Whither political leanings?

[Hamilcar]

Incidentally, and to go back a bit to Hami's original post, I don't think "classic liberalism" was ever truly popular as a political or social ideology.

Maybe you are right. At least people in postwar societies were sufficiently content to let broadly liberal elites run the show. That seems to be on the wane, and the choices are now authoritarian left and authoritarian right.

[Malthus]

... more seriously though...

I think the bottom line is that the political consensuses have gotten stale. The lessons of WWII have receded far enough that nationalism shading into bigotry is less beyond the pale than it used to be. The Soviet Union's collapse broke down the Cold War consensus (and another notable example of the ills of Totalitarianism). And the acceleration of free trade, the global marketplace, and entrepreneurial "disruption" in all sorts of areas has slowly been eating away at the social democratic consensus.

There's a bit of a malaise going around and the only big ideas being offered are re-heated nationalism, radical religion, and valorizing the entrepreneur-as-hero which isn't much to choose from IMO. Much as I'm aligned to some sort of liberal cosmopolitanism it often boils down to "let's just more or less muddle along" which frequently falls to be compelling.

So yeah... it's a bit of a mess. Gives me a bit of a before the storm vibe, to be honest.

This looks basically like the POV of small-c conservatism: the present, while deeply imperfect, is actually pretty good (even if the recent past was better), the alternatives for change on offer all look like steps in the wrong direction. Better to make incremental improvements than the big, ugly changes that are being proposed; attempt to go back, insofar as possible, to a time when there was some sort of social consensus. 

[Hamilcar]

This looks basically like the POV of small-c conservatism: the present, while deeply imperfect, is actually pretty good (even if the recent past was better), the alternatives for change on offer all look like steps in the wrong direction. Better to make incremental improvements than the big, ugly changes that are being proposed; attempt to go back, insofar as possible, to a time when there was some sort of social consensus.

Small c conservatism doesn't strike me as all that bad these days. I could probably find quite a bit of common ground with someone holding this position. My problem is that they, like the old liberals, are in ever shorter supply.

[Malthus]

This looks basically like the POV of small-c conservatism: the present, while deeply imperfect, is actually pretty good (even if the recent past was better), the alternatives for change on offer all look like steps in the wrong direction. Better to make incremental improvements than the big, ugly changes that are being proposed; attempt to go back, insofar as possible, to a time when there was some sort of social consensus.

Small c conservatism doesn't strike me as all that bad these days. I could probably find quite a bit of common ground with someone holding this position. My problem is that they, like the old liberals, are in ever shorter supply.

I tend to describe myself as a small-c conservative.

[The Minsky Moment]

From my classes on "history of ideologies" at college, I remember that, broadly speaking, the Western political thought is divided into three camps - liberalism (with John Stuart Mill and John Locke as its "fathers"), conservatism (with Edmund Burke) and collectivism (with Jean Jacques Rousseau).

Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian.  The modern Left has drifted from both Millsianian liberalism and Bernsteinist collectivism (trade unionism, the universalist welfare state) under the influence of utopian ideals of perfectionism. That is where the oft-derided "identity politics" comes from - a drive to achieve a kind of perfected justice and meaning to every individual.

[Jacob]

Rosseau wasn't a collectivist though, he was utopian.  The modern Left has drifted from both Millsianian liberalism and Bernsteinist collectivism (trade unionism, the universalist welfare state) under the influence of utopian ideals of perfectionism. That is where the oft-derided "identity politics" comes from - a drive to achieve a kind of perfected justice and meaning to every individual.

Is that what identity politics is about?

I mean, I get that there's a subset of people who is using political language to turn the conversation to be all about themselves; and there's another subset who seem to primarily invested in pointing out and denouncing people who are insufficiently pure in political position.

But at the core, it seems to me that a significant amount of the substance of what gets dismissed as "identity politics" are about fairly practical things - Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, trans rights, equality in the workplace and women entering various "boys clubs" are not just about utopian ideals of perfected justice and meaning to every individual, but about the distribution of power with material impact on the lives of subaltern groups much like liberalism, trade unionism, and the universalist welfare state.

