Defending the Conventions of Politics

On Twitter, Diodotos (whose feed often includes some provocative thoughts) had some points about what it takes to defend the conventions of republican life.  I thought it worth reproducing a few of them below.

Identity politics is fundamentally anti-political—unless you accept Schmitt's definition of the political—and thus opposed to liberty.

— Diodotus (@ContraCleon) January 25, 2017

Identitarianism is the latest sign of our nihilism.

We must remember what civilization is, but we're failing to teach exactly that.

— Diodotus (@ContraCleon) January 25, 2017

Not "civilization" in the sense of being polite, or scientifically advanced, but living rationally within our traditions.

— Diodotus (@ContraCleon) January 25, 2017

I think he here hits on an important theme: political life requires an acceptance of incompleteness and a willingness to engage in conversation.  A healthy republic debates an acceptance of some kind of political heterogeneity and openness for disagreement.

Identity politics--or identitarianism--instead calls for political rigidity.  One has allegiance to a political tribe and surrenders individual judgment to the collective.  By locking us into rigid identity groups, identity politics threatens the openness and conversation that is one of the cornerstones of healthy political life.