Identity politics

End of History Author Francis Fukuyama Thinks Leftist Identity Politics Helped Create Trump

Plus: Why Jordan Peterson may be right about postmodern neo-Marxism.

|

Fukuyama
Panayotis Tzamaros/ABACA/Newscom

In an interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, Francis Fukuyama—author of the much-debated 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man—laments that leftist identity politics provoked a backlash from the populist right, which in turn gave rise to Donald Trump.

According to Fukuyama:

A great deal of modern politics is about the demand of that inner self to be uncovered, publicly claimed, and recognized by the political system.

A lot of these recognition struggles flow out of the social movements that began to emerge in the 1960s involving African-Americans, women, the LGBT community, Native Americans, and the disabled. These groups found a home on the left, triggering a reaction on the right. They say: What about us? Aren't we deserving of recognition? Haven't the elites ignored us, downplayed our struggles? That's the basis of today's populism.

Fukuyama, a former neoconservative who later became a critic of the Iraq War and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, notes that each of these leftist groups is justified in seeking recognition. But the tactic of associating a certain problem with a specific identity group, he adds, can backfire horribly:

The problem is in the way we interpret injustice and how we try to solve it, which tends to fragment society. In the 20th century, for example, the left was based around the working class and economic exploitation rather than the exploitation of specific identity groups. That has a lot of implications for possible solutions to injustice. For example, one of the problems of making poverty a characteristic of a specific group is that it weakens support for the welfare state. Take something like Obamacare, which I think was an important policy. A lot of its opponents interpreted it as a race-specific policy: This was the black president doing something for his black constituents.

I expressed similar concerns when I suggested that political correctness was partly responsible for the right-wing backlash that produced President Trump.

Fukuyama has some interesting thoughts about the campus free speech problem, which he claims is not a full-blown crisis, despite the occasional dust-ups. He also discusses his experience as a student of Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher often lampooned by Jordan Peterson:

Q. You have an unusual background for a political scientist. You majored in classics at Cornell, then did graduate work in comparative literature at Yale, where you studied with Paul de Man. Later you spent time in Paris sitting in on classes with Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida. Any memories from this journey through deconstruction.

A. I decided it was total bullshit. They were espousing a kind of Nietzschean relativism that said there is no truth, there is no argument that's superior to any other argument. Yet most of them were committed to a basically Marxist agenda. That seemed completely contradictory. If you really are a moral relativist, there is no reason why you shouldn't affirm National Socialism or the racial superiority of Europeans, because nothing is more true than anything else. I thought it was a bankrupt way of proceeding and decided to shift gears and go into political science.

Peterson is often attacked for using the term "postmodern neo-Marxism" to describe campus leftist thinking, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. Critics contend that there's really no such thing as a postmodern neo-Marxist, since postmodernism and Marxism are competing philosophies that disagree on a host of things. Fukuyama seems to agree with Peterson.

NEXT: Arizona Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Lawyer Speech Code (Rule 8.4(g))

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When are you going to report on the all-beef diet, Robby?

    This is important and valuable information your audience needs.

    1. Beef is out of his wheel house. If you have questions on fruit sushi, he’s your man.

      1. If he’s on the Jordan Peterson beat, he’ll be learning soon enough.

        1. Why are you progressives so frightened of Peterson? It’s weird

          1. I sense that most progressives figure Peterson is just another backward, disaffected, superstitious, bigoted, ‘pining for good old days that never existed’ yahoo, albeit one who has figured how to cash in handsomely on Hunter Thompson’s ‘when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro’ insight.

            1. Because he’s deprogramming the youngins.
              Got it

            2. What is so wrong with the old days? And don’t say stupid shit there was no internet or something related to medicine or the practice of or something about women being stuck in a kitchen. I’m tired if that fucking ad nauseum bullshit you people on the left use to distract from that question.

            3. Lol.

              Arthur is always good for a laugh.

          2. While he didn’t refuse to use the new make believe pronouns, he said that he wouldn’t be bullied by the government into using them. Kneel before Zod or be crushed by the mob.

    2. It’s an excellent diet. Beef is what you’d call a “superfood” containing lots of essential nutrients, and no drawbacks. He also eats a lot of leafy greens. Peterson and his daughter suffer from severe food allergies so they have no choice but to eliminate a lot of food groups. Everyone is unique though.

      1. Yes, severe food allergies that cause you to lie awake in terror all night for 25 days after having some apple cider.

        Definitely food allergies, not psychologically problems and/or fraud.

        1. Show us on the doll where the Peterson touched you.

          1. [points to funny bone]

          2. Since you didn’t know Peterson p?re was off the veg, I’ll assume you are also unaware of information like this:

            “I was like, whatever, it’s just pepper,” she told me. Then she had a reaction that lasted three weeks and included joint pain, acne, and anxiety.

            Apart from having to exist in a world where the possibility of pepper exposure looms, the only other social downside she notices is that she hates asking people to accommodate her diet. So she will usually eat before she goes to a dinner party, she told me, “but then I’ll go drink and enjoy the party.”

            “Drink, as in, water?”

            “I can also, strangely enough, tolerate vodka and bourbon.”

            1. So now you’ve taken to belittling people for their food allergies? Stay classy.

              1. Haha no I’ve taken to belittling people for psychosomatically making themselves sick from pepper but mysteriously still being able to drink bourbon.

                I mean, I’m sure it’s only by chance that beef and bourbon are the only two things she can consume. Oh, and salt and vodka. Yes, that’s totally believable, just like I’m supposed to believe that the daughter of an eccentric psychologist developed idiopathic hypersomnia as something other than a cry for attention.

                1. I’m supposed to believe that the daughter of an eccentric psychologist developed idiopathic hypersomnia as something other than a cry for attention.

                  If only there was some other method for children to take on the traits of their parents.

                2. “Daddy issues”
                  Projection is hilarious sometimes

                3. Why do you care? People do all kinds of weird stuff, he’s not asking us to give up pepper. I remember him saying it is working so far and he’s never felt better but doesn’t know enough to necessarily recommend it. So, are you just being a Catty Cathy?

                4. just like I’m supposed to believe that the daughter of an eccentric psychologist developed idiopathic hypersomnia as something other than a cry for attention.

                  As opposed to your passive-aggressive poasting career?

                5. psychosomatically making themselves sick

                  Fuck you. You’re not a physician, you haven’t examined either of them, and you know precisely fuck-all about their symptoms.

                  -jcr

                  1. Exactly.

      2. Btw, you’re behind the times. Jordan, PBUH, eliminated veggies from his diet months ago.

      3. Hope Peterson avoids ticks. I would hate for him to get a red meat allergy on top of all his other issues.

  2. Postmodernism is the lie that some Marxists use to pretend that they are not espousing Marxism. Fukuyama surely spent enough time around Barthes and Derrida to know that they were not idiots unaware of their own apparent contradictions.

    1. Fukuyama doesn’t understand the difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism. Do we really need to take seriously someone that wrote a book titled The End Of History? What a goober.

