is fine—provided those diverse practices fit within prevailing national law. On other points, either assimilate to the host country’s laws or find a country more suitable and amenable to your culture’s practices.
“Modern liberalism is all about stepping into the bargain and preventing some bargains from being made.”
actus, that’s the most spot on comment I’ve seen you make in some time.
And IMO, why the term Modern Liberalism is an oxymoron.
Jeff:
Victor Hansen makes the argument that multi-ethnic is fine, but not multicultural. The American culture is a result of the long assimilation of many immigrants–all ethnics–into one culture.
IANAL, but I think the key word there is settle. It’s not a case of giving up your rights, its a case of agreeing to not exercise your right to speech in exchange for a wad of cash without the risk of a trial. I suppose you can break the contract and talk about it afterwards, but then they’re not obligated to give you the money. Besides, I would suspect that much of that legal boilerplate in many EULA contracts wouldn’t pass muster if challenged in court. I’m a computer guy, so I hate EULA’s as much as the next geek, but to compare commercial legalese to religious dictates is apples to oranges.
VDH’s formulation makes sense, though I think his terminology sounds strange to me. I would express a similiar sentiment as “multi-cultural is fine for the superficial aspects of culture, but not for the root values of culture.” It doesn’t really matter if my neighbors speak a foreign language at home or celebrate wierd religious holidays, so long as they adopt the general values of American society around them, especially a tolerance for other people using the freedom to choose differently.
It may be time that Gore pays an involuntary visit to Mildred Ratched.
That’s not giving up your rights. That’s agreeing to an action—not talking about those details. You still have the right to talk about other things.
I’ve signed non-disclosure agreements, but I don’t consider any of them to have involved giving up my 1st Amendment rights. I agreed to do X—keep my mouth shut—in exchange for employment. If I renege, my employer can fire me, my clients can sue me—but I’ve no more signed away my rights than if I pinky-swore with a childhood friend.
The particular example I’m thinking of is the right to sue. I recall a discussion—and this was a decade ago, so it’s possible things have changed—in which lawyers were quite adamant that no signed waiver will protect you from being sued. The context was an event that involved quite obvious physical danger, and the goal was to prevent the organizers of the event from being sued by participants who became injured.
The consensus—vocal consensus—of the lawyers involved in the debate was that a waiver was not enough to prevent a lawsuit—that no contract you sign could remove your right to sue.
What the hell are you talking about? What are “bargained for rights”?
Again, you’re fighting a strawman. The classical liberals are the ones who penned the phrase “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”.
Nothin’ there about bargaining for them.
Or maybe you’re one of those freaks who thinks it’s not a right if excercising it could result in any negative consequences… OK, I can see if you start with that (false) premise, you’d think that a non-disclosure agreement is surrendering your free speech.
But that’s just crazy talk, the blatherings of an emotional and moral child.
But Jeff, isn’t that exactly what has happened in this case?
I’ll admit, it’s a brain-teaser: what to do when proponents of identity politics demand that they not get special treatment?
Sure. We let people get into BDSM, but we punish wife beaters. No great problem for our culture. No great balkanization.
You’d be surprised.
Here’s an example. My right to free speech once I show up at work (or even out of it). I can bargain for the fact that I not get fired for my political speech, for example.
RobertC:
He said “Modern Liberalism” not “Classical Liberalism.”
Sorry if I’m jumping into the middle where I don’t belong. These definitions are fraught with disagreement.
I don’t know why you keep pressing this case. I mentioned it only to raise the point that the very consideration of sharia law within a western liberal society shows the power of the underlying forces of multiculturalism.
That certain folks involved with identity politics decided it would do more harm than good shows either good sense or political calculation. That a liberal politician stood against it shows likewise.
And when proponents of identity politics demand they don’t get special treatment in one VERY UNPOPULAR society-wide instance, is it your conclusion that this is proof that proponents of identity politics won’t look for special treatment in other instances where the profile (or stakes) aren’t so high?
Anyway, I’m off. Dinner calls.
Maybe Al could pose for some cheescake pics on an antiaircraft gun in Tehran while he’s in the neighborhood…
I don’t understand how the victim side of the left can square all of this. How can the gay lobby and the feminists stand as one with politicos who kowtow to Islamists; the very people that would stone either group without a thought.
The dissonance is so striking as to make a thoughtful person wince.
Being asked to act like a responsible adult doesn’t mean you’ve lost your freedoms. Every freedom includes the liberty to screw up; if it didn’t, it would be meaningless—as meaningless as “freedom of speech so long as no one is offended”.
I worked in an advertising agency for four years. Odds are a few of my co-workers would have found my politics offensive—offensive enough to bitch about it—and since most of those fitting that description had more seniority, they probably could have gotten me fired (they got people fired for equally petty reasons). So I didn’t bring politics to work—besides, it doesn’t belong there. You’re at work to get the job done.