[The Minsky Moment]

BLM or gay marriage can just as easily be interpreted through the lens of Millsian liberalism.  BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity - which is one reason why the response "all lives matter" is so extraordinary obtuse.  Gay marriage is about a straight application ()of liberal principles as can be imagined.

Of course the political mobilization and rhetoric underlying these movements is often cast in identity terms, both for and against. 

[The Brain]

But at the core, it seems to me that a significant amount of the substance of what gets dismissed as "identity politics" are about fairly practical things - Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, trans rights, equality in the workplace and women entering various "boys clubs" are not just about utopian ideals of perfected justice and meaning to every individual, but about the distribution of power with material impact on the lives of subaltern groups much like liberalism, trade unionism, and the universalist welfare state.

Not in Sweden at least. Here it's identity politics through and through. It's no longer about women having the same opportunities as men, but about having equal numbers of men and women in various positions.

[Valmy]

BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity

Or rather it should be. Did you read their list of demands? Loony tunes. Pity.

[Jacob]

BLM or gay marriage can just as easily be interpreted through the lens of Millsian liberalism.  BLM is about the citizens fundamental right to security of every citizen irrespective of ethnicity - which is one reason why the response "all lives matter" is so extraordinary obtuse.  Gay marriage is about a straight application ()of liberal principles as can be imagined.

Of course the political mobilization and rhetoric underlying these movements is often cast in identity terms, both for and against.

Yeah that makes sense to me. So, it seems to me, that the term "identity politics" is mostly used to dismiss legitimate concerns by claiming "you're just a spoiled person trying to make it all about yourself in your quixotic quest for identity, your concerns don't matter."

[Valmy]

Yeah that makes sense to me. So, it seems to me, that the term "identity politics" is mostly used to dismiss legitimate concerns by claiming "you're just a spoiled person trying to make it all about yourself in your quixotic quest for identity, your concerns don't matter."

The thing that worries me is it seems to provide excuses to attack people you disagree with as being outside enemies, if they are outside your identity, or traitors if they are inside it. Another reason to close ranks and hate outsiders and define people as 'others'. But I could be wrong about that. In any case that factor doesn't really matter in the context of whether or not concerns or causes are legitimate.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah that makes sense to me. So, it seems to me, that the term "identity politics" is mostly used to dismiss legitimate concerns by claiming "you're just a spoiled person trying to make it all about yourself in your quixotic quest for identity, your concerns don't matter."

That's how it is used negatively.  My comment in this thread wasn't intended to take any particular position though.  One could view the utopian drive to find meaning in individual identity more positively. One could also see "identity politics" as a way of forcing recognition of certain historical realities that tilt the playing field.  I have sympathies for both those views.  Of course all political claims can be subject to over-reaching.

[Jacob]

That's how it is used negatively.  My comment in this thread wasn't intended to take any particular position though.  One could view the utopian drive to find meaning in individual identity more positively. One could also see "identity politics" as a way of forcing recognition of certain historical realities that tilt the playing field.  I have sympathies for both those views.  Of course all political claims can be subject to over-reaching.

Yeah I pretty much agree.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The world is in an era of turbulent change for the better.

that is what you (edit: and everyone else, ideally. don't want to vouch for survivalists and such) hope. There are, throughout history, sufficient periods of turbulent change that were not for the better.
We'll know the answer once the turbulence end, but not before.

[Martinus]

The problem with "identity politics" is that it often ignores a complex interplay of power dynamics between individuals and groups, reducing them to one or two defining characteristics, that could be entirely secondary in the context of a specific situation.

A perfect example is a group of hobos catcalling after a woman passing by in a Prada businesssuit. In an "identity politics" reading of the situation, she is a victim and they are oppressors - even though in fact she is infinitely more privileged than they are.