I don’t know much about the tweet that cost Schilling his job with ESPN other than that it made fun of transgender efforts to liberate the nation’s bathrooms from sexual tyranny. I understand that Schilling has a bit of a problem keeping his opinions to himself in the realm of social media.
But I am still wondering why this “issue” is absorbing the attention of state and federal officials (not to mention the news media). If Hillary Clinton can ask, “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism? Would that end sexism?”, why can’t other Americans wonder, “If we allowed cross-dressing men to use women’s bathrooms tomorrow, would that put an end to police brutality?” And people wonder why other people find Donald Trump refreshing (emphasis on fresh)?
Are the Democrats that serious about the politics of (make up your own) identity? Michael Lind knows that they are:
The centrality of identity politics, rather than progressive economics, to the contemporary Democratic Party is nothing new. In 1982, the Democratic National Committee recognized seven official caucuses: women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, liberals and business/professionals. Thirty-four years later, this is the base of the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton. The pro-Sanders left objects to the solicitude of the Democratic Party for Wall Street and Silicon Valley, the sources of much of its funding. But it is safe to assume that most progressives, when confronted with conservative candidates, will prefer incremental, finance-friendly Clintonism over the right-wing alternative. Moreover, the ability or even willingness of Mr. Sanders to help down-ballot or state candidates is doubtful. The next generation of Democrats are figures like Julian and Joaquin Castro and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who are much more in the mold of the Clintons and Mr. Obama than of the maverick outsider Bernie Sanders.
If true, that means that both parties are guilty of not being serious about politics. I understand when Glenn Loury says he will vote for Hillary. None of the Republican candidates (except for Kasich) seem like three-dimensional candidates who are above sloganeering. But can the Democrats be all that serious a party when they let human private parts drive American understandings of liberty and equality?
Old Life 
I’m voting for me, again. I continue to be the most qualified person I know.
“Better than Lake Wobegon’s chirrin since 1969”
LikeLike
DGH,
The republican field is abysmal, but to say that Kasich is above sloganeering would be like saying The Wire is better than Breaking Bad.
IMO, the three dimensions of Kasich are: cowardly, smug, self-righteous. Oh, and a fourth is that his father was a mailman. He’s continued repeating his ancestral heritage while boasting that he’s been the only candidate to remain above the fray. In actuality, he’s just been cowardly and irrelevant the entire election process.
LikeLike
Another Hart (Jeffrey) wrote a classic essay back in the early 80’s, “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Modern American Conservatism” that is getting some attention and might be a useful guide for the perplexed. http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/20/the-intellectual-case-for-trump-ii-trump-is-the-culture-warrior-we-need/
LikeLike
The brother of the late Christopher Hitchins, Peter, interestingly describes the obsession with identity politics from a UK perspective. The UK equivalent of the Democrats is (New) Labour which under the watch of Tony Blair led to an explosion of identity politics in Britain which has made us the pansies of Europe. Social egalitarianism is the aim of such policies, with Peter arguing that Marxist inspired socialists have achieved many of their goals in Britain by pursuing a law enforced cultural and identity revolution before a market or financial one. The astute Roger Scruton and also the more acerbic but still very thoughtful Theodore Dalrymple have likewise written extensively about such issues. Ex BBC writer Rod Liddle is equally brilliant but rather colourful in his book ‘Selfish whinning monkeys: how we ended up greedy, narcissistic and unhappy’ on such matters.
PS, sorry for spelling Mencken’s name wrong in a recent contribution.
LikeLike
Brandon, I’m not betting the farm on Kasich. Nor do I think all politicians (except St. Ben) are immune to cowardice, smugness, and self-righteousness. But he’s worked in Congress and he’s balanced a budget. He’s a real politician. I don’t think the Senate produces them with no disrespect to President Obama.
LikeLike
Dan, thanks for the link but I think that countering the left by culture is not the point of politics. If conservatives came forward with policies for health care and urban crime and black incarceration rates they might do something good for the country and gain the attention of African Americans. Sure, people want their sexual liberties. But I don’t see people taking to the streets for transgender bathrooms. They do for Michael Brown.
LikeLike
Paul, no worries about spelling. I understand an Englishman having trouble with an Anglothrope.
If identityists think capitalism is destructive, have they not considered transgenderism or std’s. Identity politics has no constructive platform for maintaining any form of society. They should have Illinois to themselves and see what it takes to pick up trash, pave roads, and support families (if they want to last beyond 50 years).
LikeLike
DGH, the J. Hart essay was the subject of a symposium/roundtable back when it first appeared in National Review, and was roundly panned by the likes of Brookhiser, Sobran et. al. It is not available on line but might be worth your looking up.I maintained a subscription to NR as long as I did (finally dropped it in the late 80’s) because I liked reading J. Hart.
LikeLike
DGH, Illinois as a Gramscian BenOp? Intriguing.
LikeLike
Dan, I didn’t want to leave them bereft of a big city. And maybe President Obama will join them. Though I don’t know why Hawaii doesn’t get credit for the president.
LikeLike
artistformerlyknownassean says:
sean, speaking of your new name, a sortof aside to this DG post) saw this, this am, -ever reminded of how much confusion reigns out there in the world: “Here’s Moyer on Prince’s faith and how the singer apparently intended his intense, bawdy expressions of sexuality to be linked to the worship of God. “ washingtonpost.com
LikeLike
Most Democrats use identity issues and other issues including healthcare to mask the fact that they are in favor of keeping the same societal structures that produce the problems they pontificate against. On the Republican side, they just deny that they are issues.
LikeLike
@ Paul (UK):
What did you make of Mr. Obama’s speech in re: Brexit?
LikeLike
Grear question Jeff. President Obama’s Brexit speech was truly awful. I don’t say this in an off the cuff way. The European Union (EU) is a disaster which taking down countries in it’s sphere of power. From the earlier concept of a Common Market primarily for trade the EU now legislates around 60% of UK law to which we are legally bound, while the egalitarian idealism of the EU means anyone from the EU can live in the UK and have guaranteed access to all our lavish welfare system, sending welfare monies back to their home countries. These two examples are issues which resonate with folks here, despite the medias’ astonishing and lecturing bias (especially in the BBC) towards the EU.
So for President Obama to kind of lecture us on the benefits of the EU show his lack of detailed understanding of how such an unelected cabal of powerful people in the EU dictate how we live. Obamas’ illustration of those Americans who died in Europe in WW2 to allow such entities as the EU had no substance in fact and is arguably a terrible use of such a valiant giving of life to make an invalid point.
Obama showed his arrogance by saying the UK would be at the back of the line of any future trade deals if we left the EU. Boris Johnson, the present Mayor of London and wily operator, ably and simply exposed Obama’s Brexit speech by asking if the USA today would submit itself to such a supranational body like the EU? The idea would tossed aside. Admittedly the relationship between the USA and the UK can be difficult and self serving as James Delingpole has caustically outlined, but it amazes me how some politicians like Obama can know so little of any real depth about Brexit and many other issues in Europe and the UK apart from what their advisors tell them.
LikeLike