Here are a couple of quotes from the comments I found myself sympathetic to (the argument is that the media has a center left bias, and looks at politics through this bias)…up to a point.
“the concept of government officials (presidents in particular) as “leaders,” which chips away at individualism and liberty and promotes the state’s power.”
Well, they are leaders, but in this case I think the reader means a submission to authority which alligns with one’s unchallenged beliefs, as though those beliefs couldn’t be reasonably challenged. Aside from political concerns, it’s intellectually lazy. I don’t think it’s going anywhere.
Here’s another one:
“…terms such as “the Hispanic vote” or “the black community.” This one is easy, of course: It presents American society as a batch of blocs, rather than as a country of individuals, and again plays into the leftist idea that all relationships are about power, etc.”
Identity politics can potentially reward loyalty to groups and fiefdoms and erode individual, and other deeper, unifying national identities. But if you’re a strict libertarian, how far do you take individualism? After all, the schools, the roads, the collection of taxes, the military, even civic life itself rests upon some sort of social contract. Can you stay reasonable? Maybe he should look at the work of Robert Nozick, as opposed to say…John Rawls.
Perhaps one can imagine in the not too distant future the fiefdoms, identity groups and races potentially uniting (if we’re lucky) in a common national cause under a national banner against a common enemy…with say…an unwise war resulting.
But I’m not so sure, it’s tough to say.
See Also On This Site: From Andrew Sullivan: A Brief Discussion Of John Rawls..From The City Journal: The Roar Of Justice-Philosopher Raymond Geuss, An Idealist In Realist’s Clothing..From Prospect: Eric Kaufmann On ‘The Meaning Of Huntington’..From The Hoover Institution: Stanley Kurtz On Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington