“Why must we have health care reform this instant? It can wait a year or two.”

Gee, when did I hear that last? Oh, back in 1993. Since the GOP trashed healthcare reform back then, they haven’t done jack sh*t on it for 16 years.

” It is the furious pace of “change” without regard to the consequences that has me very afraid. Most of the anger we are witnessing is an expression of underlying fear that we are embarking on obscenely expensive ventures of “change” at a time when we are BROKE. ”

Lie. The right just loved the furious pace of change under Bush, and had no problem with him and his cronies looting the country. It’s only now that you’ve rediscovered your alleged principles.

Since that time, Republicans have tried to exploit identity politics to get elected and to implement all kinds of policies that don’t help the identity groups being exploited, or that even hurt them. Again, Joe the Plumber is case in point. He attacked Obama’s tax plan under the mistaken assumption that it would have cost him more than McCain’s plan. When it was clearly pointed out that the opposite was the case, he refused to acknowledge this, and continued to complain that it would hurt him. Facts didn’t seem to matter, because in his case identity politics certainly trumped all other consideration. Joe certainly could have opposed Obama on other policy grounds, but instead he just went into denial about Obama’s actual tax plan and how it compared to McCain’s.

For other people, the opposite was and remains the case. I supported Obama’s tax plan because it clearly seemed best for the country, not because I somehow identify with black men from Chicago. In fact, the whole reason Obama got elected is because a huge number of people voted for him who don’t share his personal identity. His election was a demonstration that identity politics don’t rule the day. A whole lot of white people voted for him simply because they agreed with his general policy approach, temperament, sense of fairness, etc. And plenty of people voted against him for sound and rational reasons as well. But there’s a significant number of people, who seem to be the most vocal opponents of Obama, who make emotional appeals to the most crass forms of identity politics their central appeal. In many cases, their arguments don’t even make sense on a practical level, and go against their economic self-interest (as in Joe’s case) because in the end, for these people identity politics really is everything.

These are the people I’m addressing, not the entire Nixon coalition. Unfortunately, these are the people who have also claimed the mantle of “conservatism” in our time, when conservatism itself isn’t their primary motive or interest at all, identity politics is. In many cases they could care less about conservatism itself, but simply use it as a reinforcement of identity politics, rather than the actual polticial, philosophical or social orientiation that could properly be called “conservative”. And in so doing they have warped conservatism beyond recognition, and the GOP has essentially gone along with this program, rather than disciplining it. The result is a party without any meaninful policy agenda at all, other than identity politics. They are simply incapable of governing anything. They live in a dream world of their own creation, doing the bidding of fantasy leaders like Rush, Ann, Palin, and anyone with a loud and confident sense of their own identity.

“You’re not arguing with strangers on the internet for your health. You just happen to despise the identity politics you believe you can pin on your opponents.”

This was rather unclear. For the first, leaving posts in comboxes isn’t effective advocacy, it doesn’t directly benefit one’s health, and it isn’t earning us money, fame, or respect. It is an exercise in self-assertion. For the second, you do have your own identity, and it informs your politics. You naturally believe that yours is not objectively nasty, while you believe that of your opponents is. Granting for the sake of argument that you are a perfectly decent fellow, I can’t agree with the broader point that the particular wickednesses expressed in left-wing politics, different as they may be in some respects from those expressed on the right, are less nasty, or that leftism is more “rational.”

Of course, as it happens, I’m a white, middle-class male, so shouldn’t I hate Obama and oppose his health care plan? What’s wrong with me?

How should I know? Nothing? If something is wrong with you, I wouldn’t presume to speculate. I try not to play internet psychologist. You’re the judge of your own interests.

What I’m saying is that much of the far right is devoted to an idea of its own identity which ensures that all its opponents will be labelled as un-American foreigners who are traitors to their country and feared as if they represented some ultimate form of betrayal of all that is good and true. This embraces all kinds of nasty and disturbed human evils and pettiness, from racism to sexism to ethnicism to ideological nationalism, each justified and rationalized from a visceral emotional position that is virtually immune to reason and only marginally able to offer rational arguments in support of its views.