      1. I don’t know. We seem to take Mitch Daniels and Rick Wilson seriously at Reason.

      2. Fukuyama doesn’t understand the difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism.

        ^ This. He may have sat and listened to de Man, Derrida, and Barthes, but he didn’t understand what he was hearing.

    2. I know some disagree, but my preferred definition of postmodernism is the general celebration of bullshit – and that lends itself to anarchy for wusses; so they scream at the sky. I’d like to think George Carlin would agree my simplification if he were still with us, but who knows – he might roast me for saying it. Looking at how wrong the polls were going into the last election, a tsunami of bullshit sure seems to have reached epic proportions. I don’t like identity politics as it locks out the individual – only claims with group relevance get entertained in those environs. That’s bad enough as it rots equal application of the law, but did the democrat party just prove adding too much postmodernism can make anything self destruct [in 2016]? Peck made a critical mistake writing People of The Lie: he shouldn’t have lobbied to make “evil” part of the dsm, but instead skewered postmodernism as a threat to working structures of any kind.

  3. The same kind of faulty thinking that led Fukuyama to make ridiculous statements about the end of history also led progressives to imagine they were living a post-liberal world free from distractions like race, religious belief, localism, etc.

    In reality, Obama being elected and the chorus in the media praising him didn’t change anything. People are very much like they always were, and they remain as resistant to the qualitative preferences of elitists being imposed on them as they always were.

    There is no end of history, and America didn’t transform itself into Obama’s image. Your qualitative preferences are not the preferences of other people, and they never will be.

    Want a real axiom for the ages about how much things have change? How ’bout, “There is nothing new under the sun”?

  4. Of course when your beliefs say that logic itself is ideologically suspect, you can justify a lot of contradictory positions.

    1. ^^this. There is simply no way to reason with such people.

  5. “I expressed similar concerns when I suggested that political correctness was partly responsible for the right-wing backlash that produced President Trump.”

    +1, that was a good article Robby and very timely.

    1. “Maher admitted during a recent show that he was wrong to treat George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain like they were apocalyptic threats to the nation: it robbed him of the ability to treat Trump more seriously. ”

      That’s a great quote. But I’m still waiting to see if anyone besides Maher on the Left will actually understand and act on the stance. Or will Mike Pence be the next ‘literally Hitler’?

      1. treat[ing] George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain like they were apocalyptic threats…robbed him of the ability to treat Trump more seriously.

        While he is not wrong about crying wolf he is completely wrong implying Trump is an apocalyptic threat. He is nothing of the sort (nor were Bush, Romney and, sigh, McCain). Trump is a crony capitalist cum populist. His brand of slime has been coating the body politic for centuries.

        1. I had some neighbors that were horrendously bad (putting snow chains on the rear wheels of their front drive car, and sneering at the guy who’d lived here his while life who tld them it was the wrong end; and twice! and many many more stupidities), and I used to call them 1 on a scale of 10; then got far worse neighbors, and had to elevate the first ones. But I know in reality that both were nowhere near as bad as neighbors could get (thieves, meth farmers, hosting Hillary).

          1. One of my neighbors is kind of an antisocial jerk. Even when you wave and say “hi” to him he will ignore you.

            But he keeps his yard clean, his dogs quiet, and his methhead daughter out of trouble so I have to remind myself it could be worse.

      2. Everyone to the right of the middle left is literally Hitler.

        1. Everyone to the right of the middle left Pol Pot is literally Hitler.

      3. It’s like people never heard the children’s story about the boy who cried wolf.

      4. “Will Mike Pence be the next ‘literally Hitler?” To many, he already is.

        1. Only figuratively, but a poor metaphor.
          Hitler had nothing in common with either Taliban, Muslim or Christian.

      5. Maher didn’t learn shit. When people were cautioning against the left to calm down during while they lost their minds over those guys no one listened. Now they’ve just pulled a ‘now this is a truly crazy guy!” and gone even more insane Maher included.

    2. And here’s where the Left still doesn’t get it:

      “the left said McCain was a racist supported by racists, it said Romney was a racist supported by racists, but when an actually racist Republican came along?and racists cheered him?it had lost its ability to credibly make that accusation.”

      Trump isn’t a racist, he isn’t a Nazi, he isn’t Hitler, he isn’t even a fascist, etc. He’s a clown, he’s an asshole, but he’s not evil. My suspicion is that the Left will keep on tarring the next big Republican in exactly the same language. And they’ll be outraged when Democrat’s are called Socialists, even though, there are Democrat politicians who are Socialists and being called a Socialist is no where as bad as been called a Nazi.

      1. It should be. Cut from the same cloth

      2. “Shrieking leftists retards called everbody racists. And then Trump came along and I realized I too am a shrieking leftist retard.”

      3. He’s a clown, he’s an asshole, but he’s not evil.

        It’s pretty damn evil to scapegoat some of the most powerless people on the planet for all the country’s problems in order to become the most powerful person on the planet.

        1. Who are the people really responsible for the country’s problems?

          1. Democrats. And people who vote for them.

            1. What don’t you like, the peace or the prosperity?

              1. I think the question isn’t why Ed doesn’t like peace or the prosperity. It’s why doesn’t the dems like peace or the prosperity.

                If you thing dems are of peace, you have not been paying attention. Y

              2. What don’t you like, the peace or the prosperity?

                WWI. WWII. Korea. Vietnam. Somalia. Kosovo. Libya. Syria. Yemen.

                Remind me which party was in power when we got into those?

                1. WWII was Democrats’ fault?

                  1. Geez, Past Me, it’s pretty obvious that the Democrats love to wage them some war.

                  2. WWII was Democrats’ fault?

                    Gee. You strolled right past the main point, which was that every major war of the last 100+ years was gotten into by a Democrat.

                    Color me shocked.

                    1. Well this has certainly been a stupid exercise.

                    2. Well this has certainly been a stupid exercise.

                      You mean your once again asserting that only one side of the duopoly is Good, while the other side is Evil and Destructive?

                      Indeed.

                    3. No need to exaggerate my position. Both are imperfect, and one is unacceptably so.

                    4. No need to exaggerate my position. Both are imperfect, and one is unacceptably so.

                      In which, once again, Tony attempts to demonstrate he’s not a binary thinker, and once again fails.

                      And who’s exaggerating? You have come right out and said on many occasions that you think Republicans have caused all that is bad in the world and that Democrats are the only source of solutions.

                      The only reason you’re backing off from that right now (in this exact moment in this exact comment and nowhere else on this page) is because you realize you’ve been cornered.

                      It will be mere minutes before in some other context you will tell some other person that Good only flows from Democrats.

                    5. you think Republicans have caused all that is bad in the world and that Democrats are the only source of solutions.

                      I’m as surprised as you are.

                    6. I’m as surprised as you are.

                      Tell me one good thing that Republicans have done. Or one bad thing Democrats have done that Republicans have fixed.

                    7. Or one bad thing Democrats have done that Republicans have fixed.

                      Slavery.

                      -jcr

                    8. “Tell me one good thing that Republicans have done. Or one bad thing Democrats have done that Republicans have fixed.”

