Ezra Klein finally said what everyone was thinking about Ben Shapiro and identity politics (interview, Palestinians)

[Drewjdeg]

This was a very interesting interview; somewhere around the halfway mark, Klein asks Shapiro why he thinks a politician cannot use their racial identity to inform their view on a particular issue, but a politician can use their religious identity. This is the correct question that everybody should this guy. Shapiro basically gives two explanations.

1. Race is an "immutable" characteristic, whereas region is not - implying race is less important because it cannot be changed.
2. White identity politics lead to Jim Crow and other bad policies, so we should exclude it entirely from politics.

Klein gives two good responses to the first point.

1. Social science research suggests that Americans identify with their religious group more than their racial group.
2. Race is not necessarily immutable. Italians, Jews, and the Irish were not considered "white" for a large part of American history. Nobody would argue that an Italian American is not white today.

Klein's response to the second point is less concise and is sort of lost in a lot of back and forth, but it basically boils down to the argument that race or religion are an indelible part of who someone is, and you can't deny someone the ability to use their identity to inform their politics. It can be good or harmful, but it always exists.

Shapiro's disagreement with Klein's second point reveals the fundamental hypocrisy within his political ideology. I don't think Shapiro would deny that Orthodox Judaism strongly influences his political ideology. His militant opposition to abortion and his strong pro-Isreal stance are clearly influenced by his religious identity. However, it makes zero sense that he can advocate for denial of sex or race as identities, while clearly identifying in all aspects of life and politics as an Orthodox Jew.

This is very much a case of "identity politics for me but not for thee" and a huge problem with "anti-SJW" types on the right. Religious conservatism has been one of the predominate identities in America for hundreds of years. Just because it is far more common in American culture for someone to identify as an evangelical Christian than as a trans person doesn't mean that religious conservatism is not an identity.

To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with Klein, but I definitely don't agree with Shapiro. I think his political ideology is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. This is also my thought on modern social conservatism more broadly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMOUiWCjkn4

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Klein thinks Sam Harris is a neo-Nazi sympathizer. That's how much of a whack job he is. Shapiro... less wrong overall but still pretty unpalatable. Why waste time on either of them?

[Aussiehoff]

What do you understand the term Identity Politics to mean?

That aside, why do you think Kleins responses to the first point are good? His first response proves the point of Shapiro, and the second is incorrect by definition.

Race and Religion are obviously hugely different. One is immutabe and the other a choice (for adults) based on personal values. Of course ones values guide their politics.

But again, what do you actually think Identity Politics is? Do you think it is good or bad or neither?

[Mr.Retired]

Like it or hate it the following is only my opinion:

Command of the English language is beautiful when folks know how to use it.
It becomes an overflowing bowl of alphabet soup when muddled by the nonsense of scrambled thoughts.
Makes for bad soup!

Mama always told me the difference between good and bad people is determined by the little they do not by the lot they say.

[AHenriques1147]

The problem with people on the left (the "progressives") is that they have assigned a series of beliefs and politics to immutable characteristics.

If you tell me you are an Orthodox Jew, I'm going to be able to make some educated guesses about your politics, your beliefs on certain social issues. Because religion is a set of beliefs one signs onto. Like a party platform for a political party... with a god complex.


If you tell me you are white.... then how does that help me inform your politics? Black? Gay?

But to the progressive, Identity IS politics.

You will note, for example, that when Peter Thiel - gay billionaire - came out in support of Donald Trump, the "gay press" lambasted him for "not being a real gay"... as if the immutable characteristic comes with politics and a checklist of beliefs you must subsequently have. Peter Thiel should be a role model and venerated figure for the gay community. But the gay leftists ex-communicated him. Has sex with men, but not "gay." Ok then.


Now, compare to religion. If you get up at a pro-choice rally and call yourself a Catholic, then the Catholics can VERY MUCH say you are "not a real Catholic!" You aren't following the Catholic beliefs. You may have SOME beliefs in common with Catholics, but you are not a CATHOLIC.


It is the progressive LEFT that has insidiously been weaponizing IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS to pit identity groups against one another. Boxes people can't move in and out of, like they can a religion. That's why it's even WORSE than the evangelicals. Because the evangelicals believe you can absolve sin by signing onto belief. For the "intersectional progressive," you are endowed with certain "original sin" (your privilege points vis a vis other groups)... and there's NOTHING you can do about it. You will spend your life doing pennance for your immutable characteristic, and there is no way to escape.

[Rachel976]

Originally Posted by AHenriques1147

The problem with people on the left (the "progressives") is that they have assigned a series of beliefs and politics to immutable characteristics.

If you tell me you are an Orthodox Jew, I'm going to be able to make some educated guesses about your politics, your beliefs on certain social issues. Because religion is a set of beliefs one signs onto. Like a party platform for a political party... with a god complex.


If you tell me you are white.... then how does that help me inform your politics? Black? Gay?

But to the progressive, Identity IS politics.

