Yascha's last point is worth exploring more. Sometimes these "off the rails" conservatives are actually hitting talking points that ARE important to discuss, but because of who they are the talking point will be dismissed with the rest of the baggage that they carry as nonsense. This is the danger of tribalism, you cant cross lines to have meaningful discussions if your Tribe isnt interested in that conversation. Yascha actually calls David out for this earlier in the interview... David says the amount of finger-pointing needs to "proportionate" to the damage being caused (the right is much worse David says), Yascha is saying am I right to bring this up or not. It is very hard for anyone to check their bias (or their tribe), and think in an openminded way every time you get into a discussion. It's exhausting emotionally and mentally, but we all need to do better at it.
I recently finished graduate school in public health. The entire curriculum was preoccupied with identity politics. It was the only focus. This obsession of the left is far more prevalent than David acknowledges.
This just isn't possible, LOL. "The Left " isn't a real thing. His opening sentences are crazy nonsense. Promises? What is he talking about? Congrats though. You're showing us how Iraq happened.
I feel like David is so worried about over stating the extent to which toxic identity politics exists on the left that he sometimes risks under stating it.
"Risk", LOL. There's no center, so that's not really possible. It's so funny how writing the words makes it seem real, though? Where would you even get this wisdom without any experience from?
Why identitarianism on the right is less of a problem: because it's associated with reaction, oppression, supremacy, etc, and everyone understands that. Fascists know they are being bad and criminal, that they want to lower social standards to have more power, etc. Identitarianism on the so-called "left" is a more complicated mixed matter because it involves: 1) civil rights for groups within a universalist and liberal democratic framework, 2) anti-oppression within a socialist framework of emancipatory universality and that makes class struggle central to analysis, 3) postmodern and cultural studies approaches that are anti-universalist, focused on representation and the cultural turn, discourse theory-oriented and therefore focused on power, difference politics, victim politics, etc. Much identity politics is a product of postwar scholarship and as the New Left moved away from mass politics and macro-politics, group politics began to function as a supplement rather than a challenge to capitalism. At this stage, much of the 60s activism has been co-opted as "progressive neoliberalism," which in a post-structuralist optic, can barely be distinguished from postmodern post-representation and post-politics. So you have candidates like Obama, Clinton, AOC and Harris who combine anti-oppression rhetoric with oppression. This is why the debate is between the genuine left, which is socialist, and liberal-leftism to neoliberalism - which is the politics of the PMC. Since the neoliberals ( Dems ) agree with most of the same policy positions as the neocons ( GOP ), and they have the same donors, the right takes the opposite side of the culture war to demarcate itself, using demagoguery instead of virtue signalling. Rather than racism confusing the relation between labour and capital, you have anti-racist confusing the relation between labour and capital. If you don't think these issues are omnipresent, you have not looked at publishers' catalogues or walked into a book store in 10 years, or attended an academic conference, or watched a Hollywood movie, or have friends, family or co-workers, etc. 20 million participated in BLM marches. etc.
I totally agree with Mounk. The left (of which I consider myself) is on a slippery slope. It's not liberalism to silence ideas. It's not liberalism to segregate. It's not liberalism to put emotions ahead of the best available science. We've become so obsessed with constructing our own identities as well as online realities. We "mute" or "unfollow" things that challenge us. We get offended, we point fingers, we virtue signal, we cancel. And we think that behavior should apply to real life as well. It's not healthy and it's not solving any of the real problems the world is facing.
Yep and the left much like the Right (which is sad to say out loud) is befallen by believing whatever social movement feels the best to their emotions. Seeing people, friends even take the side of Hamas has been insane, seeing the left drop all of their values to support Palestine to the extent they are doing to me is emotional/factless and makes no sense for a Liberal, how could liberals support some of the things BLM did, it is a liberal value to not allow people to infringe the rights of others…Hamas displays zero regard for this, BLM appears to hold zero regard as well. Yes the far right is disgusting and maybe Israels government deserves much criticism but from what I see as a life ling atheist liberal, the far left holds not a single value other than factless-emotional plees.
Well, in some ways there has been a very real break from liberalism on the whole by many moderate Democrats (libs) and some significant parts of the Left. You're right though that the opportunity to grab power by sacrificing formerly held values is behind it. Such temptation also occurs to everyone all the time in relationships and moneymaking.
Where is this happening? There's no "Left". The Right just declares ""We are one of two sides, the good one ".. There's nothing organized in any manner to lay any broad descriptions at all.
David is doing the right thing. If you claim something and only have andeotes then it's not reliable data because your sample size is too small & unrepresentative. It's like someone seeing 100 Grey Birds and then telling people all Birds are Grey.
Why bring him on then disrespect him by saying 'well, you didn't write a book about x did you?' When people behave like David did in this podcast, you alienate far more people than you convert.
David is doing the right thing. If you claim something and only have andeotes then it's not reliable data because your sample size is too small & unrepresentative. It's like someone seeing 100 Grey Birds and then telling people all Birds are Grey.
Yascha is arguing we need to focus on identity less. Yet when he talks about identity, he sounds extremely well-informed, serious and compassionate. That makes it hard not to side with him on this.
Put the boot on the other foot for a second. Suppose Christian nationalist ideas weren't really a big factor in the voting polls because economics were much important to the average voter. But at the same time Christian nationalists had strong foot in the door of the educational infrastructure (the teachers who teach the teachers), were activists in influentual NGOs, had managed to get their ideas into corporations via Human Resources infrastructure. Would you say there's nothing to worry about?
Yascha’s analysis is a helpful antidote to popular pseudo-intellectuals like James Lindsay and Chris Rufo; As well as their reductive and reassuringly simplistic alt-histories.
This is a terribly executed interview. I had to stop it two-thirds of the way through. David Pakman's point seems to be that we should wait until the problem is a lot worse before talking about it, rather than acknowledging that the left's ability to counter racism, nationalism, etc. is mitigated precisely insofar as the left embraces what Mounk is calling the "identity trap." Pakman's stubborn defensiveness probably explains why the interviews with Mounk on this issue are predominantly by conservative hosts. That is unfortunate for the left.
