How the Progressives helped Trump win
Preface:I was originally going to write entire reply myself but it proved impossible as smarter people already wrote about it much better than I ever could. Instead, I lifted many passages from several articles, providing links (beginning of passages) to the originals where I can. For the purpose of internal coherency, I did not use quotation marks and did some editing.
I am a centrist, the purpose of this post is to show how the Progressives aided Trump’s victory, so I will focus on the left. It is widely known to any reasonable person just how ridiculous Trump’s supporters generally are, so don’t accuse me of being a Trump supporter, bully, racist, sexist, MRA activist, etc, just because I choose not to waste time repeating what everyone already knows.
Abstract (TL;DR):Trump and his supporters are known to rely heavily on alternative facts and bending the physical realities to suit their narratives. These behaviors are natural extension of strong postmodernism, which essentially states that there is no objective truth, only truth claims. I show that ironically, the radical Progressives that promote social justice also exhibit similar M.O (identity politics) and came from the same origin. I also theorize how this behaviour ultimately resulted in Trump’s victory.
Content:1. Intro
2. Brief overview of Post modernism
3. Post modernism and Identity Politics
4. Identity politics on the left today (Social Justice issues)
5. Progressive "Missteps"
6. What does any of these have to do with Trump’s victory
IntroIt is my belief that the current form of postmodernism presents a threat to democracy, and it has led to the rise of identity politics and the election of Trump.
Many here have
questioned my claim that the Progressives are just as responsible for Trump’s victory as the ones that actually voted for him, not recognizing that their M.O are one and the same, and both came from postmodernism movements.
Brief overview of Post Modernism (a poor attempt) It is generally accepted postmodernism today came from writings of Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan in the 60s. It was a product of its era and it was anti-authoritarian. Ironically, it retained the Marxist doctrine that “power relations and economic inequality determines social structures.” It rejected aspects of humanism, in particular the view of the self as the center of political resistance and embraced the view that all reality is shaped by language. This language, and by extension,
reason itself, is a construct that
serves the interest of powerful and dominant social groups.
The strongest version of postmodernism is that there is no such thing as truth, because all perception of reality is mediated and perceived through discourse; there is no truth, only truth claims. Since there is nothing objective against which these claims can be measured, they
all have the same standing.
I believe this strong postmodern view qualifies as being intolerant in
Popper’s view, as it is impossible to have a rational discussion with someone like this; this postmodern view pretty much “denounces all arguments”. These individuals are too far gone, we cannot argue with them, we cannot give them any reason that they believe they must even consider, much less accept. Sadly, it is being actively encouraged across the board, including here, which I will elaborate on later.
Postmodernism and identity politicsThe strong postmodern view tends to take the form of an extreme social constructionism, a view that identities, relations, political positions are constructed entirely through interpretation, that there is no identifiable social reality against which interpretations can be judged, no ground in material or social reality that places any constraints on the formation of identities or perspectives.
Traditional leftists might affirm racism is best understood as a systemically reproduced oppressive ideology, postmodernism would say that
reason itself is a form of oppressive ideology. For postmodernists the rules for what counts as knowledge or what counts as valid argument are themselves social constructs which further entrench (perceived) oppression.
This eliminates reason as an arbiter of disputes. If you are a postmodernist and someone challenges your moral and political beliefs, you just dismiss their critique on the grounds that reason itself is constructed by systems of power in a manner that marginalizes your view. What’s more,
if you can’t show how this is the case through argument it poses you no problem–you can simply claim that the fact that you can’t show how you are marginalized through argument just underlines your claim that the rules of argument necessarily marginalize you. This means that once you have acquired postmodernism, whatever other political beliefs you may have become impossible to challenge through argument. No wonder it’s so popular among the un-learned.
The rise of postmodernism aided the rise of identity politics starting in the 60s, as we see the shift from reason and rational argument to personal experience and testimony, which forms the basics of identity politics: perspectives of social groups with which people identify.
Identity politics seeks to advance the interests of particular groups in society that are perceived as
victims of social justice. The identity of the oppressed group gives rise to a political basis around which they can unite.