                      Removing the Obamacare mandate.

              3. The arrogant moral certitude, crushing ignorance, and cognitive dissonance is what I do not like about the Dems.

                1. Luckily the alternative has no moral nature at all.

                2. Mickey gets it.

              4. Tony|8.31.18 @ 4:47PM|#
                “What don’t you like, the peace or the prosperity?”

                The wars and the poverty, shitbag; Obo did both of those really well.

                1. As did Bush

                  1. Agreed. But they voted for him because he seemed the type you could have a beer with, they said.

          2. Who are the people really responsible for the country’s problems?

            It’s certainly not illiterate Guatemalans.

      4. Well, he is evil, but no more so than the last two assholes who held his current office. I haven’t looked up the figures, but I’m guessing his body count is way below either of them.

        -jcr

      5. Trump isn’t a racist, he isn’t a Nazi, he isn’t Hitler, he isn’t even a fascist, etc. He’s a clown, he’s an asshole, but he’s not evil.

        1. isn’t a racist. False
        2. isn’t a Nazi. True
        3. isn’t Hitler. True
        4. isn’t even a fascist. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on definition of “fascist.”
        5. in’t evil. False. Really false. Kidnapper, bigot, bully, constant liar, dishonest businessman.

    3. “The leftist drive to enforce a progressive social vision was relentless, and it happened too fast. I don’t say this because I’m opposed to that vision?like most members of the under-30 crowd, I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns?I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump.”

      And here Robby (a person that writes some mostly good articles) jumps the shark. Seriously, Robby? I understand that you don’t have a problem with gender neutral pronouns, but we all know that the Left wants to force everyone to use them. Which is the exact opposite of “free Speech”. Forced speech codes wouldn’t be a violation of free speech, it would be the negation of free speech.

      1. It’s not just about force. Somebody needs to resist the abuse of language. The usage of words like fascist have long departed from their definition. It’s gotten so bad that Hillary Clinton could run on a slogan “Stronger Together”, which happens to be the same symbolism used by fascists. The fasces, an axe held together by additional rods because they are “stronger together” than one rod alone. Why did nobody point out that his was a literally fascist slogan? Because nobody knows what fascism means.

        1. I am here to resist the abuse of the term “food allergy.”

          1. Is “insufferableness problem” more accurate?

            1. it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

              1. Being civilized means eating around other people while managing to avoid conversation about bowels.

                1. Wow, wait till you grow up…

          2. I’m here to point out that Cathy is about half as intelligent as she thinks she is, and twice as obnoxious. Only in comparison to the truly idiotic “Rev.” does she come across as even slightly witty.

            1. I’m here to second this statement

              1. She needs to be hate fucked. Just sayin’.

        2. Calling the left fascist is both stupid and ineffectual.

          1. And true.

            1. Sidd Finch v2.01|8.31.18 @ 3:23PM|#

              Calling the left fascist is both stupid and ineffectual.

              Azathoth!!|8.31.18 @ 4:11PM|#

              And true.

              In which Azathoth!, thinking he is proving one point, proves an entirely different point.

        3. Thank you.
          Though… I’ve been pointing it out
          *pouts*

        4. Don’t go overboard on that one. The fasces was a Roman symbol of civil authority. Long before the European fascists got hold of it, it was being used in the 17th and 18th centuries in connection with all sorts of manifestations of the state and statesmen. George Washington was depicted multiple times, in sculpture and in paintings, with fasces as part of the design scheme. A fasces showed up on the reverse of the so-called Mercury dime in early 20th century America. Nineteenth-century British statesmen were depicted with fasces in a variety of artistic presentations. What you can say is that it took Hitler and Mussolini to discredit what had once been a commonplace artistic theme, and drive it out of use.

          Perhaps more to the point, anyone who supposes there is some compact and widely accepted understanding of what fascism is, is headed for frustration if held to a definition. It’s more practical to let the term be defined by the entire European era which it now invokes. We know what we refer to. We can pick out notable practices which history discredited, and call them representative of fascism, and often expect agreement?until some figure in today’s politics starts practicing them. Then defenders and partisans are going to step forward to call those practices okay after all.

          Judged by multiple historical similarities, Trump’s politics are looking pretty fascistic. People who notice that get concerned. Go ahead and call them benign if you want to.

          1. The fasces was a Roman symbol of civil authority

            It was also Hillary’s campaign slogan.

      2. It’s the same for transexualism itself. What good is your new tackle if nobody else wants to play along? Sure, some might be satisfied (and many have no intention of ever using their new parts sexually) but far too many are going to be disappointed – and thus fail to achieve any sort of ‘therapeutic’ outcome – if too many people decide not to participate.

        The unstated answer to this conundrum is, like all progressive endeavors, you will be made to participate.

        1. Yes, progressives are going to take your genitals.

          1. We have already heard noises that not wanting to be in a sexual relationship with a transgender because they are not the sex you are attracted to is unfair and bigoted.

            1. I’m sure this will be the biggest challenge in your life at some point.

              Do you never sit and think about the stuff you’re being fed and wonder whether it seems so fucking ridiculous because you’re being taken for an idiot?

              1. Question:
                In what way is transgenderism any more scientific/legitimate than the idea of a master race?
                Discuss

                1. I think the more important question is which concept is more likely to kill all the jews.

                  1. Not an answer.

                    1. It is if your main concern is human liberty and leaving people the fuck alone.

                    2. Tony, that’s not your concern.
                      It’s a fun question.
                      You’re capable of coming up with an interesting answer if you put a little thought and effort into it.
                      Some others here are ad well.

                      It’s a scary question that’s for damn sure.

                2. Nardz, what you are calling “transgenderism,” puts the term in the form of an ideology, when there isn’t really any ideology there. So that would be a difference. See if you can imagine other differences, too. They abound.

                  1. what you are calling “transgenderism,” puts the term in the form of an ideology, when there isn’t really any ideology there. So that would be a difference.

                    I’m not persuaded that “transgenderism” isn’t very much a part of the new leftist ideology.

                    1. If you think trasgenderism is very much part of the new leftist ideology… you might be a redneck.

                    2. Well, I’m certainly not a redneck. So that theory is out the window. And I’m not bigoted, backwards, bitter, or afraid. Nor am I uneducated, unreflective, or uninformed. And if those slanders fail to account for my perception, perhaps there is something more to it than your glib sloganeering suggests.

                    3. Or, he might be someone who listens to what Progressives say

          2. Maybe not mine, but how about those belonging to some sexually confused 12 year old with hyper-progressive parents?

      3. “”I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump.””‘

        You mean President Trump. It may have helped Trump become president.

        Trump as he is, existed way before gender neutral pronouns.

  6. Marxism and postmodernism are mutually exclusive logically but often employed together as a motte and bailey rhetorical strategy. When attacking opposing truth claims, pomo epistemic critiques are advanced, which are hard to counter because they go after the concept of objective truth itself. When it’s time to make assertions, the epistemic context flips back to historical materialism to make positive claims. It generally works bc oppenents get baited into arguing against the pomo critque of their claims and miss the switch.