You will note, for example, that when Peter Thiel - gay billionaire - came out in support of Donald Trump, the "gay press" lambasted him for "not being a real gay"... as if the immutable characteristic comes with politics and a checklist of beliefs you must subsequently have. Peter Thiel should be a role model and venerated figure for the gay community. But the gay leftists ex-communicated him. Has sex with men, but not "gay." Ok then.


Now, compare to religion. If you get up at a pro-choice rally and call yourself a Catholic, then the Catholics can VERY MUCH say you are "not a real Catholic!" You aren't following the Catholic beliefs. You may have SOME beliefs in common with Catholics, but you are not a CATHOLIC.


It is the progressive LEFT that has insidiously been weaponizing IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS to pit identity groups against one another. Boxes people can't move in and out of, like they can a religion. That's why it's even WORSE than the evangelicals. Because the evangelicals believe you can absolve sin by signing onto belief. For the "intersectional progressive," you are endowed with certain "original sin" (your privilege points vis a vis other groups)... and there's NOTHING you can do about it. You will spend your life doing pennance for your immutable characteristic, and there is no way to escape.

I’ve experienced exactly what you’ve described. The most hostile people are the progressives, including Jewish ones, when I tell them that I am a Jew, moderately observant but far from Orthodox, and voted for Trump. The most hurtful - even more than being called a Nazi - is when they call me “a bad Jew” and come out in droves to insult me. From where I sit, there is nobody that progressives hold more contempt for than a Jew who won’t vote their way. (Of course, that’s from where I sit - I imagine that gays who voted for Trump, or blacks who voted for Trump, might feel they get the worst of it.)

[texan2yankee]

klein and shapiro, two men with very different basic beliefs, had a civil conversation. they both model how discussions of disagreement can done without screaming, hyperbole, insults or personal attacks.

whether we agree or disagree with the points each made, these types of exchanges allow us to understand or at least contemplate another's point of view. that is a good thing and should be encouraged in all discourse.

[Masterful_Man]

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

1. Race is an "immutable" characteristic, whereas region is not - implying race is less important because it cannot be changed.

Race/ethnicity can be changed over time through miscegenation.

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

2. White identity politics lead to Jim Crow and other bad policies, so we should exclude it entirely from politics.

I wonder how Ben Shapiro feels about Jewish identity politics in Israel and its effects on Palestinians?
(Btw, Ben Shapiro is a zionist, right?) I imagine his views are contradictory in this regard, e.g. White identity bad, Jewish identity good.

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

Klein gives two good responses to the first point.

1. Social science research suggests that Americans identify with their religious group more than their racial group.

Hmmm, I think I would disagree with that.
Considering much of America is still racially segregated, e.g. whites typically prefer to live in mostly white neighborhoods, hispanics & blacks have similar propensities. In Brazil, most of the white brazilians also live in a similar fashion, congregating in white enclaves. In South Africa, once again, it's a similar situation. Whites congregate with other whites, asians with asians, and various black ethnic groups congregate around their own ethnic groups.

This is the pattern you will typically find all over the world.

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

2. Race is not necessarily immutable. Italians, Jews, and the Irish were not considered "white" for a large part of American history. Nobody would argue that an Italian American is not white today.

Northern Italians are mostly white.
Southern Italians are more of a mediterranean mix, similar to Greeks.
Jews are not a single racial group, some are more eastern european or west asian in ancestry. Some have actual semitic ancestry related to the middle east, but some do not (ancestors were converts).

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

the argument that race or religion are an indelible part of who someone is, and you can't deny someone the ability to use their identity to inform their politics. It can be good or harmful, but it always exists.

This seems logical.

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

Shapiro's disagreement with Klein's second point reveals the fundamental hypocrisy within his political ideology. I don't think Shapiro would deny that Orthodox Judaism strongly influences his political ideology. His militant opposition to abortion and his strong pro-Isreal stance are clearly influenced by his religious identity. However, it makes zero sense that he can advocate for denial of sex or race as identities, while clearly identifying in all aspects of life and politics as an Orthodox Jew.

Shapiro's views definitely seem contradictory in this regard.

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

This is very much a case of "identity politics for me but not for thee" and a huge problem with "anti-SJW" types on the right.

I don't see anything wrong with identity politics, since it has always played a role in politics since the very beginning. With that said, I think the identity politics on the left tend to be based more on superfluous things, for instance you have the LGBTQP people and their identities which are based mostly on their sexual desires, which I find wholely absurd and I can't take any of them seriously because they're far too flesh obsessed and overly concerned with sex. I honestly find their entire movement to be laughable and ludicrous.

Religion, race, and nationality form far deeper identities in people that deserve more attention.

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

Religious conservatism has been one of the predominate identities in America for hundreds of years. Just because it is far more common in American culture for someone to identify as an evangelical Christian than as a trans person doesn't mean that religious conservatism is not an identity.

You're correct, religious conservatism is an identity, and one that is not only rooted in religion, but also has a major cultural impact that affects how people raise their families, work productivity, and other important facets. But I don't think all identities deserve equal attention.

I have nothing against trans people, it's a free country afterall, but their identities are often based on mental conditions, such as gender dysphoria and other psychological factors, and I find their attempts to garner attention from the media and society to be narcissistic in nature.