You hadn’t actually said that yet. It’s fair enough. The right has its besetting sins. I think you’re blind if you won’t see a visceral, prerational emotional basis underlying all forms of impassioned, mass political activity. Some men are rational, though rationality is not itself a univocal concept. Man is only a barely rational creature, and insofar as mass politics depends on putting bodies in the streets, depending on rationality to motivate crowds is foolish, and excoriating the masses for their irrationality is a category error.

This movement is well on its way to destroying itself, and its pathologies are becoming increasingly evident even to many on the right itself. Daniel has certainly been aware of this pattern for quite a while. Conservatism itself as a philosophical and political orientation is not inherently wedded to this narcissistic form of pathological identity politics.

Is this concern trolling? Social and demographic trends have reduced the relative size of the Nixon coalition on which the modern GOP was built to a point where it can not reliably win national elections. But for those trends, the intellectual and class incoherence would go mostly unnoticed. But for those trends, the intellectual incoherence and interest group cleavages in the Democratic coalition would be as obvious as those in the Republican party. This all has much less to do with ideas than it does with chance on one hand and the relative sizes of the groups to which your party’s pitch is likely to appeal on the other. You don’t sell politicians and policies with philosophy any more than you do detergent or cars.

Little disagreement, except of course, from the sort of people who write for The American Conservative.

On the issue of race vs. healthcare, interestingly enough, Lawrence Auster suggests that there are good, race-related reasons why national health care would work poorly in the U.S. In short, he somewhat agrees that there are racial (what Krugman would call “racist”) reasons for opposing national healthcare, but he thinks that they are justified.

Bullsh*t – most of his posts blame right-wing behavior on economic grounds, followed by (IMHO) more tribal explanations; racism would be third, at best.

Bill Royston, on August 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am Said:
“Why must we have health care reform this instant? It can wait a year or two”

It’s waited since the early 90′s, when the right killed the Clinton reforms, and said ‘job well done’. The only reforms the right has supported is putting more money in the pockets of their campaign contributors.

I’m so glad to have met someone who can read minds. At least you aren’t uncertain about imputing motives to your opponents. Of course, as it happens, I’m a white, middle-class male, so shouldn’t I hate Obama and oppose his health care plan? What’s wrong with me?

Look, if you want an example of a dishonest style of argumentation, just read your own post. There’s not an honest sentence in it. It’s just an attempt to confuse a fairly simple matter.

I have nothing against identity politics per se, as long as it doesn’t distort reality and become a form of cult membership with all the liabilities of cognitive dissonance to reinforce its illusions. No one is suggesting that the sole, or even the primary rationale behind opposition to Obama or his health care plan is race. What I’m saying is that much of the far right is devoted to an idea of its own identity which ensures that all its opponents will be labelled as un-American foreigners who are traitors to their country and feared as if they represented some ultimate form of betrayal of all that is good and true. This embraces all kinds of nasty and disturbed human evils and pettiness, from racism to sexism to ethnicism to ideological nationalism, each justified and rationalized from a visceral emotional position that is virtually immune to reason and only marginally able to offer rational arguments in support of its views.

If you analyzed this in depth you would not find “white racism” at its root, but a simplistic form of narcissism. If it were merely racism, or some neurotic symptom of repressed fear, it would at least be workable. But as Freud said, narcissism is virtually untreatable, locked off as it is in a world of its own creation. The only real hope, I think, is for the narcissist to come to see how self-destructive his path is, and that doesn’t usually come about until they really have destroyed themselves. This movement is well on its way to destroying itself, and its pathologies are becoming increasingly evident even to many on the right itself. Daniel has certainly been aware of this pattern for quite a while. Conservatism itself as a philosophical and political orientation is not inherently wedded to this narcissistic form of pathological identity politics. But it has become so intertwined with it that separating itself from it is going to be very difficult and costly. And yet, necessary also.

No, it’s not all identity politics. A good health care plan benefits one’s health, not one’s identity.