    1. Critical theory is never critical of Marxism. ‘No enemies to the left’ is the practical application.

      1. Critical theory is never critical of Marxism.

        Not true.

        Although, in fairness, publishing this pretty much made Derrida a pariah in academia, and when he died they spat upon his grave.

        1. Although his defense of Paul de Man’s secret past as a Nazi sympathizer didn’t help.

        2. I’d call that the exception that proves the rule.

          Although critical theory should know no bounds, practically, and by the very intent of it’s creators, it very much does.

  7. You mean people might wan to vote for the guy who puts forth policies like lower taxes , less regulations etc. versus just calling their opponents racist

    Identity politics didn’t create Trump. I think his mom and dad did actually.

    He got elected because he proposed stuff folks liked

    Go figure.

    1. No he got elected by calling his opponents murderers and rapists. And by opponents I mean Mexicans. But it had nothing to do with identity politics.

      1. he got elected by calling his opponents murderers and rapists.

        Meanwhile the brightest woman in history, brighter than Marilyn idiot Savant’s illegitimate lovechild with Alfred Einstein, bright enough to aspire for a popular vote victory rather than a slog through the electoral college, could not beat him. As the great Norman Gene Macdonald said, people hated her so much they were willing to vote for someone they hated even more, just to get back at her.

        1. …a woman who was first lady of Arkansas for over a decade, but still couldn’t figure out how to connect with working class voters.

          Yup. Definitely the smartest woman in history.

        2. Did they hate her for anything she actually did though? Don’t need to convince me that Americans can be stupid assholes.

          1. Where have you been for the past 25 years, Tony? You must be a Millennial.

            Over the years Hillary has given plenty of people plenty of reasons to dislike her, from her subtle digs at everyday working folk (of which “deplorables” was the latest example) to her vicious character assassination of Bill’s victims, her plonky, tone-deaf politcal statements, her constant misrepresentations of fact and flat-out lies, her arrogant, imperious, I-deserve-this attitude towards elected office, and her blatant, jaw-dropping corruption, Hillary is richly deserving of the title of Most Disliked Politician since Richard Nixon.

            Practically any other could have easily beaten Trump in 2016. Hillary was the worst major-party candidate since Michael Dukakis.

            1. “her plonky, tone-deaf politcal statements”

              I do declare, why I have the vapors over Hillary Clinton’s calamitous lack of charisma!

              Clearly we must elect the biggest fattest human herpes blister we can find to relieve us from this horror.

              1. Clearly we must elect the biggest fattest human herpes blister we can find to relieve us from this horror.

                Only when the herpes stands head and shoulders above the horror. Hillary: She’s Valtrex!

                1. Every one of the descriptions presented above are true of Trump 100x over. He’s a huge liar, has the charisma of a chainsaw, and as for arrogance, come the fuck on. And people don’t want to hear about sexism.

                  1. Trump has charisma. I don’t quite understand how it works, but I did not understand the hero worship for Bubba Clinton and Barry O either.

                    1. Trump has charisma.

                      ^ This.

                      The only charisma litmus test you need to apply for Trump vs. Hillary is to ask whether Hillary could carry her own TV show.

                      I think most people would literally destroy their televisions rather than risk even catching a glancing exposure to such a show.

                    2. I’ll say it again: sexism. Trump has no charisma. He just has no charisma with a deep voice, and it’s not even deep, it’s screechy and very unpleasant. Name a charismatic woman. Name me one.

                    3. Even his cankles are bigger.

                    4. I’ll say it again: sexism.

                      Yes, you will. And again, and again, and again.

                      Name a charismatic woman. Name me one.

                      Oprah Winfrey.

                      Sexist much?

                    5. I was sure there were some. But you can’t think of many, can you?

                    6. But you can’t think of many, can you?

                      Aretha Franklin
                      Meg Whitman
                      Margaret Thatcher
                      Angela Merkel
                      Kate Bush
                      Meryl Streep
                      Elizabeth Warren
                      Nikki Haley
                      Susan Collins
                      Condoleeza Rice
                      Janet Napolitano

                      That’s just off the top of my head.

                      What do you have against women? I thought your lot was supposed to be the “standing up for women against Evil Sexist Trump” crowd?

                    7. Eva Peron?

                    8. Aung San Suu
                      Indira Ghandi
                      Queen Elizabeth I (but not II)
                      Joan of Arc
                      Emperor Mathilda
                      Margaret Beaufort
                      Elizabeth Woodville

                      This is fun!

                    9. Thus, half of all leaders are women.

                    10. You left out Golda Meir

                    11. “I’ll say it again: sexism.”

                      Because you may have missed his resort to identity politics the last 5 bazillion times he did it.

                    12. I’ll say it again: sexism.

                      If it ain’t racism, it’s gotta be sexism (or maybe one of them “phobias”), amirite?

                    13. Yes, this is why his rallies draw 3-4x the capacity of the venues (I saw this in person in Nashville) and hers drew 1/3-1/4

          2. Don’t need to convince me that “America-hating leftists” is not just a myth or a figure of speech.

          3. She was a Mexican, Tony.

            For all real Americans, that’s enough.

      2. re: “No he got elected by calling his opponents murderers and rapists. ”

        The shallow caricatures you hold as truisms are not accurate.

        1. Saw him say it on TV.

      3. “No he got elected by calling his opponents murderers and rapists. And by opponents I mean Mexicans. But it had nothing to do with identity politics.”

        No, shitbag, he got elected because you and the rest of the fucking lefty ignoramuses hope the hag would look better than him to those who voted.
        You and she lost, shitbag.

        1. He got elected because a critical mass of people concluded that he was the best choice for president among his 20 competitors.
          At this point, I see no reason to doubt my own conclusion that Trump was the best choice of 20 options presented.

      4. “No he got elected by calling his opponents murderers and rapists.”

        He got elected because his opponents were murders and rapists, or apologists for such: The Clintons, et al; Menendez, Waters, Ellison, Perez, Wasserman-Schulz, Hollywood.

    2. Eh, he got elected because we continue to ignore reality and use the electoral college system to elect our President. No electoral college system, no Trump. We’d all be complaining about the Clinton crime family and how Hillary destroyed America right now if we could only manage to modernize our system.

      1. We use the Electoral College because that’s what the Constitution mandates.

        The Founders never intended for the president to be directly elected by the people, but by the states.

        You are free to amend the Constitution if you can, but the EC is a central feature of our system, not a bug, and it has always been that way.

        1. Republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. And what a bang-up job they’ve done. It’s a bug, not a feature.

          1. The Democrats did not win a majority of the national popular vote in at least 3 or 4 of those. elections either.

            1. America: the first loser wins! It’s what made us great surely.

          2. There is no “popular vote” in American election law, dumbass. If we decided on presidents by a simple nationwide majority count, then a lot of states get a very strong incentive to secede.

            -jcr

      2. No electoral college system, no Trump.

        Is there some reason you think Trump would have run the same campaign if he had also been stupid enough to be under the illusion that is how presidents are picked?