Many feminists and gay activists became interested in the work of Foucault in the 70s, whose attention to the social construction of sexuality, view of power as dispersed through society, and insistence on the connection between power and knowledge, intersected with their own concerns. Foucault's work seemed to provide a theoretical ground for shifting the focus of radical analysis away from macrostructures such as the economy and the state, and toward daily life, ideology, social relations and culture. Foucault's view of state power as always repressive and his identification of resistance with the marginalized and suppressed made sense at a time when radical struggles were being led by groups peripheral to mainstream culture and power relations, such as disaffected youth and women, blacks and other racial minorities, gays and lesbians.
Today identity politics is wielded by both the right and left. I will now focus on how the left uses it and the problems with it.
Identity politics on the left today (Issues with Social Justice)Fifty-five years ago, Dr. King (MLK) famously proclaimed “
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men – yes, black men as well as white men.”
In 2004, in a similar vein, Obama also declared in Boston, “
There is not a black American and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” These ideals from the Left eventually led to real change because it transcended identities* and called for an America in which skin color didn’t matter.
In recent years however, blindness to group identity is now considered the “
ultimate sin”, because it masks the reality of group hierarchies and oppression in America. Many on the left have turned
against universalist rhetoric (for example, All Lives Matter), viewing it as an attempt to erase the specificity of the experience and oppression of historically marginalized minorities.
The new exclusivity is partly epistemological, claiming that out-group members cannot share in the knowledge possessed by in-group members (“You can’t understand X because you are white”; “You can’t understand Y because you’re not a woman”; “You can’t speak about Z because you’re not queer”). The idea of “cultural appropriation” insists, among other things, “These are our group’s symbols, traditions, patrimony, and out-group members have no right to them.”
For much of the Left today, anyone who speaks in favor of group blindness is on the other side,
indifferent to or even guilty of oppression. For some, especially on college campuses, anyone who doesn’t swallow the anti-oppression orthodoxy hook, line, and sinker – anyone who doesn’t acknowledge “white supremacy or privilege” in America – is a
racist, and anyone who promotes the idea of gender differences – is a
sexist.
Progressive "Missteps" This brings us to the most striking feature of today’s right-wing political tribalism: the white identity politics that has mobilized around the idea of white males as an endangered, discriminated-against group. Just as the Left’s exclusionary identity politics is ironic in light of the Left’s ostensible demands for inclusivity, so too is the emergence of a “white” identity politics on the right.
For decades , the Right has claimed to be a bastion of individualism, a place where those who rejected the divisive identity politics of the Left found a home. For this reason, conservatives typically paint the emergence of white identity as having been forced on them by the tactics of the Left. As one political commentator puts it, “feeling as though they are under perpetual attack for the color of their skin, many on the right have become defiant of their whiteness, allowing it into their individual politics in ways they have not for generations”.
At its core , the problem is simple but fundamental. While black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and many others are allowed – indeed, encouraged – to feel solidarity and take pride in their racial or ethnic identity, white Americans, especially white males, have for the last several decades been told they must never, ever do so.
People want to see their own tribe as exceptional, as something to be deeply proud of; that’s what the tribal instinct is all about. For decades now, nonwhites in the United States have been encouraged to indulge their tribal instincts in just this way, but, at least publicly, American whites have not. On the contrary, if anything, they have been told that their white identity is something no one should take pride in.
During a Black Lives Matter protest at the DNC held in Philadelphia in July 2016, a protest leader announced that “this is a black and brown resistance march”, asking white allies to “appropriately take [their] place in the back of this march”. LOL, contrast that with MLK and Obama.
To make matters worse, the identity politics on the Left is not only openly hostile towards white males, but also towards dissidents from within. The incident of Lindsay Shepherd is not simply the misjudgement of one individual (Nathan Rambukkana), as some here suggest. In the meeting, Shepherd was accused of having created a toxic climate for some students by playing clips and adopting a neutral stance.