Advocacy is all about identity politics, save perhaps for the tiny core of people with real expertise, and of course they too are all heavily emotionally invested in the outcome of their projects. You’re not arguing with strangers on the internet for your health. You just happen to despise the identity politics you believe you can pin on your opponents. For my part, I’m entirely unconvinced that white racism is the mainspring of resistance to health care reform. I recall that blonde-haired, blue-eyed Hilary Clinton’s health care reform was vehemently opposed, too, and in similar terms as socialist, as rationing, as radical, etc. At the same time, her blue-eyed, pale-skinned WASP husband was accused of turning the country over to the UN and/or the Chinese.

Are there racists who oppose Obama’s initiatives because he is black? Of course. That they outnumber those who support him precisely because he is black, and who see in him either racial redemption or, in the case of the 97% of blacks who support him, a source of racial pride, is far from clear. I suspect not, but who knows? I don’t care, so long as violence doesn’t erupt, who hates whom.

This business of imputing motives is an uncertain one, that is if one is interested in actually discerning them. If one is rather looking to use that ultimate smear, “(white) racist,” against one’s opponents – other forms of group antipathy struggle even to be recognized as racism, let alone be taken seriously – then it hardly matters. Anything derogatory said against a black man or his policies can be tortured into an expression of racism. Even if the words don’t denote racism, even if the speaker or writer doesn’t intend a racist meaning (did you forget the death of the author?), some racist somewhere could be drawing succor from them; some racist stereotype could be reinforced. This is Krugman’s, and Kathleen Parker’s, and Chris Matthews’, and Philip Kennicott’s, and MoDo’s style of argumentation. It’s dishonest, but the intent is to silence and intimidate on one hand, and express the good character of the speaker and those who agree with him (there’s identity again) on the other.

franimal, on August 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pm Said:
Ddanicic I tried reading your post but couldn’t find any credulity past the “I could…allow a woman to have an abortion” point. Since when does a woman need permission from you regarding her body? I sincerely hope you misspoke and meant to say support and not allow.

I must be lost. I thought this was The American Conservative, not TPM.

I think it’s quite possible that race is having a catalytic effect on the anger in that Obamas race serves to further heighten the concern over “socialism” and ratchets it up to the level of panic.

What I’m saying is that the self-interest being voiced by many who oppose his policies is actually a form of racial, ethnic, and identity self-interest. These people see their own self-interests as tied to having people in power who are just like them, who share their racial, ethnic, and identity politics.

Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettleblack on line 1.

It’s all identity politics, all the way down. Me, the Sarah Palin supporters, Paul Krugman, and you, too, mon ami. Us and them; who, whom. I say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, except when it’s middle-class whites, in which case it’s time for a full-on moral panic.

The kind of reform Obama is proposing would at least give you and your wife health care so that if you get sick during this vulnerable time you can still get the treatment you need. The kind of change Obama is proposing would not disrupt the health care system, or endanger the economy. To the contrary, it would help stimulate the economy, and begin to provide the stability we need. If anything, in my view, it’s not radical enough, but I understand that the idea is to create gradual changes that slowly transform the system without any upheavel. So again, I’m not sure what your objection is in reality, other than a generalized fear of any change at all.

And presumably losing their health care as well, which will further spiral personal debt, foreclosure, and bankruptcy as individuals will no longer be able to afford mounting medical bills, which will trigger yet another slump. There is a fair amount of criticism, both from the left and the right, about the nature of the bailouts, the stimulus, so on and so forth, but there is little disagreement, when there is a contraction of spending power across a country, that the government and the central bank are the only actors whom have the ability in which to serve as a buffer.

When similar crises have happened before, the attitude of the IMF towards other countries is not unlike many Republican’s; slash spending, cut the deficit, etc. etc. And they cause extreme if not debilitating contractions that wipe out whole entire industries and markets in a country. When the economies, a number of years later, finally recover the IMF and others crow over the remains about their success. If you want America to become like Aregentina in the early 2000′s, then yes, we should go the contraction method.