“General Principles plank” that “has the highest rating” the Obotboiz at MyDD are promoting…

We believe in an America that honors the diversity of young people including race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as their experiences, talents and dreams.

note that GENDER isn’t included (and gender identity in the phrase “sexual orientation and gender identity” isn’t gender.

also, not that this general principles plank is only about “youth” — the idea that general principles should include people of all ages seems to escape these droids…

Here.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

While I was at it.

More Correntians might as well sign up. Good chance to get some PB 2.0 social justice stuff in there…

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

As I wrote yesterday, social justice tends to concern itself with social redistribution (of, yet again, rights, opportunities and resources, via progressive taxation, public education, health care and other mechanisms) towards the disadvantaged (class, race, gender, the disabled, etc.).

You can clearly see the emphasis on IDENTITY in what Paul quoted above. Subtly, or not so subtly, redistribution is replaced with recognition (a much less challenging claim to the system as a whole and which necessitate no collective commitment to social and economic justice).

On this debate of social redistribution v. social recognition (and I confess to siding firmly on the social redistribution side), may I recommend Steven Lukes’ Liberals and Cannibals - The Implications of Diversity? A short but very interesting collection of essays on this very topic.

I would argue that, as PB2.0ers (we need a better term for this!), this is the kind of discourse we need to challenge, relentlessly.

FrenchDoc, Thanks again for pb 2.0 yesterday!

We are going to do political books at Sunday Morning Book Review this week if you wanted to review the above book or any other….

I am troubled by the lack of specifics in the plank quoted by Paul above. What does it mean?

What does it commit the Democrats to doing?

C’mon, everyone, why SHOULD we honor the diversity, dreams, experiences and talents of OLDER people anyway??

Seriously, couldn’t they have just added “of all ages” or something?

Identity is next door to branding, is it not? Making identity politics next door to marketing. Hmm…

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

In the case of gays,
gay partners benefits, gay marriage and other equalizing measures are forms of social redistribution. Such measures would need institutional implementations and make demands on the system as a whole in order for gays to have the opportunity to exercise these rights.

Expressing the view that gays have basically a right to exist, that one has nothing against it, just not comfortable with a institutional equalizing push… but recognizing that gays are people too (blah blah blah) goes into the recognition thing… append something that says “However, we need understand the concerns of the side” and it’s a recognition two-fer.

No demands are made onto the system for a more equal redistribution. Instead, you give both categories a pat on the head, leaving the disadvantaged (gays) still disadvantaged but recognized.

Does this clarify or confuse the issue further?

I have posted a full review (it was WAY too long for a comment) and will link to it in your review post.