        1. Trump, political genius.

          1. Trump, political genius vaguely aware of how our election system works.

            1. His election came as a surprise to him, you know. It probably came as a surprise to Putin.

              1. Wait – I thought him winning was all Putin’s masterful plan? Why would Putin be surprised, of all people?

                And yes, I get that he’s no genius. What I’m suggesting is that it doesn’t take a particular genius to realize that you would run a campaign differently if you had to win the popular vote vs. if you had to win electoral votes.

                1. A losing candidate campaigns in swing states. It’s not fucking rocket surgery.

                  1. A losing candidate campaigns in swing states.

                    Tony Clifton, what do you call someone genius enough to both lose and ignore swing states?

                    Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton!

                  2. A losing candidate campaigns in swing states. It’s not fucking rocket surgery.

                    Is that why HRC spent the final weeks of the campaign working Texas and Alabama and ignoring Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia?

                    If it were straight popular vote, as you advocate, neither would have campaigned outside of CA, NY, TX and FL.

                    1. Boo hoo they’d spend time where the people are instead of fucking Iowa.

                  3. Actually the winning candidate campaigned in swing states.

                    But don’t let the facts disturb your Narrative. You never do.

                    Carry on.

              2. His election came as a surprise to him, you know. It probably came as a surprise to Putin.

                It came as a helluva surprise to me! And I laughed and laughed at the discomfiture it provoked.

      3. jasno|8.31.18 @ 3:51PM|#
        “Eh, he got elected because we continue to ignore reality and use the electoral college system to elect our President.”

        Are you here to [rove you’re a fucking ignoramus, or is that a side benefit?

  8. They were espousing a kind of Nietzschean relativism that said there is no truth, there is no argument that’s superior to any other argument. Yet most of them were committed to a basically Marxist agenda.

    That really helps when all you have is bad arguments.

    1. There no need, and no real justification, to lay any of this at Nietzche’s feet.

      Marxist polylogism was there in Marxism from the beginning. The Pomos just played it up more.

  9. And I thought I read Derrida poorly.

    Anyhoo, one thing Trump is is a big fat rebuke to Fukuyama, as if Bush weren’t already.

    On the other hand, history may not have ended but it’s stuck on repeat. White racial grievance is indeed responsible for Trump, just as it has been responsible for every shitty thing that has happened on this continent since white people showed up. That white racists whose little brains can’t handle people with different complexions sharing their society found a couple Yale kids on YouTube to point to as their triggers doesn’t mean they aren’t still the ones who deserve most of the blame.

    1. Yes, yes, yes, the only thing worse than Western civilization is every other civilization, racists bad, racism bad, yadda yadda yadda.

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

      1. I can’t fix the whole world man.

        1. Might as well just go ahead and convict the majority of Americans for crimes against humanity, and prove his point for him.

          1. I’d settle for the bigots shutting up and minding their own business for once.

            1. Good luck with that, seeing as how much you’ve idealized everyone minding their own business.

            2. Tony|8.31.18 @ 3:22PM|#
              I’d settle for the bigots shutting up and minding their own business for once.”

              We’re waiting for you to do so, shitbag.

            3. Yet here you remain

        2. Come on, Tony. Remember the leftist method:

          First you take power. Then you consolidate your position. Then you kill everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

          Voil?!

          Whole world fixed.

          1. You wouldn’t know a leftist if one shoved you into an oven.

            1. One of your favorite methods.

              Here’s to nostalgia!

    2. White racial grievance is indeed … responsible for every shitty thing that has happened on this continent since white people showed up.

      Don’t you live in Oklahoma?

      1. Where the mass forced relocation comes sweeping down the plain.

        1. Isn’t the whiteness unbearable? Why not live in Jackson or Birmingham?

          1. People in general are unbearable.

            1. And the other question …

              1. Don’t have family or a job there?

                1. Nope, try again.

                  1. So what am I supposed to do here? Say “I hate the blacks!”–not to prove that I’m a racist, but to justify your own racism because, hey, everybody does it?

                    1. I think you’re supposed to say you really love white people, so much that you choose to live around them all the time.

                    2. but to justify your own racism because, hey, everybody does it?

                      When did Sidd say anything racist? All he did was ask why you choose to live around no one but white people when you hate white people so much.

                    3. Yet another incredibly, boldly stupid conversation.

                    4. I’m sorry. Here, let me try again:

                      “Racism bad! Bad, racism! Bad! Diversity good! I like diversity! It’s better than racism! And that makes me better, too!”

                      All better?

                    5. Yet another incredibly, boldly stupid conversation.

                      You mean, the one that you started and ended up looking incredibly, boldly stupid in?

                      Indeed.

                    6. This guy wrote a song about guys like you.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o80BB0qZoVM

    3. The fundamental organizing principle of the Outer Party of the Modern Left is hatred of White Men, past, present, and future.

      Clearly, Tony is Outer Party.

    4. Tony is starting to sound like that idiotic faux-reverend. All he needs to do is start using words like “goober”, and he’ll nail it.

      1. Tony is starting to sound like that idiotic faux-reverend.

        Has it ever occurred to you the “Rev”. does not actually stand for “Reverend” in his case?

  10. Fukuyama’s book The End of History and the Last Man.

    I remember reading that when it came out. My political awakening years. I had read Rand, Sharansky, Sowell, Friedman, tried to get through some of Nietzsche and others but still do not have enough patience for hard core philosophy. I really had no agenda just read whatever I could get ahold of. Around that time found out there was this thing we call libertarian. It seemed to fit me better than anything else so here I still am.

    Fukuyama was wrong, we know that now and I recall he has said as much but those ideas explain some of the major issues we are still dealing with.

    Everyone talks about Peterson now. I dunno I read the first three chapters of his Rules book. Mostly just the regular common sense advice dressed up with quotes from people like Jung and some pseudoscience. That is fine, all self help gurus do that but he gets more attention than he deserves.

    1. He gets attention because he participates in the culture war; the self help stuff is less relevant. He is anathema to the collectivist left’s goal of ideological domination. That’s why our village idiots (Tony, Cathy L, et al) have nothing but contempt for him.

  11. Great interview.

  12. SERIOUSLY? It’s right-wing identity politics that Trump is still milking. White identity is much deeper than just white nationalists. He launched his Presidential campaign with it. And he still exploits it on immigration. Plus his outrageous Charlottesville. lies.

    It’s falling part His unapproval is at a record high, A plurality of Americans want him impeached, including 63% of women. And even a Fox News poll shows Mueller with significantly more support than Trump. A majority still wants Mueller’s probe to continue.

    But Trump’s Cult, of course, expects the second coming of Christ any day now, to canonize Saint Donald.
    Before he’s imprisoned.

    1. Yep, Trump is going to drop out any day now. He’ll never make it past Iowa.

      1. Relevance?

        1. Fuck off, Hihn.

    2. Trump and his supporters are the primary civic nationalists left.

      The ruling reptiles are globalists, with the fundamental organizing principle of the Modern Left being hatred of white men.

