3 ms·

What Follows the End of History? Identity Politics

22 points by dsr12 8y ago

CM30 8y ago
Some decent points there. I definitely think the shift towards identity politics as a focus for the left hurt its popularity, and provided ammunition for its opponents to attack policies that would make many people's lives better in general. That said, I do have a few thoughts about the points raised that make me question them a bit. Namely: 1. Populism isn't only on the right, and I feel we're starting to see left wing strains of it too (see also the support for Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, etc). The mistake the parties on that side of the spectrum seem to have made is to try and 'play it too safe', where a more populist figurehead and set of policies may have helped counter the rise of the same on the right. 2. Him turning away from the right because of the Iraq War and 2008 financial crisis seems kinda strange given that more 'left' wing parties also backed both in many parts of the world (like the UK, and probably the US) and how many people on both sides disagreed with one or both policies, which makes it questionable whether they'd be rightly counted as 'right wing' or 'conservative' ones. 3. Finally, it also feels like part of the reason for the shift away from the left focusing on economic issues is because of the demographics of the parties on that side of the political spectrum now. In the old days, it felt like there were more people in that part of the political world who came from poor/working class backgrounds, and hence they had a real stake in improving economic equality. Nowadays though, it feels like the average politician and supporter on that side are from fairly well off families with a decent level of education and a stake in making sure not much of the spotlight is shone on their own background and privileged upbringing. I suspect for these people, the focus on identity groups lets them support a left wing cause while not actually thinking too hard about their own situation or how they themselves benefited from inequality.
- woodandsteel 8y ago
  >Him turning away from the right because of the Iraq War and 2008 financial crisis seems kinda strange given that more 'left' wing parties also backed both in many parts of the world (like the UK, and probably the US) and how many people on both sides disagreed with one or both policies, which makes it questionable whether they'd be rightly counted as 'right wing' or 'conservative' ones. He's an independent thinker. Instead of automatically affirming everything one side believes, he thinks out each major issue on its own merits. That was the point of how it was freeing to break with the conservatives on both of these issues. That is why he says we need solid thinkers on both the liberal and conservative sides.
woodandsteel 8y ago
Fukuyama makes a lot of good points. However, rather than identity as the root cause, I think it is culture as such, with the great dispute today being between, on the one hand, tribalisms left and right, and on the other side liberalism, in the broad sense of the term.

22 points by dsr12 8y ago

CM30 8y ago

Some decent points there. I definitely think the shift towards identity politics as a focus for the left hurt its popularity, and provided ammunition for its opponents to attack policies that would make many people's lives better in general. That said, I do have a few thoughts about the points raised that make me question them a bit. Namely: 1. Populism isn't only on the right, and I feel we're starting to see left wing strains of it too (see also the support for Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, etc). The mistake the parties on that side of the spectrum seem to have made is to try and 'play it too safe', where a more populist figurehead and set of policies may have helped counter the rise of the same on the right. 2. Him turning away from the right because of the Iraq War and 2008 financial crisis seems kinda strange given that more 'left' wing parties also backed both in many parts of the world (like the UK, and probably the US) and how many people on both sides disagreed with one or both policies, which makes it questionable whether they'd be rightly counted as 'right wing' or 'conservative' ones. 3. Finally, it also feels like part of the reason for the shift away from the left focusing on economic issues is because of the demographics of the parties on that side of the political spectrum now. In the old days, it felt like there were more people in that part of the political world who came from poor/working class backgrounds, and hence they had a real stake in improving economic equality. Nowadays though, it feels like the average politician and supporter on that side are from fairly well off families with a decent level of education and a stake in making sure not much of the spotlight is shone on their own background and privileged upbringing. I suspect for these people, the focus on identity groups lets them support a left wing cause while not actually thinking too hard about their own situation or how they themselves benefited from inequality.

woodandsteel 8y ago
>Him turning away from the right because of the Iraq War and 2008 financial crisis seems kinda strange given that more 'left' wing parties also backed both in many parts of the world (like the UK, and probably the US) and how many people on both sides disagreed with one or both policies, which makes it questionable whether they'd be rightly counted as 'right wing' or 'conservative' ones. He's an independent thinker. Instead of automatically affirming everything one side believes, he thinks out each major issue on its own merits. That was the point of how it was freeing to break with the conservatives on both of these issues. That is why he says we need solid thinkers on both the liberal and conservative sides.

woodandsteel 8y ago

Fukuyama makes a lot of good points. However, rather than identity as the root cause, I think it is culture as such, with the great dispute today being between, on the one hand, tribalisms left and right, and on the other side liberalism, in the broad sense of the term.