How Identity Politics Created Trump

[makattak]

That's really vague. How is that done?
Rejecting the premise of identity politics isn't pretending it doesn't exist, it's arguing that it shouldn't and demonstrating that it doesn't need to.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

I wish we could just convince people that identity politics is a sure loser*, but apparently that ship has sailed. What is likely going to be necessary is to play the game such that it starts costing the other side too.

Until those who have played identity politics for 50-60 years start losing, they aren't going to give up their weapons.

In the long-term, it would be nice if we could train our children up that they are part of one large American identity, so that they could more easily reject appeals based on their other traits.

Our education system has been doing the exact opposite of that, for about 30-40 years.

If you truly do want less identity politics, it would be wise to root out the leftist control of education that has been doing everything it can to promote it.





*It's a zero-sum game. In fact, it's probably a negative-sum game. However, the people that play it win, at the cost of the people that don't. So they'll keep playing it.

[MechAg94]

So what identity politics did Trump engage in?  Just curious to see how you define it.

I guess it can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't because your entire campaign.  I think politicians go to that so they don't have to talk about real issues or what they actually think (they know their voters won't like it).  And yes, unfortunately it does work with a lot of people.

[MechAg94]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo

Gil Fulbright for Senate

[Ron]

So what identity politics did Trump engage in?  Just curious to see how you define it.

I guess it can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't because your entire campaign.  I think politicians go to that so they don't have to talk about real issues or what they actually think (they know their voters won't like it).  And yes, unfortunately it does work with a lot of people.

“I’m a Nationalist”

He is going to reclame the word nationalist from the Orwellian leftists who’ve perverted it to mean white nationalist.

He is offering an umbrella identity that will supersede the continually fracturing identities the left offers. The left is melting down in their perpetual intersectional identity crises.

I was mostly comfortable with Trump because early on he seemed very paleo con to me. I like paleo cons, I think they got a bad rap due to their stating obvious realities. Like flooding the country with third worlders might not be good or hollowing out our industrial base is a bad idea.

[MechAg94]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rouDIzhgVcY
Generic Presidential Campaign Ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4u_FJHWkTo
A Campaign Ad for the Most Electable Candidate Ever


I thought these were pretty good.  Not quite the same identity politics, but pretty much the same thing when it comes to the way some voters seem to choose a candidate.  
A local radio show was playing a set of campaign commercials for candidates Whiteman and Blackman with each going back and forth with positive and negative ads.  It is pretty funny, but I can't find it.

[Ron]

People are tribal.

People are sheep.

People identify with people that are like them.

You can rail against it all you like but that’s the reality.

[MechAg94]

“I’m a Nationalist”

He is going to reclame the word nationalist from the Orwellian leftists who’ve perverted it to mean white nationalist.

He is offering an umbrella identity that will supersede the continually fracturing identities the left offers. The left is melting down in their perpetual intersectional identity crises.

I was mostly comfortable with Trump because early on he seemed very paleo con to me. I like paleo cons, I think they got a bad rap due to their stating obvious realities. Like flooding the country with third worlders might not be good or hollowing out our industrial base is a bad idea.

The analysis I saw a while back showed that Trump pretty much chose the top 3 issues polled of the Republican voter base.  Immigration was high up there if not #1.  Trump had the guts to take it on and face the resultant media criticism.  It really showed that guys like Jeb! Bush were just weak.  The way I saw it, he was just championing some basic conservative ideas without apologizing and refusing to backtrack when questioned.  It was refreshing.  I don't keep up with the neo-con/paleo-con labels.  

I almost think many of the Democrat candidates are trying to do the same thing to some extent by being more open and direct about their issues, but I think leftist issues aren't as popular as they would like.  We will see about that.

[MechAg94]

People are tribal.

People are sheep.

People identify with people that are like them.

You can rail against it all you like but that’s the reality.

So which breed of sheep are you? 

[Scout26]

Makes the mind hurt trying to rationalize and comprehend that. *expletive deleted*ck the party loyalty, we really need to take back the government for the citizens, vote every incumbent out of office.

So what you are saying is that I should vote out my current R representative, who has been fairly libertarian, and vote for the Democrat, who is promises to more federal giveaways and free *expletive deleted*it to "downtrodden" people.   He also advocates for ending ICE and opening the border to any and all comers (which helps keeps wages down).  