If you get fired for politics you’ve been involved with outside of work, well, guess what—you’re better off without that job. Buck up and find a better employer.
I’ve got a brother who’s got a bad case of BDS. I ignore his rants in the interest of family peace. That’s not bargaining away my 1st Amendment rights—it’s maturity.
Are you against “hostile workplace” regulations?
What I understood his position to be is that classical liberalism has “bargained for rights” because you’re exposed to the negative consequences of your actions.
Because the Islamists have decided to take on the Great Satan—western culture—“the enemy of my enemy” and all that. We’re talking about people for whom history began in the late ‘60s at best. Even if they’re awareness extends back to the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact (to name an example of this kind of alliance), that fact has been written out of all histories of the left.
The shorter version of your angry anti-arbitration rant: people aren’t smart enough to sign contracts. They need the nanny state to protect them from themselves.
Hey, you might have a shot at the Dem nomination yet.
A lot like marriage.
No Jeff, of course not. As I pointed out in my original post, Jewish proponents of identity politics are continuing to press for special treatment in this instance.
I “keep pressing this case” because you have repeatedly argued that multiculturalism is a “movement that grants autonomy of self-definition (free from the legitimate checks of “external†criticism) to individual groups” and, in so doing, identity politics “set the stage for a global social relativism that will then be fought solely based on power and rhetoric (while stripping from “rhetoric†the appeal to universal norms that should be closely held by all free men and women).”
But, in this case, neither of those things came to pass. Women’s groups criticized Muslims who, in turn, criticized members of their own community and the end result was not a slide into relativism, but a reaffirmation of individual rights and universal norms, as articulated in the Premier’s statement: “There will be one law for all Ontarians.”
So, again, how does this square with your arguments? Do identity politics necessarily lead to relativism? Might there be exceptions resulting from “good sense or political calculation?” Etc.
Scene from the new hit summer comedy “Imam Academy”:
*THUMP*THUMP*THUMP*
“What’s the matter with him?”
“There were abuses against Arabs, sir, and he missed it…”
The reaffirmation of individual rights was incidental. The fact that these identity groups even had a say in deciding the eventual fate supports my argument. There is nothing in any of my arguments on the subject that said identity groups couldn’t come to correct social decisions. My fight is with the underlying philosophy.
Listen: I’ve walked through the mechanism of identity politics as a political tool and explained how it works philosophically right down to its necessary kernel assumptions and the (faulty) linguistic beliefs that justify those kernel assumptions. If you care to take issue with that critique, fine. If you care to show how I’m wrong about identity politics being anathema to individual liberty insofar as the philosophy that underpins it leads necessarily to relativism (in the sense that the identity narrative is ground simply in the power of the group’s prevailing majority, and is animated by the belief that it only valid critique comes from with), go for it.
But I’m not going to dance for you each time you find an outcome that appears to support individual rights and the rule of law. You don’t get to stand back and play Socrates while I’m busy churning out content. Have an argument? Make it.
Should they just shut up? I mean, people are going to speak out on their interests. And this is one where their interests align with an identity group. Its a common feature shared by the group and thus they speak out for it. Its unclear what the problem you see is, or how you see stopping it.
It’s unclear? Well, I’ve explained it enough that if it ain’t clear by now, I don’t think you’re ever going to get it.
So we can end this with two statements: “Actus thinks Jeff is wrong about how identity politics works”; and “Jeff is tired of arguing with people who feign ignorance of his arguments.”
You are of course welcome to go back and read the thousands of words I’ve written building the argument and critique it. Otherwise, we’re through.
I’m having a hard time distinguishing your idea of identity groups from general interest group politics. It does, in our world, take a womens group or activist making noise to get the interests of individual women cared for. But that’s not just something that an identity group would feel. An equal thing can be said of, say, realtors or independent insurance agents. I don’t think those are identity groups, but they are expected and regular players in our interest group politics.
We don’t quite live in the nice civic republican model of policymaking that has our rulers contemplating the decision that most advances our core values. We have some of those features, and they are admirable. But if that’s what you want to reach, I’d say you want to go after interest groups in general—economic, moral, ethnic, social, etc…. rather than just ‘identity politics.’ Even once you decide to go after them, I don’t know what you’ll have except for derision of individuals acting rationally to maximize their power and interests.
Is
What? No response from actus?
What’s your opinion of “hostile workplace” regulation, actus?
I don’t know much about it. I don’t want to work somewhere hostile. I am, however, under no pretenses that I have much freedom to be hostile at work. Whether this is due to the government or some schlocky ‘you’re not a team player’ corporate lets get along pink-boy speak.
Al who?
Oh, him…
Yeah, well, what do you expect? He’s a moron.
He’d be well advised to steer clear of Tennessee for a while, though.
SB: early
Jubal