Roger L. Simon: Identity Politics in Rigor Mortis

David Brooks has a smart column in the NYT today - The Identity Trap - that almost doesn't go far enough. Identity politics isn't just "dead," in the immortal words of Preston Sturges, "it's decomposed." (Sturges was referring to "chivalry.")

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are like woolly mammoths trying to keep their feet out of the La Brea Tar Pits. Everyone knows Colin Powell could have been elected President years ago. And Ms. Magazine is as much an artifact of another era as the original Sears, Roebuck catalog (although of less cultural interest). The idea of a woman President being something extraordinary is an eye-roller in a time when women already outnumber men in law and medical school. The way thngs are going, it's the man President that may be the exception in thirty or forty years.

So Brooks is right - let's hope the candidates can spare us the identity drivel. He throws a bouquet to Clinton when it comes to substance: "When she talks about policy, she will dazzle you." But doesn't mention Obama in that area. I'm not surprised. There isn't much to say. I have no idea what Obama really stands for. He's been brilliant at being evasive. John McCain - whose every policy has been torn apart, deconstructed and spit out by the folks at NRO and elsewhere - should be envious. Or maybe not. McCain, unlike Clinton and Obama, has real experience. Voters may be responding to that. It's a good deal more substantive that blather about "hope" and "change."

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Sorry. On a completely different topic, what is the significance of this writer's strike article? Normal labor relations, or are the wheels coming off? Something in between?
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/article/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20080115:hollywood_labor

Identity politics is alive and well in American politics. One only needs to take a look at the pastor of Barack Obama's church. As matter of fact, identity politics underpins much, if not even most black political activity. They have been encouraged to behave this way by guilt tripped white liberals. This is why Obama must capture the presidential nomination if the Democrats have any chance of defeating the Republicans in November. A relatively slight drop of six to ten percent of black voter participation will likely spell doom for the Democratic Party.

Obama is selling himself and he has the advantage of an as yet untainted product. But it's basically glamor (from Scots glamour; a spell of illusion).

Substance could be analyzed, attacked. This way he is whatever the voters want him to be. It meshes well with the left's desire for a transcendent, iconic leader. The left has long since regressed to European style tribalism, and they want a tribal leader.

It did terrible in Peoria then, I don't know who told her it would fear any better now.

We all know what happened – the play fail to derail Thomas. The more her camp harps hers/his identity the more it helps Obama. When it comes to identity he's got that jujitsu down.

I agree with Brooks. She needs to change her act. I for one don't think she can.

A glaring example of why she must "not to go there" will be when Obama goes on with Russert. (if he ever does)

I bet a batteryless Ipod Russert will put on the velvet gloves. He won't be "prenetrating" nor "probing" ;)

I have always liked the double redundancy of "the La Brea Tar Pits" -- which, when rendered entirely in English, means "the the tar tar pits."

Sorry but I don't think that Colon Powell could have become President or would have been a very good President. He was strictly an affirmative action hire. His behavior during the Plame affair when he sat on the knowledge that Richard Armitage was the leaker shows he was not an honorable man. Like Condoleeza Clueless Rice he has not distinguished himself as Sec. of State.

Powell and Rice are Magic Negroes, like the originally named one, Obama. We want to like them because they are Oreos, and in liking them we feel better about ourselves since we have thereby proven ourselves non-bigots. But they are empty suits with empty heads. I just love Generals who won't fight without a prior guarantee of victory (Powell's "overwhelming force" policy), don't you?

I just love Generals who won't fight without a prior guarantee of victory (Powell's "overwhelming force" policy), don't you?

The Powell Doctrine was born of Vietnam, when the military got stabbed in the back by the politicians and press.

Not practical, when war gets declared on you. But Powell only had to deal with wars that were optional.

But war is not a sport, let the liberals moan about "fairness" we fight to win!

From Roger:
There isn't much to say. I have no idea what Obama really stands for. He's been brilliant at being evasive.

I've been admonished by one Annonymous (on another site) for calling Obama "an empty suit":
"Dear lazy citizen of the US,
You can't depend on the 15 sec soundbites from media coverage....That you don't know Obama's stands on issues is you own fault. Go to the (official Obama campaign website), there he laid out his policy details."

My answer:
"Dear Annonymous of the world,
How does that strategy work out for your job interview? Or someone tries to make a sell?"

From Roger:
There isn't much to say. I have no idea what Obama really stands for. He's been brilliant at being evasive.

I've been admonished by one Anonymous (on another site) for calling Obama "an empty suit":
"Dear lazy citizen of the US,
You can't depend on the 15 sec soundbites from media coverage....That you don't know Obama's stands on issues is you own fault. Go to the (official Obama campaign website), there he laid out his policy details."

My answer:
"Dear Anonymous of the world,
How does that strategy work out for your job interview? Or someone tries to make a sell?"

> The Powell Doctrine was born of Vietnam, when the military got stabbed in the back by the politicians and press.

Overwhelming military superiority doesn't affect, let alone stop, backstabbing by the politicians and/or press.

In fact, it somewhat helps with the backstabbing because it gives them cover. ("We're so strong that it doesn't matter if we lose." and "We're so strong, we should fight blindfolded with both hands tied behind our backs.")

January 15, 2008: Identity Politics in Rigor Mortis

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post