  13. Trump isn’t a phenomenon apart from postmodernism; he is the Prince of Postmodernism. Derrida and the philosophists of ’68 were bullshitters from the get-go, their latte-swilling, beret-wearing community college adherents notwithstanding. After enduring three decades of postmodern relativist gibberish, conservatives finally woke up and smelled the coffee. They said, “OK. If Bruce Jenner is a hero and Hillary Clinton is a savior, how about a vulgar, washed-up, B-team celebrity for president? How’s that for creating reality?”
    Now the regressives are running around like so many chickens with their heads cut off, crowding each other as they bounce off the walls of the coop. Even the anarchists from Lake Oswego, those brave freedom fighters in ski masks who vandalized Portland, can’t fix this one. What to do? What new unreality can liberals conjure to counter Trump’s monumental, disjointed version? Are there any special interest groups left to buy a berth in their fantasy?

    1. Do you people ever take personal responsibility for anything?

      1. Hatred. It’s the only way they can feel manly (since they’re actually pussies)
        It’s a tiny hands thing.

        1. For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, it’s a tiny penis thing.

  14. as a postmodern neo-Marxist, since postmodernism and Marxism are competing philosophies that disagree on a host of things.

    Every talk I’ve heard Peterson give says that postmodernism in the campuses came OUT of Marxism when Marxism was finally discredited as the bodies started smelling up the room and people could no longer ignore them.

    Jordan Peterson is by far not the first person to make this suggestion, he’s just a “controversial figure” because he also has suggested some fundamental differences between men and women.

    1. After World War II and the revelations about Stalin’s crimes, academic Marxists began migrating from traditional, economic Marxism to a culture-based version, even dropping the Marxist name. The first group, the Frankfurt School?which led to the rise of Western Marxism and Cultural Marxism?originated in Germany. Some of the School’s members migrated to the United States. Among these was Herbert Marcuse, who in 1965 published the essay, “Repressive Tolerance.” [1] Marxist literary criticism came with Frederic Jameson’s 1984 book The Political Unconscious,[2]and was further advanced by Marxist Terry Eagleton in his 1983 book Literary Theory.[3] These critics attempted to interpret literature as “fragments of a discourse of class struggle” (Jameson) and as “a way of characterizing the transition . . . from bourgeois to socialist morality” (Eagleton). Other academics joined in moving from Marxism to literary theory and deconstruction. Professors Christopher Norris (University of Wales), Richard Rorty (Columbia), and Cornel West (Princeton) are in this group. However, Professor Norris in 1994, after 20 years of involvement, abandoned deconstruction after observing the failure of social justice reasoning in Africa and the Soviet Union.

    2. The Media. In 2001 William McGowan, a columnist variously for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review and the Wall Street Journal, wrote Coloring the News in which he summarizes, “Today’s journalists may not themselves have read Derrida or Michael Foucault, but they have been educated in an ambiance where ideas hostile to objectivity have become the white noise of the academic endeavor, and where ‘race-class-gender’ has become a brain-numbing intellectual mantra.” This is “contextualized” with “content audit” and “diversity management” in the operation of newspapers.[9]

    3. postmodernism in the campuses came OUT of Marxism when Marxism was finally discredited

      I think this is true, and the blind effort to save something, anything, of Marxism has led to some of the most creative philosophical thinking of recent centuries.

      Essentially the same thing happened in the thirteenth century when the European intellectual community’s Neo-Platonism was challenged by Aristotelian physics (and metaphysics). They point-blank refused to abandon Neo-Platonism and literally mandated that certain long-held beliefs be preserved against the critiques of the “Natural Philosophers.”

      That monumentally tall intellectual order is what gave us Thomas Aquinas and, eventually, Newton.

      1. “…postmodernism in the campuses came OUT of Marxism when Marxism was finally discredited…”

        As patriotism is a last refuge, Po Mo offered the discredited dimbulb left a refuge from reality on the collapse of the commies in ’89; it allowed them to still claim that logic really isn’t anything great, while never quite getting around to explaining how ‘women’s engineering’ has yet to get an airplane in the air.

  15. Nothing is more libertarian than taking issue with criticisms of Marxism and postmodernism

    1. It’s when the criticism is fdumbfuck, by the equally-authoritarian right.
      May I assume that you, like most of your tribe, think communism is always state communism?
      Totally ignorant that Ayn Rand defended voluntary communes, ;like the Oneidans, the Israeli kibbutz and thousands of others? Mindlessly equate Bernie Sanders with Stalin?

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano burps out his stupidity again.

      2. John Galt Jr|8.31.18 @ 8:28PM|#
        “It’s when the criticism is fdumbfuck, by the equally-authoritarian right.”

        Fucking ignoramus Hihn hopes his idiotic assertion might be confused with an argument.
        Hint, ignoramus: No one is going for it. You have a well deserved rep, and you get to wear it.

        1. Evasion

          “May I assume that you, like most of your tribe, think communism is always state communism?
          Totally ignorant that Ayn Rand defended voluntary communes, ;like the Oneidans, the Israeli kibbutz and thousands of others? Mindlessly equate Bernie Sanders with Stalin?”

          Or perhaps cowardly.
          Both?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his quote-a-day calendar constitutes coherent thought.

        2. Yes, both sides are equally authoritarian

          The side that implements hundreds of thousands of needless counterproductive regulations is equally Authoritarian as the side that repeals hundreds of thousands of needless counterproductive regulations

          The side that wants to seize more of our money, and mandate what insurance we buy, vs the side that wants us to keep more of our money and have choices. Equally Authoritarian.

          The side that wants to mandate who goes to jail and who gets into college, who gets promoted and who gets government largesse, who wins awards and who gets to speak in society by what skin color they are or what genitals they prefer, vs the side that wants to uphold the same standards for everybody – equally authoritarian

          The side who wants to dictate how corporations behave, what they say, mandate that employees pick their bosses, not the owners, force kids into failing government schools that are more concerned with careerism for bureaucrats than the kids they are meant to serve, and and force everyone to join a union against their will….

  16. It wasn’t Leftist identity politics that caused Trump. It was conservatives like me complaining about Leftist identity politics that gave us all this greatness. Come on, Robby, give credit where it is due: to red-blooded Americans like me who live in Bumfuck, Missouri concerned about the effect that transgendered activists will have on our way of life. Didn’t you see how To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar changed Patrick Swwyze? Not pretty.

      1. No, R.I.P. Trans juices got to Patrick before his time. I can only hope that my days of going to raves, taking drugs and? most importantly?dressing in drag won’t cause me an early exit. I’m hoping that because i’m now A conservative Republican that God will cut me a break. I’m on the straight and narrow now, thank Jesus.

      2. C’mon.
        OBL has actual quality

  17. ‘Democratic conduct made right-wingers misogynistic, racist, gay-bashing, Bible-thumping, immigrant-hating, stale-thinking goobers (or, at least, backward yahoos who appease bigotry and ignorance)?’

    Fox will book this guy in a heartbeat, because the yahoos lack self-awareness.

