Reddit Reddit reviews The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics

We found 5 Reddit comments about The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
American History
United States History
The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics
Check price on Amazon

5 Reddit comments about The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics:

u/poundfoolishhh · 14 pointsr/changemyview

> I am more so in shock about the applause and near uniform support this idea got from the crowd. Maybe Seattle is the culprit here but it was a very disheartening case of mob leftism, where I felt marginalized by my own tribe. Not a good feeling.

What you're witnessing is leftism taking over liberalism. As you've noticed, liberalism was not always like this. It was about freedom, equal opportunity, free trade, social safety nets and policies that protect and encourage upward mobility for the working and middle classes.

Then the Marxist worldview started to creep in and change the narrative to one of class struggle, of the oppressed and the oppressors. Except, since class has never really been as big an issue in the US as it is in other cultures, it was modified a bit to what we're really obsessed with: race and identity.

Suddenly, blue collar white coal miners became oppressors even though they have no real institutional power. To see how far this has played out, check out Mark Lilla. He's a lifelong Democrat, and a liberal's liberal. He wrote a book called The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics. He basic premise is that liberalism has lost its way and that the embrace of identity politics has damaged the long standing liberal goals of inclusion and progressiveism.

How did liberals respond? By calling him a white supremacist.

u/DFractalH · 5 pointsr/de

>Ganz schöne Halbtirade gegen ein ominöses 'buntes Deutschland, das im Text verschleiert als Mitschuldiger ausgemacht wird, ohne dies auch nur irgendwo zu definieren.

In keinster Weise. Ich kritisiere den Begriff im Zusammenhang mit der gegenwärtigen Notwendigkeit, eine möglichst breite Koalition gegen Verfassungsfeinde in Institutionen, Parteien und auf den Straßen zu bilden. Das gelingt nicht dadurch, in dem man es an eine bestimmte Vision von Deutschland hängt, sondern an das Grundgesetz und unsere Gemeinsamkeit als Bürger die unser freiheitlich-demokratisches System unterstützen unabhängig davon welche Politik wir präferieren.

Ansonsten kann man sich das "breite" schenken und weiter Macht an die extrem Rechten verlieren. Denn wer es an eine bestimmte Vision von Deutschland hängt wird alle abschrecken, die diese nicht teilen oder nicht sofort verstehen. Diese existieren nun einmal, und wir müssen mit den Menschen arbeiten die wir haben - nicht mit denen, die wir gerne hätten.

Schlussendlich kritisiere ich nicht den Begriff oder die Vision an sich. Lediglich die strategisch problematische Verwendung gerade jetzt, im Kontext "Sicherung unseres Rechtsstaates", aus Gründen wie oben erläutert. Nirgendwo verlange ich, die Idee eines "bunten Deutschlands" pauschal nicht mehr politisch zu verfolgen.

>So bleibt davon für deine Person nur ein Eindruck übrig: Du willst keine LGBT (aus dem Kampf um Rechte stammt dieser Begriff) und zeigst verstärkte Anzeichen von 'hab schon, sollen die Anderen abziehen'.

Typisch: es wird die Reinheit und Moralität des Gegenüber in Frage gestellt anstelle wenigstens zu versuchen ihn zu verstehen. Woher weißt du was meine Einstellung zu Menschen mit anderer sexueller Orientierung als meiner ist? Woher meine präferierte Politik diesbezüglich?

Ich empfehle dieses Buch, auch wenn es US-zentrisch ist.

Edit: Ich empfehle diesen Kommentar von /u/LilaBlob. Der Begriff "Bunt" hat wohlmöglich in der Öffentlichkeit eine viel wagere Bedeutung angenommen, als seine Herkunft vermuten lässt. Mir war dies jedenfalls nicht bewusst.

u/BunsTown · 4 pointsr/politics

Yup. The left needs to chill on identity politics. I say this as an extremely left leaning person who lives in the Bay Area. This book is a good one to consider https://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-Liberal-Identity-Politics/dp/0062697439

And a nice interview with the author on Sam Harris’ podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbhxibO1Pcg


*downvoters what’s up? You think swing voters care more about letting transgender people use such and such bathroom vs jobs and taxes? The left can continue to progress if we’re in power.... and the way to gain and stay in power, is to talk to the issues that a majority of swing voters care about.

u/couchblindslucas · 0 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

Wow there's so much here. I'll genuinely try to be polite.

(1) Hillary didn't want to release those speeches for political reasons. There has been a rise of anti-business and anti-bank know-nothing'ism among, "true progressives" (?). Nothing in those speeches or her giving those speeches meant that she could not "stand-up" (?) to a portion of the American finance sector. That would only sound rational to someone who doesn't understand how politics work in practice, and/or to someone who has an irrational hatred of a portion of American finance. Most Americans are low-information voters and base their support for candidates on their "gut," so I can see why this perspective was so widespread.

(2) what is a "true" progressive? Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton had almost identical platforms during the primaries, so I'll be interested in your definition. Sounds a little Vanguardism to me. "Call me a pinko, or even a socialist, but don't call me a Leninist."

(3) Anyone who has actually examined Bernie Sanders (his really bad not-vetted biography; his 1980s rejected failed European socialism by EUROPEANS; his record, or lack there of etc...) knows why he did not make it past the primary, let alone the general. "Bernie Sanders beating Trump," is not really examined by serious analysts because it is is, well, that fringe. This is the best article from a reputable source on the subject: NYT article.

(4) This is where it gets harder to be restrained... Political parties are not that powerful--neither historically, nor at the present (they have actually been historically week for many decades). It is a nice thing to shout at the clouds, but really just no. Popular candidates dictate terms, not the other way around. The DNC and RNC are just scaffolding.

(5) What corruption?

(6) You want political parties not to be biased?

This is a great book to understand why some of us lefties may not like "true" progressivism: The Once and Future Liberal by Mark Lilla I promise you it is not because we are evil shills or uneducated poors.





u/ExternalUserError · 0 pointsr/AskALiberal

You might read The Once and Future Liberal for a dissection of that.