I'm taking a tour in the opposite direction, from alternative media to MSM. Holy sht, the US is about to be taken over by fascist trumpism and all the online left is talking about is medicare. It's like waking up to a nightmare from a sweet dream that i was put into by the online left.
The show seems nice enough but I wish the host would have let Yascha talk more about the book and ideas instead of keep saying Right Wing populism is worse. It’s like what Yascha said, should he have been allowed to write the book and talk about it? Nothing personal, I just wanted to hear more about the books and ideas instead of the host pushing that point way too much on the program.
David is doing the right thing. If you claim something and only have andeotes then it's not reliable data because your sample size is too small & unrepresentative. It's like someone seeing 100 Grey Birds and then telling people all Birds are Grey.
Drives me crazy when its argued i don't see the evidence, and when you give anecdotal examples, they say anecdotes are misleading. When you point to ideas, whole agencies, policies, laws, its then claimed you dont have examples of actual impact on people (anecdotes). Thinking that way leaves you with this irreputable circle of a blinkered consciousness.
"the irreputable circle of blinkered consciousness". Beautiful nonsense. Generations raised on bratty op-ed punditry instead of reality and humility. Idiocracy with a diploma.
People are very emotionally invested in idpol because it’s their identities, so it’s the ultimate in personal becoming political. Unfortunately, this leads to extremely bad faith discussions on the issues and some perverse essentialist outcomes, that perpetuate and create new forms of bigotry. I wish David had given more space for discussion of the substantive ideas here; if he does not agree with the prevalence then he should probably not bother with the interview? I thought that was a bit disingenuous.
I'm 100% going to vote for Biden in 2024. However, it was insane that he said he was going to put "a black woman" on the SCOTUS and there was no backlash. So yes, we do have a major problem with identity politics as well as outright anti-white racism. This is what led to the rise of Trumpism.
@@asusmctablet9180 Race and gender shouldn't be factors. If the best person for the job just so happens to be a black woman, fine, but that shouldn't be what the president is looking for when nominating judges.
He explained why more people are turned off by authoritarianism that they associate with the Left and end up voting for Trump, even if they have left-of-center liberal views on most social issues.
David was largely defensive...both in spoken content and in body language. This is a huge problem for those of us on the left. It was clear some time ago (e.g. at the time of Trump's election) but this line of reasoning and policy are driving our natural constituency into the arms of the far right. I see folks double downing on Identity politics rather than critically examining it.
How can you tell its a problem... just watched Packman squirm saying it's legitimate, but searching for a way to object to someone examining its origins and concerns.
Whenever you separate people by group, the people tend to think their group is better or special in some way. You separate by race, you encourage racism. You can have cultural/ race identity without separating people.
I’m assuming you are talking about the black parent vs black school board administrator the guest was talking about… and in reference to that I believe you’re dodging the fact that if you are surrounded by people from within minority communities, you’ll know that there can be a friction between black and white people due to the history of that area, specifically in areas which have generations of families still living there, i.e., Atlanta. So when you hear about a black person wanting their child to be in a class with other black kids, or Vice versa, in this case, then it is assumed, by way of the history of the area, that they want their child to not be as exposed to racism as they can, in the reverse it would be to be teach the child diversity and in both cases has nothing to do with the parent teaching racism to their child. It’s more an issue of “sticking with your own kind”, which obviously doesn’t work, especially in the USA where there isn’t a sense of unity in Nationalism unless you are an outwardly proud American Nationalist. This idea trickles down into minority communities where then you have, for example, black on black crime, or minorities swallowing the “red pill”, where people don’t trust or respect their ancestral roots and want to conform to something else. This is a HUGE issue in the USA and is the exact reason why David Pakman bought it is as literally stemming from Conservatives because their history speaks exactly to identify politics.
@@Anuchan Eehhhh, I disagree with that. Especially if ethnicity is attached to the race of the person, in such case, we’re going to treat a native born Buddhist differently than a native Arabic Muslim. Or a White Russian differently than a Black Voodooist. It’s about teaching that we all have differences and to respect different beliefs not that one is better than the other.
@@banehelsing7541 Do you treat Jews differently from Christians? Or Muslims? Unless the topic is religion or culture, everyone's the same in a secular classroom.
@@Anuchan There are differences in how we interact with Christians versus Jews, etc. I’m not saying that we aren’t equal I’m just saying that we’re going to interact and treat people differently and sometimes it can be due to their ethnicity + race because we’re talking about different cultures. Even within Christian sects, for example, one Christian may say bad words and another doesn’t, one Muslim May be against alcohol the other not, ect… it’s very individually based.
You don’t think wars, terrorism, famines, refugee crises, world economic issues don’t have affects on other nations, their domestic politics, or identity politics? The conflict between Israel and Palestine alone has inflamed identity politics in a very clear way.
@@TheGoodShepherd117 Not directly. In each case, it is still the existence of racism and bigotry that causes the identity politics. Not the fact that the affairs are international. This guy is a hack, a SargonofAkkad 10 years too late. Dismissed.
I'm not sure there's any type of politics or political thought that doesn't have something to do with one's identity. It comes down to a question of Inclusion vs Exclusion, and Absolute Universal Inclusivity can be just as bad as Strictly Enforced Exclusivity. (see Popper's Paradox)
Anyone can identify themselves however they choose. That shouldn't mean they get more or less rights than anyone else. The people who are attacking others, posting things on their walls like, "I am a man." Absolutely expect their right to define themselves to be respected.
Identity based on actions and choices is fine; EG "I'm a Democrat", or "I'm a Chiefs fan". However, Identity based on immutable characteristics can be a problem. EG "As a person with red hair, I feel....." assumes that all people with red hair have similar life experiences and/or values.
@@Ninjaa320 I agree. That's why I'm more interested in interest group politics when it comes to human and civil rights. We are all different but we share a common interest in being treated fairly.
I'm very sure there are lots of types of politics and political thought which have nothing to do with one's identity. What reasoning led you to make such a clearly nonsensical assertion?