My 3 county board members are all R's, same with the chairman of the county board.   That have done a good job in holding down the budget, keeping property taxes low (compared to the increases in the rest of Illinois, specifically Cook County) and actually reducing the number of units of local government.  

The D's running all want to expand county "services" for the "downtrodden", increase the number of "refugees" we accept, and help provide for them.  Spend more "in the classrooms" (When we already have some of the highest paid teachers and administrators in the country), along with other proposals that will increase spending and thereby force and increase in taxes, as by the state constitution, the budgets have to be balanced.    


I'm not seeing how voting out my incumbent R's and putting in D's helps "take back the government".

[Ron]

So which breed of sheep are you?  

I try and view everything through some basic Christian principles and presuppositions. I’m one of Jesus sheep.

The problem is not getting tricked. We are very easy to trick, even by our own self rationalizations.

Hence the importance of the old ways, traditions and being “conservative”. Particularly regarding big changes where we don’t even know what we don’t know regarding unintended consequences.

The old ways, traditions etc have withstood the test of time for a reason. I’m not saying never change. I am saying don’t discount that which has endured millennia cavalierly under the pretence of “progress”.

[charby]

So what you are saying is that I should vote out my current R representative, who has been fairly libertarian, and vote for the Democrat, who is promises to more federal giveaways and free *expletive deleted*it to "downtrodden" people.   He also advocates for ending ICE and opening the border to any and all comers (which helps keeps wages down).  

My 3 county board members are all R's, same with the chairman of the county board.   That have done a good job in holding down the budget, keeping property taxes low (compared to the increases in the rest of Illinois, specifically Cook County) and actually reducing the number of units of local government.  

The D's running all want to expand county "services" for the "downtrodden", increase the number of "refugees" we accept, and help provide for them.  Spend more "in the classrooms" (When we already have some of the highest paid teachers and administrators in the country), along with other proposals that will increase spending and thereby force and increase in taxes, as by the state constitution, the budgets have to be balanced.    


I'm not seeing how voting out my incumbent R's and putting in D's helps "take back the government".

Do what you want, but I'd vote against them first in the primary.

[Ron]

Do what you want, but I'd vote against them first in the primary.

Let’s say everyone followed your strategy.

What makes you think all the new politicians swept into office wouldn’t be lined up at the same lobbyists trough where current politicians feed?

Who consolidates power under your strategy? The permanent unelected bureaucracy aka deep state, otherwise known as the swamp.

But I’m ok with term limits. I also think we need to look at government bureaucracies and figure out a way of limiting their “terms” also.

There seems to be some confusion in some quarters regarding who exists for whom. Many in government think that the USA is our government and our government is the USA.

Somehow the fact that the people are the nation has escaped them.

Term limits for elected officials and .gov employees would allow a transition period and wouldn’t throw the whole system into chaos or gridlock.

[makattak]

So what identity politics did Trump engage in?  Just curious to see how you define it.

I guess it can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't because your entire campaign.  I think politicians go to that so they don't have to talk about real issues or what they actually think (they know their voters won't like it).  And yes, unfortunately it does work with a lot of people.

You'll see in another post, I have indicated that it was a small foray into identity politics. Ryan was the one with the claim. (Others have phrased it as the Democrats shouting identity politics for 50 years and the right has finally responded with I... den... tity.... and the left went nuts.)

I would say that Trump's specific targeting of the concerns of the white working class were a type of identity politics. (Very light type, but a type.)

Trump is savvy enough that he realizes that the concerns of the white working class mostly coincide with the concerns of the black working class and is attempting to target them for peeling from the Democrat coalition of identities, so despite the claims of his opponents, I'd say it's not a racial identity that he is appealing to.

It's my greatest hope of his presidency that he is able to get the black vote to be maybe 70/30 for Dems instead of 90/10 or 95/5.

[Ben]

But I’m ok with term limits. I also think we need to look at government bureaucracies and figure out a way of limiting their “terms” also.

IMHO, this is a far more realistic near-term goal than voting incumbents out of office or getting third party candidates into the mainstream. It in itself forces incumbents out. I think "no one gets more than two terms" would be fair. It gives people you like some time to do good, and those you don't a limit on how much stuff they can do contrary to your principles.

[Scout26]

Do what you want, but I'd vote against them first in the primary.