The fact that
all three figures in the position of power (Adria Joel, acting manager of gender violence prevention; Herbert Pimlott, head of Shepherd’s academic program; and Rambukkana himself, Shepherd’s supervisor) present at the meeting unanimously accused Shepherd suggests this attitude and Leftist belief is condoned, if not sanctioned at the institutional level. They even compared Peterson to Hitler, yet another example of identity politics on the Left. If you think just because this happened in Canada so it doesn’t relate to the States, you are grossly mistaken. The same BS happens all the time, NA colleges are filled with individuals like those three, again suggesting Leftist identity politics at the institutional level. Here are some identity politics at play in the States: Bret Weinstine of Evergreen College; Allison Stanger, Middlebury College; Smith College hosts Anti-Colonial Thanksgiving; UVA faculty and students seek to erase Thomas Jefferson’s legacy.
Finally, I want to briefly touch on another trigger point of the New Left: gender issues. This is something I talked about before so I am not looking for a rehash. If you are interested, you can look at my past posts and read about it on your own. The key, however, is to read replies by other posters and notice the overwhelming “negative” replies relied on personal experience, emotions, and testimony, and how little people knew about the relevant data, studies, and the proper statistical analysis, shocking really, considering the high STEM head count here. Also note certain posters exhibit classic postmodernism views which translated to identity politics: sexual difference is purely socially constructed, and that the sexual difference should be seen as an effect of power relations and cultural practices, refuting all evidences suggesting otherwise.
What does any of these have to do with Trump’s victoryOne Trump voter claimed that “maybe I’m just so sick of being called a bigot that my anger at the authoritarian left has pushed me to support this seriously flawed man.” “The Democratic party,” said Bill Maher, “made the white working man feel like your problems aren’t real because you’re ‘mansplaining’ and check your privilege. You know, if your life sucks, your problems are real.” When blacks blame today’s whites for slavery or ask for reparations, many white Americans feel as though they are being attacked for the sins of other generations.
Or consider this blog post in the American Conservative, worth quoting at length because of the light it sheds:
I’m a white guy. I’m a well-educated intellectual who enjoys small arthouse movies, coffeehouses and classic blues. If you didn’t know any better, you’d probably mistake me for a lefty urban hipster.
And yet. I find some of the alt-right stuff exerts a pull even on me. Even though I’m smart and informed enough to see through it. It’s seductive because I am not a person with any power or privilege, and yet I am constantly bombarded with messages telling me that I’m a cancer, I’m a problem, everything is my fault.
I am very lower middle class. I’ve never owned a new car, and do my own home repairs as much as I can to save money. I cut my own grass, wash my own dishes, buy my clothes from Walmart. I have no clue how I will ever be able to retire. But oh, brother, to hear the media tell it, I am just drowning in unearned power and privilege, and America will be a much brighter, more loving, more peaceful nation when I finally just keel over and die.
Trust me: After all that, some of the alt-right stuff feels like a warm, soothing bath. A “safe space,” if you will. I recoil from the uglier stuff, but some of it— the “hey, white guys are actually okay, you know! Be proud of yourself, white man!” stuff is really VERY seductive, and it is only with some intellectual effort that I can resist the pull … If it’s a struggle for someone like me to resist the pull, I imagine it’s probably impossible for someone with less education or cultural exposure.So the Progressives lost white men to Trump, what about black voters? Well they simply
didn’t show up, because they did not identify with a rich white woman. Do you see now how damaging identity politics is to a candidate with a universalist platform?
Alright, what about white women? Surely they identified with her? How could 45% of college educated white women possibly side with a known sexist? Guess what, not every woman is a radical feminist, who believed that the concept of gender is merely a social construct or that they were being systematically oppressed, especially not the college educated ones.
If we fight right wing postmodernism with left wing postmodernism, the only possible result is a politics that is increasingly reducible to might makes right, and the right will win that fight. We need to articulate and stand up for a robust set of objective left wing principles and values, which all people have reasons to accept. Of course we should continue to debate and interrogate those principles and values, asking ourselves who really benefits from them. But we cannot indulge in the broad, deep, unearned skepticism of postmodernism, which cannibalizes all principles and all values, including our own, leaving nothing in its wake but blood and carnage.
Like I said in my
earlier post , so long as we operate under the misguided form of tolerance, where we value civility and feelings above what is objectively real, we will never be rid of the likes of Trump. Ok I am done.