    1. This so called Rev. is a charlatan

      1. …and as phony as Bark Obama’s peace prize

        1. You mean he’s a real Reverend?
          He certainly shows no sign of having earned it. Or being worthy of it.
          So he’s got that part down, but I doubt his bona fifes.

          1. I suspect he really is a reverend, but it may be in some decidely non-mainstream religion, like the Pastafarians or that Big Lebowski-inspired Church of Dudeism. (Though I doubt it’s the latter.)

            It is probably mostly a tax deduction thing anyway.

            1. “that Big Lebowski-inspired Church of Dudeism” Yeah I converted but got excommunicated. Their version of communion involved cheese fries and white Russians. I guess I went through the line too many times and couldn’t recite the catechisms.

              1. They swarm and scurry like cockroaches, eager to profess their mindless conformity.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano projects his mindless senility.

                2. John Galt Jr|8.31.18 @ 8:30PM|#
                  “They swarm and scurry like cockroaches, eager to profess their mindless conformity.”

                  “They” do nothing of the sort. “They” respond to your imbecilic posts as you deserve, you pathetic piece of shit.

                  1. Have you ever met a hater doing better than you?

                    Me neither

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks “shitting his pants” is “doing better.”

                    2. Finally, Hihn breaks out the bold type. (In defense of aggression, no doubt)

                    3. Two sock puppets,

                      Have you ever met a hater doing better than you?

                      Me neither

                    4. Dumbfuck Hihnsano projects his sockpuppets.

  18. “Fukuyama seems to agree with Peterson.”

    How about ‘Fukuyama agrees with Peterson”. No “seems to”. Do you trust your own powers of observation and thought?

    1. Fukuyama and Peterson are right, and there’s a boatload of evidence to back them up. Postmodernism and Marxism are not by any stretch “competing” philosophies. They may be “different” philosophies, but I’d hardly describe them as “competing”.

      How much they intersect is certainly subject to debate. But again, the notion that Peterson is making some kind of controversial and new radical declaration that post-modernism shares its DNA with Marxism is bogus. That’s been exactly the observation of many an academic and critic for decades. See my links above.

      1. “How much they intersect is certainly subject to debate.”

        They both at least intersect in the hopes that infantile fantasies regarding reality might release sentient humans from taking responsibility for their actions.
        ‘If only magical thinking released me from the requirement of earning sustenance!’

  19. “Plus: Why Jordan Peterson may be right about postmodern neo-Marxism.”

    Wow, I miss a few articles and Soave has gone full blown Nazi. Did you give up masturbating too Robby?

  20. I just want to be left alone

  21. Take something like Obamacare, which I think was an important policy. A lot of its opponents interpreted it as a race-specific policy: This was the black president doing something for his black constituents.

    Are you friggin kidding me?

    This is the very first time I have ever read such an idea — have we forgotten just a decade ago when a white man (Bill Clinton) attempted to overhaul healthcare and the very same people opposed him!!!

    Fukuyama is an idiot.

    This idea that the major portion of opposition to Obama is racist is disgusting.

    It is getting to the point where rational discussion becomes impossible and only violence can solve our differences — if we haven’t gotten there already.

    1. That was a new one on me as well. Jesus, even the Democrats didn’t try to sell this theory. But to be fair, if they had, it would be the conventional wisdom by now.

    2. A major portion of Obama support was racist “elect a black president”. It is clear how the majority of blacks voted.

      Of course anyone who identifies this fact is a member of the alt right racist opposition.

    3. There really is nothing about Obamacare which is particularly about blacks. A few new rules (breaking the principle of insurance), some fat subsidies.

      When I prepare taxes for people, see a lot of people fined $695 for not buying a crap policy. Any and all races.

  22. Fukuyama and his book “The End of History” is an excellent example of the stupidity and ignorance of America’s intellectual elite. The man really has no idea of what’s going on in the world or in the US.

    1. Hysterical. Irony.

      1. Well, Hihn, for all his faults and puffery, Fukuyama is still way more intelligent and learned than you. Not to mention a better person.

        1. Irony squared.

          1. Irony squared.

            What is “Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s ignorant ravings”?

  23. “leftist identity politics provoked a backlash from the populist right, which in turn gave rise to Donald Trump.” I honestly struggle to understand what these words mean. The “populist right” policies that the elite credit for Trump’s election, immigration and trade, are also supported by Bernie Sanders, the UAW, the USW and the rest of the working class that the Democrats have been tirelessly defending for a century. They are neither left nor right. “populist right” has become a catchall phrase to describe the low information deplorables that elitists like Fukuyama and Robby sneer at because they think paying the mortgage is more important then where a tranny takes a shit.

    1. Realistically, viewing Trump’s election as mostly the result of identity politics is following the same script that has given us problems with identity politics. Trump won the Republican nomination because the party has been running really wishy washy RINO candidates who refuse to fight back at the same level as they are slimed by the media and Democrats. His biggest policy proposals for them was controlling immigration and reforming our laws to benefit Americans first (populism.) He won over enough Democrats to win because Clinton was awful and her nomination over Sanders left a bad taste in their mouths. He is pro-American (as compared to obvious globalism of the current left.) Further, in spite of being repeatedly labeled “far right” Trump is at best a moderate with protectionist ideals. He doesn’t really appear to lean heavily left or right ideologically and aside from immigration and trade rules hasn’t been very aggressive in enacting change.
      There’s also the elephant in the room that Trump has been a celebrity for decades and until he announced as a Republican had much higher positive name recognition than Hillary Clinton.

  24. So an anti-conceptual, Obama-voting collectivist is going to tell us how it is?

  25. What an enlightened government to stick it to these PC Canucks. Way to go, freedom fighters…

    A crucified a convicted murderer in Mecca on Wednesday, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was also busy crucifying Canada’s human-rights record?including making the outlandish claim that Canadian author and Internet celebrity Jordan Peterson had been made a political prisoner by Justin Trudeau’s government. (Peterson, as far as anyone knows, has never been arrested, although his self-help guide received a rather harsh review in The New York Review of Books.) The bizarre feud began Sunday, when Ottawa condemned Riyadh’s arrests of several political activists, including the women’s rights campaigner Samar Badawi, and called for their release. The Saudis?exhibiting their fondness for disproportionate justice?responded by expelling the Canadian ambassador, banning new trade, halting upcoming Saudi Airlines flights to Canada, ordering the removal of some 12,000 Saudi citizens studying at Canadian universities, and barring all Saudi citizens from receiving health care in Canada. (The Trump administration, ever a friend to Riyadh, dismissed the tiff as a “diplomatic issue” and urged both sides to “work it out together.”)

    1. “banning new trade, halting upcoming Saudi Airlines flights to Canada, ordering the removal of some 12,000 Saudi citizens studying at Canadian universities, and barring all Saudi citizens from receiving health care in Canada.”

      Why would you pull in your graduate students, researchers, and medicals?

      Saudis already know they cannot compete at those levels.

      Canada is becoming more interesting every day.

  26. “”End of History Author Francis Fukuyama Thinks Leftist Identity Politics Helped Create Trump”

    Ya think?