Mounk's argument wraps itself in the clothing of political savviness, but underneath, it is a naked appeal to conservatism and "anti-wokeism." Without fail, folks who are least likely to suffer from identity-based oppression are always the first to decry the survival tactics and strategies adopted by those who are most vulnerable to such oppression. Mounk and his fellows have an irrepressible urge to encourage everyone else to serenade with sweet lullabies those who prefer the degradation and utter extinction of folks on the wrong side of privileged identities. James Baldwin said it best decades ago: “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
Oh boy you’re gonna be disappointed to learn that Pakman, while offering some pushback here, is historically critical of identity politics, postmodernism, critical race theory, and socialism. Is David therefore advocating for conservatism in sheep’s clothing? No. Illiberalism must be combatted wherever it rears it’s head; on the right or the left. Identity politics got Obama elected and it got Trump elected. Maybe we should go back to prioritizing merit as opposed to immutable characteristics.
@@pathologicaldoubt I wouldn't put postmodernism in with that group. Identity politics didn't get Obama elected, he was clearly better by any measure. Was merit really prioritized when mostly white men ran things? Seriously, that was when identity mattered more than anything.
Not there by accident. (Daddy issues) His argument is specious. Bernie lost in 2016 and his side won in 2020, so his argument on Bernie is exactly wrong. This guy's selling books. Carry on.
I’m coming back to this because the podcast If Books Could Kill dug into some of the anecdotes further. The thing at the Atlanta school seems more like an interpersonal dispute that was then attached to this other thing. In 2nd grade there were 96 kids split between 6 classes. Only 12 kids were black so instead of just putting 2 black kids in each class the principal made 2 classes with 6 black and 6 white children. The black principal grew up in a school that was overwhelming white and she felt isolated by it. I don’t know if she did anything wrong but when the story hit the news the NAACP, federal government and school district started investigations. No liberal institutions were okay with this thing that didn’t even seem that bad.
I totally agree with David. This guy is pretending that this is a way bigger problem on the left while ignoring the fact that it's actually an issue on the right. And the author's claim that we should criticize this stuff on the left so that the right isn't the exclusive source of valid criticism isn't a smart one; they can now say that this is such a problem that even people on the left will criticize it. Anyone dumb enough to fall for right-wing propaganda isn't going to be saved by the type of effort he's putting in. Many of them still can (and should) be saved but not in the way he's describing.
I disagree that this is a problem on the right but even if I did agree with you, you fail to consider the fact that people on the populist right have nearly no institutional power. The media, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, k-12 education, pro sports, the recording industry, the publishing industry, etc are all controlled by the left and these institutions seem to be basking in these sorts of identity politics and cancelling anyone who voices concerns about them.
The guy literally warned about Trump and far right issues in several books and for over a decade (as he said), and never once in the whole program said the issues on the left are worse. If I’m wrong please find the part, show it to me, and I’ll delete my comment. It is possible the left can go too far and screw up to you know… to think otherwise is just tribalism.
I get up each day an take out my trash. I then drive to work an do my best to make my employer happy. I then take my paycheck and pay my bills. It's common for me to pick up trash in my community. I want my community happy, healthy & clean. I dont spend much on myself as I've always viewed that as taking away from my family and thier needs. Over the coarse of a typical year I stop several times and help people that are having problems. By extension I wish nothing but good, clean, healthy living for all my community and nation. So, when I see people taking public money simply because, "I ain't feeling it", please forgive me when I'm not on the woke, progressive Fabian Society's band wagon. I am very much into judging people based on thier actions. You guys get a little more life experience combined with becoming more familiar with history and you will find yourself embarrassed that you once supported woke, progressivism. Thank you Sirs and I yeild the stump.
The point is that this kind of themes are very sensitive and divide people. What divides people, like cancel culture and similar actitudes call so much the attention per se and tends to cause hate or unconditional approval. So, possibly we tend to exaggerate their present importance and prevalence. But it is true that because of their nature (the harsh effects on people´s feelings), in the public and political debate, also their negative impact may be already disproportionally big today and can grow.
I disagree with the guest. Progressive voters turned off by the left's focus on intersectional politics in our institutions aren't going to vote for Trump. No effing way, dude.
I think the “Bernie Bros” is a fantasy construct, but I have also seen some people who actually supported Trump in 2016 despite knowing he was full of it just because they wanted a seismic disruption of the status quo. 😢
@@xiaoka In 2016, yes. Now after we see that Trump is worse than most of us ever imagined, I seriously doubt he gets the independent vote. He lost independents in 2020.
Would you believe me if I told you that democracy is more than just elections cycles? The capacity to assess and critically think of issue is more valuable than who gets to sit in any chair temporarily. You carefully chose the word "intersectional", while it is not what the author argue against. Intersection is not an approach, it is a statistical reality. Ex: poverty hits everyone, some groups more than others. If you focus on eliminating poverty, you should help those group proportionally. The school principal in his example opted for segregation while being convinced she was doing the students a favor. Nothing intersectional about it is there?
I have heard this argument before and it just doesn't hold up, there are a lot of material things that pushed a lot of voters to Trump as..... I mean look at how poorly the GOP has done by focusing on wokeness.
Apples and oranges. This discussion would benefit from being specifically about inborn characteristics of identity OR about choices people incorporate into their identity. As it stands, the topic is unwieldy to the point that yall are talking past each other.
You got to watch these public intellectuals... fame is awfully addictive. So, maybe if I'm Yascha Mounk, and my metrics are slipping, or maybe they are not where I want them to be, maybe I write something that gets a lot of attention? I don't want to watch another Yascha-Mounk-playing-"pick me" video. Can someone give me a timestamp of the best part of Yascha's argument in case I'm missing something important? Thanks, now I'm going to go not watch Jonathan Haidt and SE Cupp and Peter Boghossian and Jason Peterman, and Naomi Wolff, and Andrew Sullivan, all say something that doesn't need to be said because they are tired and/or just want fame.