Usually there are no challengers to incumbents.  As there weren't this time.

[charby]

Let’s say everyone followed your strategy. Term limits for elected officials and .gov employees would allow a transition period and wouldn’t throw the whole system into chaos or gridlock.

I'm tired of career politicians, especially those beholden to campaign donors/lobbyists (and party) and not their constituents of "territory" that they represent. Need to represent all their constituents, regardless of party.


Term limits, that would be better, at least for elected officials. I can see middle and senior leadership positions in .gov employees being set to term limits. Rank and file employees for most positions would be chaos since it can take several years to be effective in a position and the policies that affect the job.

[charby]

Usually there are no challengers to incumbents.  As there weren't this time.

That is a problem, all elected officials should be challenged at primary/caucus time.

[Scout26]

I'm tired of career politicians, especially those beholden to campaign donors/lobbyists (and party) and not their constituents of "territory" that they represent. Need to represent all their constituents, regardless of party.

IIRC, elected officials swear an oath to support the Constitution of the US and the State, and to faithfully discharge their duties of that office.

Doesn't say anything about doing what the constituents want.  Their duty is to the Constitution.

Term limits, that would be better, at least for elected officials. I can see middle and senior leadership positions in .gov employees being set to term limits. Rank and file employees for most positions would be chaos since it can take several years to be effective in a position and the policies that affect the job.

So as long as no one touches your riceball, everyone else should be fired periodically, regardless.   Perhaps we should fire ALL .gov employees every few years as your reasons for retaining the "rank and file" can also be used as a reason to retain the senior and middle managers, along with the elected officials.

[makattak]

So as long as no one touches your riceball, everyone else should be fired periodically, regardless.   Perhaps we should fire ALL .gov employees every few years as your reasons for retaining the "rank and file" can also be used as a reason to retain the senior and middle managers, along with the elected officials.

Given the results of a so-called "professional" federal workforce, I'm all for returning to the spoils system. They may be biased, but at least I've got a chance of them being biased my way under the spoils system, instead of 95% against.¹





1: I have documentation for that: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign

[DittoHead]

elected officials swear an oath to support the Constitution of the US and the State, and to faithfully discharge their duties of that office.

Doesn't say anything about doing what the constituents want.

For many positions, I would expect the duties to include representing their constituents. Especially if the title is something like representative. 

[charby]

IIRC, elected officials swear an oath to support the Constitution of the US and the State, and to faithfully discharge their duties of that office.

Doesn't say anything about doing what the constituents want.  Their duty is to the Constitution.


So as long as no one touches your riceball, everyone else should be fired periodically, regardless.   Perhaps we should fire ALL .gov employees every few years as your reasons for retaining the "rank and file" can also be used as a reason to retain the senior and middle managers, along with the elected officials.

Usually management was put in place by an administration.

So your saying shitt can all teachers, firemen, police, military, etc government employees after a certain period of time? Look at all the money that can be saved by not allowing any military members getting to retirement age, no pension, no VA hospitals, etc.

[charby]

So which breed of sheep are you? 

I'm the guy on the right.

[cordex]

So your saying shitt can all teachers, firemen, police, military, etc government employees after a certain period of time?

Well, maybe not important people, but pesticide investigators at a minimum.

If you're for term limits and always voting against incumbents because of possible corruption and rent seeking, why would you not have a similar view for non-elected, entrenched bureaucrats?

[De Selby]

A global economy of rootless corporations that continually seeks out and exploits the cheapest labor world wide will create a different job market than a nationalist economy that seeks to retain industries that are crucial to the nations security.

Is “the economy” for the people or are the people for “the economy”?

This

[Scout26]

Usually management was put in place by an administration.

So your saying shitt can all teachers, firemen, police, military, etc government employees after a certain period of time? Look at all the money that can be saved by not allowing any military members getting to retirement age, no pension, no VA hospitals, etc.

Teachers, yep.  Fire 'em after xx years.  Cops also.  That way you are always getting in new blood.  And no firemen past age 50. No unions either; not for teachers or firemen or police. Employment is at the pleasure of the locally elected officials.   Don't F-up and let the wrong house burn or shoot a innocent bystander that costs the city $$$$ to settle or defend.

Military is already age/years of service limited and has an "Up or Out" policy.  (usually takes an Act of Congress to serve more than 30 years.)