    Has he been in a coma the last few years, and only just discovered this?

  27. Unless you’re a Siamese twin, nobody is “left” or “right”.

    It is the most divisive concept facing us all. In our democracy, the choice boils down to one of two cable bundles and by picking one we also get what we don’t want. Some democracy.

    Once again we have the technology, but apparently not the will, to take a giant leap forward.

    With the net, every citizen could vote on the real issues regularly from home. That would eliminate identity politics. 35 years ago I coined it Technological Democracy.

    Anyone still referring to themselves as left or right would demonstrate an unnecessary two dimensional character. Certainly nothing to rally behind.

    1. Indeed, Left and right are obsolete. For at least 50 years now.

      1. “I don’t understand how electoral politics works”

  28. It is exceedingly amusing watching these preening, self-congratulatory and otherwise inane “pundits” and “political philosophers” attempt to proffer allegedly profound and oh-so insightful rationales to explain Trump’s popularity with conservatives, which rationales predictably involve a slew of petty jibes and insults aimed at slandering conservatives — e.g., “the right fears the ‘browning’ of America and the loss of white supremacy;” “the right is too stupid to vote for its economic self-interest;” “the right is racist, sexist, Islamophobic, etc., etc.”

    How about contemplating a far simpler explanation — Trump is popular with conservatives because they want to see a President support the following: robust enforcement of federal immigration laws; low-tax, low-regulation, pro-business, pro-job creation, pro-free market policies; the Second Amendment; religious freedom; and, an unapologetic and unequivocal anti-terrorism posture.

    1. If Trump were anti-terrorist, he’d pull the US military out of the Middle East and cut funding to Israel.

      Bombing Arabs because you want their resources defines terrorism.

      1. You mean oil? The smart, profitable play for the U.S. would be to let the terrorists take the oil fields and ruin them. Crude prices would soar and the U.S. energy companies (and our puppet masters, the Russians) would be coining money from the Chinese and Europeans. No, I think “we” are there because people like McCain think the U.S. should be promoting democracy and wokeness everywhere, even if your son or daughter has to die to make it happen.

  29. “Q. You have an unusual background for a political scientist. You majored in classics at Cornell, then did graduate work in comparative literature at Yale, where you studied with Paul de Man. Later you spent time in Paris sitting in on classes with Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida. Any memories from this journey through deconstruction.

    A. I decided it was total bullshit.”

    Bravo.

  30. When you organize people along ethnic lines, and then tell a single group they’re the only ones who can’t… But all the other groups are explicitly lined up against them… It’s kinda inevitable that the other group will tire of getting shit on, and organize along ethnic lines. It’s natural to our biology anyway, so it would have happened without being pushed any which way sooner or later. Better to just get it out in the open now.

    1. White supremacy = identity politics

    2. Identity politics for everyone or no one.

  31. Gee ya think?

    Democrats have been calling anyone that they disagree with Racist, Nazis, Fascists, Woman Hating, Homophobic, and a few other things for years just because they dared disagree with their LEFTIST policies that usually have no real basis in the real world.

    The Democrats were also instrumental in creating the Tea party because a lot of hard working Americans were tired of being denigrated in this manner for doing nothing wrong.

    The LEFT lives in an Alternate Reality that ignores the failures of their polices, from the huge Murder Rate in their cites to they inability to manage their city and State Debt.

    Funny how they never notice that most of the riots that occur in this country happen in places the Democrats control, not the Republicans.

    A perfect example is the whole idea of WHITE PRIVLEDGE is that because your parents stayed married, you followed the rules, graduated from High School and then went on to work or get educated is some how CHEATING.

    Sorry, but we used to call those kind of people good citizens,

  32. I tend to believe that the person most responsible for an action is the person who supported an action rather than the person who reacted to it. You know, philosophical libertarianism: Free will. So as much as I despised the campus left at my UCLA days and as much as I see Fukuyama’s point, I would point to the mouth-breather, full-bore idiot, not cleverly disguised comments section at Reason before I’d blame leftist identity politics. You can barely find an article where some idiot isn’t commenting that the Civil War “wasn’t about freeing the slaves,” that “straight white males are the REAL OPPRESSED MINORITY in this country,” or that the Civil Rights Acts were entirely terrible because rural gas stations couldn’t refuse service and leave blacks stranded in Deliverance country.

    1. You can barely find an article where some idiot isn’t commenting that the Civil War “wasn’t about freeing the slaves,”

      Fuck you. Read some history.

      -jcr

  33. The superdelegates h

  34. The superdelegates had no qualms stealing the nomination from Hillary in 2008 because she appealed to the white working class and liberals consider those people to be bitter gun clingers that deserve black lung.

    Btw, with respect to Marx’s goals America is actually the most Marxian country in the world because we are not class based and the lowliest American has access to everything Bezos has access to except a private plane.

    1. because we are not class based

      Today I watched an elite political rally disguised as a funeral for a senator that indicates otherwise.

      1. I said as much the other day to someone. They’e using a funeral to push their shitty TDS agenda.

        White trash, low class folk with money and power showcasing their lack of principles and integrity for all who care to see right though their shenanigans and gibberish.

        1. It’s not TDS that was being pushed, this was a week-long gathering of the Optimates desperately trying to justify their existence. It’s like Cato the Younger being lauded for MUH PRINCIPLES despite playing a key role in propping up an increasingly corrupt, sagging institution that was functionally useless and incapable of meeting even the most basic needs of a high-scaled society without enriching themselves in the process.

          The whole grievance theater was grotesque in the extreme, with people who unabashedly slagged McCain while he was alive doing a 180 just because he died, in order to laud his supposed virtues (spoiler: he didn’t have any). His entire professional career, save for the brief time he was a POW, was a tribute to the value of nepotism, opportunistic corruption, and the short memory of the media class, in service to the bastard’s self-aggrandizement.

          The only time anyone on the left was ever honest about what they thought of McCain was in 2008.

  35. Bingo….at least partly.

  36. Repeat after me.

    The right-wing backlash that produced President Trump is the fault of the right wing and the Republican politicians who watched their party turn towards ignorance and bigotry and did nothing.

    Not Democrats. Not Obama. Not Clinton. Not identity politics.

    Trump is a creature of the Republican Party. The nominated him, supported him, voted for him, and now they kowtow spinelessly to him.

    1. Technically, you’re right, Bernard11. Ceaseless liberal hate and bullying created the Tea Party movement, which easily morphed into Trumpism. But Democrats stood back and held the door wide open for the Republican Party when they turned their back on the poor and the middle class — and auctioned off their influence to any wacky identity cult with the right amount of cash. Maxine Waters showed how desperate liberals have become when she called for publicly terrorizing members of Trump’s administration. At this point, all Trump’s 2018 campaign has to do is keep replaying Waters’ hate speech over and over and over for six weeks before the vote. Trump won’t even need to raise any money or make any speeches. The Democrats are already re-electing him.

  37. If you’re tired of working and do not know how to relax, then go to the site of an escort in London https://escortsitelondon.com , where you can always choose a sexy girl for a hot evening

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.