It's okay man, you're allowed to have an idpol ideology, and others are allowed to critique it. Nobody is forcing you to watch people that disagree with you.
At least his version referenced the material conditions of minority groups, as opposed to the usual morally bankrupt arguments which amount to a thinly-veiled "white, cishet men bad".
It’s so funny seeing what Europeans think is going on in the USA 🇺🇸. Political Philosopher Vlad Vexler is great on Russia, but is cartoonist, to use his phrase, when it comes to what he thinks is going on in the USA 🇺🇸. Took me a while to realize what he meant by ‘wokism’ was actually ‘cancel culture.’ Then I realized it was something happening in higher educational institutions somewhere in some other bubble than what I was aware of in daily life.
It’s so funny that you think the there’s something less valuable about the view of someone who has a PhD in Political Science, a Professor teaching American students at an American University, who writes dozens of articles specifically on the subjects he’s speaking of, and oh, by the way, who’s also been living in the US for decades and is a voting US citizen…
Not only impacting and altering ethical and behavioral norms in university bubbles, or private schools. It's most everywhere, and increasing, just to a lesser extent in less "elite" spaces. See it occurred in red parts of purple states when it comes to businesses, public institutions, etcetera. Also seeing some pushback that takes its own disturbing authoritarian tendencies. Not good, and not meh!
You think Vlad Vexler "is great on Russia" because you yourself are not great on Russia. That is, you can't see when he is wrong on Russia. But you know what is going on in the US far better (than in Russia). Therefore you can see his mistakes regarding the US
@@explrr22 So are they talking about Sensitivity Training toward LGBTQ and Minorities? My job has that. And the Right Wing turning it into politics? Is that what the subject is?
@@sherrillwhately7586 No they aren't talking about that. Unfortunately they hardly get to the substance of the set of ideas, they spend so much time discussing whether it's OK to criticize any concepts or practices that aren't coming from the right. Even reading the book jacket would give you a better idea than this interview. I think that's more Packman's fault than Mounk's
I didn't bother to watch this because i really dont give a shit what any white dude has to say about identity politics. Like he may be completely right and i may agree with everything he has to say, but I don't care.
He's not stupid because he's white, he's stupid because he doesn't understand that what he takes for granted isn't universal, he needs to look beyond his privilege.
Nothing wrong with national identity or America first ideology. It is absurd to say such ideologies are bad for country. In fact, lack of these ideas is the problem in America today.
He is confusing himself. We are not saying that race is a social construct, but telling people to live like it is not, so much as we are stuck in a world that does persecute and elevate people around race, and are cognizant of the construct. Postmodernism should be able to hold in the mind at once ideas that seem in conflict or have shapes that cannot be seen from within every room of the house, and yet we know there’s a complex layout that doesn’t partially vanish when we go into another room. He is either unwilling to understand, or does not want to understand the massive bigotry that does “this stuff” on the right in America. He keeps saying “this stuff“ but it’s really not nailed down, unless just talking about culture or uniqueness, is bad to him. The point is to do these things well. The idea of a melting pot is just too far, and I think the tapestry idea that has been around for a while is good to lean into . He’s telling people to not be who they are, because it’s too difficult for bigots to deal with, like an embarrassed parent, who doesn’t want their child to show stemming behaviors or talk too much about their special interests, so that people will discriminate against them for autism, as opposed to having a child, be resilient to not need to mask so much in the world. Sus.
![The final death throws [sic] of the David pakman show is [sic] hilarious](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DV-qUgYdPLo/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Yascha's last point is worth exploring more. Sometimes these "off the rails" conservatives are actually hitting talking points that ARE important to discuss, but because of who they are the talking point will be dismissed with the rest of the baggage that they carry as nonsense. This is the danger of tribalism, you cant cross lines to have meaningful discussions if your Tribe isnt interested in that conversation. Yascha actually calls David out for this earlier in the interview... David says the amount of finger-pointing needs to "proportionate" to the damage being caused (the right is much worse David says), Yascha is saying am I right to bring this up or not. It is very hard for anyone to check their bias (or their tribe), and think in an openminded way every time you get into a discussion. It's exhausting emotionally and mentally, but we all need to do better at it.
I recently finished graduate school in public health. The entire curriculum was preoccupied with identity politics. It was the only focus. This obsession of the left is far more prevalent than David acknowledges.
Which university?
This just isn't possible, LOL. "The Left " isn't a real thing. His opening sentences are crazy nonsense. Promises? What is he talking about? Congrats though. You're showing us how Iraq happened.
I feel like David is so worried about over stating the extent to which toxic identity politics exists on the left that he sometimes risks under stating it.
Only sometimes?
@@patavinity1262 I was trying not to overstate it 😂
I feel like you're too worried about identity politics on the left when it's 10x as prevalent and 10x as toxic on the right. Sometimes.
15:45 ahhh the SargonofAkkad excuse! "Everyone knows the right is bad, let's criticize the left!" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're 10 years late, Yasha.
"Risk", LOL. There's no center, so that's not really possible. It's so funny how writing the words makes it seem real, though? Where would you even get this wisdom without any experience from?
Why identitarianism on the right is less of a problem: because it's associated with reaction, oppression, supremacy, etc, and everyone understands that. Fascists know they are being bad and criminal, that they want to lower social standards to have more power, etc. Identitarianism on the so-called "left" is a more complicated mixed matter because it involves: 1) civil rights for groups within a universalist and liberal democratic framework, 2) anti-oppression within a socialist framework of emancipatory universality and that makes class struggle central to analysis, 3) postmodern and cultural studies approaches that are anti-universalist, focused on representation and the cultural turn, discourse theory-oriented and therefore focused on power, difference politics, victim politics, etc. Much identity politics is a product of postwar scholarship and as the New Left moved away from mass politics and macro-politics, group politics began to function as a supplement rather than a challenge to capitalism. At this stage, much of the 60s activism has been co-opted as "progressive neoliberalism," which in a post-structuralist optic, can barely be distinguished from postmodern post-representation and post-politics. So you have candidates like Obama, Clinton, AOC and Harris who combine anti-oppression rhetoric with oppression. This is why the debate is between the genuine left, which is socialist, and liberal-leftism to neoliberalism - which is the politics of the PMC. Since the neoliberals ( Dems ) agree with most of the same policy positions as the neocons ( GOP ), and they have the same donors, the right takes the opposite side of the culture war to demarcate itself, using demagoguery instead of virtue signalling. Rather than racism confusing the relation between labour and capital, you have anti-racist confusing the relation between labour and capital. If you don't think these issues are omnipresent, you have not looked at publishers' catalogues or walked into a book store in 10 years, or attended an academic conference, or watched a Hollywood movie, or have friends, family or co-workers, etc. 20 million participated in BLM marches. etc.
I totally agree with Mounk. The left (of which I consider myself) is on a slippery slope. It's not liberalism to silence ideas. It's not liberalism to segregate. It's not liberalism to put emotions ahead of the best available science. We've become so obsessed with constructing our own identities as well as online realities. We "mute" or "unfollow" things that challenge us. We get offended, we point fingers, we virtue signal, we cancel. And we think that behavior should apply to real life as well. It's not healthy and it's not solving any of the real problems the world is facing.
Fun Fact:
Liberals are not Leftists.
It's ok to silence Fascism. Figure it out.
Yep and the left much like the Right (which is sad to say out loud) is befallen by believing whatever social movement feels the best to their emotions. Seeing people, friends even take the side of Hamas has been insane, seeing the left drop all of their values to support Palestine to the extent they are doing to me is emotional/factless and makes no sense for a Liberal, how could liberals support some of the things BLM did, it is a liberal value to not allow people to infringe the rights of others…Hamas displays zero regard for this, BLM appears to hold zero regard as well. Yes the far right is disgusting and maybe Israels government deserves much criticism but from what I see as a life ling atheist liberal, the far left holds not a single value other than factless-emotional plees.
Well, in some ways there has been a very real break from liberalism on the whole by many moderate Democrats (libs) and some significant parts of the Left. You're right though that the opportunity to grab power by sacrificing formerly held values is behind it. Such temptation also occurs to everyone all the time in relationships and moneymaking.
Where is this happening? There's no "Left". The Right just declares ""We are one of two sides, the good one "..
There's nothing organized in any manner to lay any broad descriptions at all.
David is doing the right thing. If you claim something and only have andeotes then it's not reliable data because your sample size is too small & unrepresentative. It's like someone seeing 100 Grey Birds and then telling people all Birds are Grey.
Why bring him on then disrespect him by saying 'well, you didn't write a book about x did you?' When people behave like David did in this podcast, you alienate far more people than you convert.
To be fair he did write books going after the far right and Trump, but I know what you mean,
Good interview. Yascha speaks in good faith and is fairly even handed in his analysis.
LOL. "He sat in his chair and used a pencil correctly". The bar doesn't even exist here.
David is doing the right thing. If you claim something and only have andeotes then it's not reliable data because your sample size is too small & unrepresentative. It's like someone seeing 100 Grey Birds and then telling people all Birds are Grey.
Yascha is arguing we need to focus on identity less. Yet when he talks about identity, he sounds extremely well-informed, serious and compassionate. That makes it hard not to side with him on this.
Put the boot on the other foot for a second. Suppose Christian nationalist ideas weren't really a big factor in the voting polls because economics were much important to the average voter. But at the same time Christian nationalists had strong foot in the door of the educational infrastructure (the teachers who teach the teachers), were activists in influentual NGOs, had managed to get their ideas into corporations via Human Resources infrastructure. Would you say there's nothing to worry about?
Perfect analogy, I'm keeping this one in my back pocket.
Yascha’s analysis is a helpful antidote to popular pseudo-intellectuals like James Lindsay and Chris Rufo; As well as their reductive and reassuringly simplistic alt-histories.
Yes
This is a terribly executed interview. I had to stop it two-thirds of the way through. David Pakman's point seems to be that we should wait until the problem is a lot worse before talking about it, rather than acknowledging that the left's ability to counter racism, nationalism, etc. is mitigated precisely insofar as the left embraces what Mounk is calling the "identity trap." Pakman's stubborn defensiveness probably explains why the interviews with Mounk on this issue are predominantly by conservative hosts. That is unfortunate for the left.
I just found and subscribed to your channel. You ask excellent probative questions that is missing from so much of MSM, thank you!!!!!
I'm taking a tour in the opposite direction, from alternative media to MSM. Holy sht, the US is about to be taken over by fascist trumpism and all the online left is talking about is medicare. It's like waking up to a nightmare from a sweet dream that i was put into by the online left.
Welcome
Welcome to David, he's one of the best.
Don't stop searching for independent news sources
The show seems nice enough but I wish the host would have let Yascha talk more about the book and ideas instead of keep saying Right Wing populism is worse. It’s like what Yascha said, should he have been allowed to write the book and talk about it?
Nothing personal, I just wanted to hear more about the books and ideas instead of the host pushing that point way too much on the program.
David is doing the right thing. If you claim something and only have andeotes then it's not reliable data because your sample size is too small & unrepresentative. It's like someone seeing 100 Grey Birds and then telling people all Birds are Grey.
Drives me crazy when its argued i don't see the evidence, and when you give anecdotal examples, they say anecdotes are misleading. When you point to ideas, whole agencies, policies, laws, its then claimed you dont have examples of actual impact on people (anecdotes). Thinking that way leaves you with this irreputable circle of a blinkered consciousness.
It’s called “whataboutism” and the right has perfected it.
If that were going on here then you would have a valid point. David is right. Listen for comprehension next time.
15:45 ahhh the SargonofAkkad excuse! "Everyone knows the right is bad, let's criticize the left!" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're 10 years late, Yasha.
"the irreputable circle of blinkered consciousness". Beautiful nonsense. Generations raised on bratty op-ed punditry instead of reality and humility. Idiocracy with a diploma.
People are very emotionally invested in idpol because it’s their identities, so it’s the ultimate in personal becoming political. Unfortunately, this leads to extremely bad faith discussions on the issues and some perverse essentialist outcomes, that perpetuate and create new forms of bigotry. I wish David had given more space for discussion of the substantive ideas here; if he does not agree with the prevalence then he should probably not bother with the interview? I thought that was a bit disingenuous.
"Personal becoming political." Very interesting observation.
This isn't reality at all. No wonder Iraq happened.
I'm 100% going to vote for Biden in 2024. However, it was insane that he said he was going to put "a black woman" on the SCOTUS and there was no backlash. So yes, we do have a major problem with identity politics as well as outright anti-white racism. This is what led to the rise of Trumpism.
She's a great judge though, so what if she's black?
@@asusmctablet9180 Race and gender shouldn't be factors. If the best person for the job just so happens to be a black woman, fine, but that shouldn't be what the president is looking for when nominating judges.
He likes to talk about ideas.
He explained why more people are turned off by authoritarianism that they associate with the Left and end up voting for Trump, even if they have left-of-center liberal views on most social issues.
“Did i mention i wrote some books and that i am very clever? “ …. What an arrogant pseudointellectual.
David was largely defensive...both in spoken content and in body language. This is a huge problem for those of us on the left. It was clear some time ago (e.g. at the time of Trump's election) but this line of reasoning and policy are driving our natural constituency into the arms of the far right. I see folks double downing on Identity politics rather than critically examining it.
100 percent agree
Great point, David. Can idpol be useful? Sure. Can be misused and weaponised wrongly? Also yes.
They are more useless than useful.
@@chrisbfreelance True, though sometimes there's legit no alternative
Interesting convo
How can you tell its a problem... just watched Packman squirm saying it's legitimate, but searching for a way to object to someone examining its origins and concerns.
This was my impression as well!
Thank you for sharing this important information.💙🇺🇲💙
Kind of defensive but I get his point.
Too much Tribalism is not in anyone’s long term interest.
I found David to seem defensive on behalf of identity politics.
@@eemoogee160I got that impression too.
@@eemoogee160You were not alone.
Davis has been downplaying the spread and impact of this ideology for a long time. Glad to see him begin to wake up. Thanks Yascha!
He downplays it because he fully agrees with it.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, Mounk has some really good insights on this topic.
Opening statement is insane.
Does anyone know what Federico Finkelstein literature he's talking about here?
Whenever you separate people by group, the people tend to think their group is better or special in some way. You separate by race, you encourage racism. You can have cultural/ race identity without separating people.
I’m assuming you are talking about the black parent vs black school board administrator the guest was talking about… and in reference to that I believe you’re dodging the fact that if you are surrounded by people from within minority communities, you’ll know that there can be a friction between black and white people due to the history of that area, specifically in areas which have generations of families still living there, i.e., Atlanta. So when you hear about a black person wanting their child to be in a class with other black kids, or Vice versa, in this case, then it is assumed, by way of the history of the area, that they want their child to not be as exposed to racism as they can, in the reverse it would be to be teach the child diversity and in both cases has nothing to do with the parent teaching racism to their child. It’s more an issue of “sticking with your own kind”, which obviously doesn’t work, especially in the USA where there isn’t a sense of unity in Nationalism unless you are an outwardly proud American Nationalist. This idea trickles down into minority communities where then you have, for example, black on black crime, or minorities swallowing the “red pill”, where people don’t trust or respect their ancestral roots and want to conform to something else. This is a HUGE issue in the USA and is the exact reason why David Pakman bought it is as literally stemming from Conservatives because their history speaks exactly to identify politics.
@@banehelsing7541 You teach racism by treating races differently.
@@Anuchan Eehhhh, I disagree with that. Especially if ethnicity is attached to the race of the person, in such case, we’re going to treat a native born Buddhist differently than a native Arabic Muslim. Or a White Russian differently than a Black Voodooist. It’s about teaching that we all have differences and to respect different beliefs not that one is better than the other.
@@banehelsing7541 Do you treat Jews differently from Christians? Or Muslims? Unless the topic is religion or culture, everyone's the same in a secular classroom.
@@Anuchan There are differences in how we interact with Christians versus Jews, etc. I’m not saying that we aren’t equal I’m just saying that we’re going to interact and treat people differently and sometimes it can be due to their ethnicity + race because we’re talking about different cultures. Even within Christian sects, for example, one Christian may say bad words and another doesn’t, one Muslim May be against alcohol the other not, ect… it’s very individually based.
24:37 David: “asking for a friend”
nice interview
What does international affairs have to do with identity politics?
You don’t think wars, terrorism, famines, refugee crises, world economic issues don’t have affects on other nations, their domestic politics, or identity politics? The conflict between Israel and Palestine alone has inflamed identity politics in a very clear way.
@@TheGoodShepherd117 Not directly. In each case, it is still the existence of racism and bigotry that causes the identity politics. Not the fact that the affairs are international. This guy is a hack, a SargonofAkkad 10 years too late. Dismissed.
That was very interesting
I'm not sure there's any type of politics or political thought that doesn't have something to do with one's identity.
It comes down to a question of Inclusion vs Exclusion, and Absolute Universal Inclusivity can be just as bad as Strictly Enforced Exclusivity. (see Popper's Paradox)
Popper was cringe. Closed societies are going to overtake the west.
Anyone can identify themselves however they choose. That shouldn't mean they get more or less rights than anyone else. The people who are attacking others, posting things on their walls like, "I am a man." Absolutely expect their right to define themselves to be respected.
Identity based on actions and choices is fine; EG "I'm a Democrat", or "I'm a Chiefs fan".
However, Identity based on immutable characteristics can be a problem. EG "As a person with red hair, I feel....." assumes that all people with red hair have similar life experiences and/or values.
@@Ninjaa320 I agree. That's why I'm more interested in interest group politics when it comes to human and civil rights. We are all different but we share a common interest in being treated fairly.
I'm very sure there are lots of types of politics and political thought which have nothing to do with one's identity. What reasoning led you to make such a clearly nonsensical assertion?
Mounk's argument wraps itself in the clothing of political savviness, but underneath, it is a naked appeal to conservatism and "anti-wokeism." Without fail, folks who are least likely to suffer from identity-based oppression are always the first to decry the survival tactics and strategies adopted by those who are most vulnerable to such oppression. Mounk and his fellows have an irrepressible urge to encourage everyone else to serenade with sweet lullabies those who prefer the degradation and utter extinction of folks on the wrong side of privileged identities. James Baldwin said it best decades ago: “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
I was going to write something about this but you did it better. Well said.
His argument reminds of those in the LGBTQ community who want to remove the T to try and appeal towards conservatives. Disgusting.
there's a paper titled "Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science," & i recommend it to everyone
Oh boy you’re gonna be disappointed to learn that Pakman, while offering some pushback here, is historically critical of identity politics, postmodernism, critical race theory, and socialism. Is David therefore advocating for conservatism in sheep’s clothing? No.
Illiberalism must be combatted wherever it rears it’s head; on the right or the left.
Identity politics got Obama elected and it got Trump elected. Maybe we should go back to prioritizing merit as opposed to immutable characteristics.
@@pathologicaldoubt I wouldn't put postmodernism in with that group. Identity politics didn't get Obama elected, he was clearly better by any measure. Was merit really prioritized when mostly white men ran things? Seriously, that was when identity mattered more than anything.
13:12. "Ambiguite"???? Ahhhhhh!!!!!
I'm actually soft right now
15:45 ahhh the SargonofAkkad excuse! "Everyone knows the right is bad, let's criticize the left!" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you're 10 years late, Yasha.
Well, at least the video title has "trap" in scare quotes
What's up with the "I AM A MAN" posted behind him?
what's the problem?
@@Artur-vx7qy I'm curious what the context of that is?
Not there by accident. (Daddy issues) His argument is specious. Bernie lost in 2016 and his side won in 2020, so his argument on Bernie is exactly wrong. This guy's selling books. Carry on.
It was a popular slogan used by civil rights activists
The context is that…he is a man. What’s your problem? Gosh….the feminists today.
For some, identity politics is their identity. 😅
Yascha is brilliant. Glad he called out Bret W. in the end.
Yes. Bret is a cautionary tale.
Bret is genuine unlike this yashi
I’m coming back to this because the podcast If Books Could Kill dug into some of the anecdotes further. The thing at the Atlanta school seems more like an interpersonal dispute that was then attached to this other thing. In 2nd grade there were 96 kids split between 6 classes. Only 12 kids were black so instead of just putting 2 black kids in each class the principal made 2 classes with 6 black and 6 white children. The black principal grew up in a school that was overwhelming white and she felt isolated by it. I don’t know if she did anything wrong but when the story hit the news the NAACP, federal government and school district started investigations. No liberal institutions were okay with this thing that didn’t even seem that bad.
I will not get this book.
I totally agree with David. This guy is pretending that this is a way bigger problem on the left while ignoring the fact that it's actually an issue on the right. And the author's claim that we should criticize this stuff on the left so that the right isn't the exclusive source of valid criticism isn't a smart one; they can now say that this is such a problem that even people on the left will criticize it. Anyone dumb enough to fall for right-wing propaganda isn't going to be saved by the type of effort he's putting in. Many of them still can (and should) be saved but not in the way he's describing.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. How can you be simultaneously so ignorant and arrogant? Its astounding.
I disagree that this is a problem on the right but even if I did agree with you, you fail to consider the fact that people on the populist right have nearly no institutional power. The media, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia, k-12 education, pro sports, the recording industry, the publishing industry, etc are all controlled by the left and these institutions seem to be basking in these sorts of identity politics and cancelling anyone who voices concerns about them.
The guy literally warned about Trump and far right issues in several books and for over a decade (as he said), and never once in the whole program said the issues on the left are worse. If I’m wrong please find the part, show it to me, and I’ll delete my comment.
It is possible the left can go too far and screw up to you know… to think otherwise is just tribalism.
I get up each day an take out my trash. I then drive to work an do my best to make my employer happy. I then take my paycheck and pay my bills. It's common for me to pick up trash in my community. I want my community happy, healthy & clean. I dont spend much on myself as I've always viewed that as taking away from my family and thier needs. Over the coarse of a typical year I stop several times and help people that are having problems. By extension I wish nothing but good, clean, healthy living for all my community and nation. So, when I see people taking public money simply because, "I ain't feeling it", please forgive me when I'm not on the woke, progressive Fabian Society's band wagon. I am very much into judging people based on thier actions. You guys get a little more life experience combined with becoming more familiar with history and you will find yourself embarrassed that you once supported woke, progressivism. Thank you Sirs and I yeild the stump.
The point is that this kind of themes are very sensitive and divide people. What divides people, like cancel culture and similar actitudes call so much the attention per se and tends to cause hate or unconditional approval. So, possibly we tend to exaggerate their present importance and prevalence. But it is true that because of their nature (the harsh effects on people´s feelings), in the public and political debate, also their negative impact may be already disproportionally big today and can grow.
What divides people is lies and fear and....*human existence*. We never had an "undivided" era at any time.
I disagree with the guest. Progressive voters turned off by the left's focus on intersectional politics in our institutions aren't going to vote for Trump. No effing way, dude.
Independents decide elections these days.
They will stop voting, though.
I think the “Bernie Bros” is a fantasy construct, but I have also seen some people who actually supported Trump in 2016 despite knowing he was full of it just because they wanted a seismic disruption of the status quo. 😢
@@xiaoka In 2016, yes. Now after we see that Trump is worse than most of us ever imagined, I seriously doubt he gets the independent vote. He lost independents in 2020.
Would you believe me if I told you that democracy is more than just elections cycles?
The capacity to assess and critically think of issue is more valuable than who gets to sit in any chair temporarily.
You carefully chose the word "intersectional", while it is not what the author argue against.
Intersection is not an approach, it is a statistical reality.
Ex: poverty hits everyone, some groups more than others. If you focus on eliminating poverty, you should help those group proportionally.
The school principal in his example opted for segregation while being convinced she was doing the students a favor. Nothing intersectional about it is there?
I have heard this argument before and it just doesn't hold up, there are a lot of material things that pushed a lot of voters to Trump as..... I mean look at how poorly the GOP has done by focusing on wokeness.
It's curious how many right-sympathetic commenters this supposedly left guy drew in. Telling.
A true tribe leader right here. Someone get this guy a Chief Headdress.
Apples and oranges. This discussion would benefit from being specifically about inborn characteristics of identity OR about choices people incorporate into their identity. As it stands, the topic is unwieldy to the point that yall are talking past each other.
You got to watch these public intellectuals... fame is awfully addictive. So, maybe if I'm Yascha Mounk, and my metrics are slipping, or maybe they are not where I want them to be, maybe I write something that gets a lot of attention?
I don't want to watch another Yascha-Mounk-playing-"pick me" video. Can someone give me a timestamp of the best part of Yascha's argument in case I'm missing something important?
Thanks, now I'm going to go not watch Jonathan Haidt and SE Cupp and Peter Boghossian and Jason Peterman, and Naomi Wolff, and Andrew Sullivan, all say something that doesn't need to be said because they are tired and/or just want fame.
It's okay man, you're allowed to have an idpol ideology, and others are allowed to critique it. Nobody is forcing you to watch people that disagree with you.
LOL
Bernie did use identity politics somewhat more in the 2020 run.
At least his version referenced the material conditions of minority groups, as opposed to the usual morally bankrupt arguments which amount to a thinly-veiled "white, cishet men bad".
@@synchronium24 Totally!!!
It’s so funny seeing what Europeans think is going on in the USA 🇺🇸. Political Philosopher Vlad Vexler is great on Russia, but is cartoonist, to use his phrase, when it comes to what he thinks is going on in the USA 🇺🇸. Took me a while to realize what he meant by ‘wokism’ was actually ‘cancel culture.’ Then I realized it was something happening in higher educational institutions somewhere in some other bubble than what I was aware of in daily life.
It’s so funny that you think the there’s something less valuable about the view of someone who has a PhD in Political Science, a Professor teaching American students at an American University, who writes dozens of articles specifically on the subjects he’s speaking of, and oh, by the way, who’s also been living in the US for decades and is a voting US citizen…
Not only impacting and altering ethical and behavioral norms in university bubbles, or private schools.
It's most everywhere, and increasing, just to a lesser extent in less "elite" spaces. See it occurred in red parts of purple states when it comes to businesses, public institutions, etcetera. Also seeing some pushback that takes its own disturbing authoritarian tendencies. Not good, and not meh!
You think Vlad Vexler "is great on Russia" because you yourself are not great on Russia. That is, you can't see when he is wrong on Russia. But you know what is going on in the US far better (than in Russia). Therefore you can see his mistakes regarding the US
@@explrr22 So are they talking about Sensitivity Training toward LGBTQ and Minorities? My job has that. And the Right Wing turning it into politics? Is that what the subject is?
@@sherrillwhately7586
No they aren't talking about that. Unfortunately they hardly get to the substance of the set of ideas, they spend so much time discussing whether it's OK to criticize any concepts or practices that aren't coming from the right. Even reading the book jacket would give you a better idea than this interview. I think that's more Packman's fault than Mounk's
"Hey Yascha, its me, nuance." - the interview
East for two (privileged?) white guys?
I think you meant to write "easy" and yes. The only reason he doesn't care about identity being respected is, his never has.
How can you possibly know that?
@@janeygo4252 Pattern and practice.
@@robertwhyte3435 more like pride and prejudice 😂
He's on the same left as Dave Rubin.
what makes you say that?
@@KevinUchihaOG This is the same inane IDW drivel we've been hearing for like 5 years. It's pathetic.
god the left is so disappointing.
@@Ggaia-d9z You conservatives suck. I don't care about your concern trolling.
@@Ggaia-d9z indeed, how could Trump have any chance? It's depressing.
I think he’s clearly been sucked into the “identity trap”
How so? By considering the issue at all?
You talking about Yascha or David?
I didn't bother to watch this because i really dont give a shit what any white dude has to say about identity politics.
Like he may be completely right and i may agree with everything he has to say, but I don't care.
oh so you did read his book
what about what a "black" dude has to say about identity politics?
This exactly is what’s wrong with left. This is exactly why people will continue to support people like Trump.
an oddly proud declaration of racism
He's not stupid because he's white, he's stupid because he doesn't understand that what he takes for granted isn't universal, he needs to look beyond his privilege.
This guy is so whiney.
Way to make a point. You might as well say his views bothers you.
If you were being honest that is... Not holding my breath.
Nothing wrong with national identity or America first ideology. It is absurd to say such ideologies are bad for country. In fact, lack of these ideas is the problem in America today.
No facts come from fascist noble liars like you. In fact there are no countries and least of all an "america".
Yes, Nationalism is bad.
It's short-sighted and only leads to xenophobic hatred. Plus, it's only loved by Fascists.
He is confusing himself. We are not saying that race is a social construct, but telling people to live like it is not, so much as we are stuck in a world that does persecute and elevate people around race, and are cognizant of the construct. Postmodernism should be able to hold in the mind at once ideas that seem in conflict or have shapes that cannot be seen from within every room of the house, and yet we know there’s a complex layout that doesn’t partially vanish when we go into another room. He is either unwilling to understand, or does not want to understand the massive bigotry that does “this stuff” on the right in America.
He keeps saying “this stuff“ but it’s really not nailed down, unless just talking about culture or uniqueness, is bad to him. The point is to do these things well. The idea of a melting pot is just too far, and I think the tapestry idea that has been around for a while is good to lean into .
He’s telling people to not be who they are, because it’s too difficult for bigots to deal with, like an embarrassed parent, who doesn’t want their child to show stemming behaviors or talk too much about their special interests, so that people will discriminate against them for autism, as opposed to having a child, be resilient to not need to mask so much in the world. Sus.