Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrtesthah | Hacker News Reader

Billionaires shifted the overton window by pouring money into extreme right-wing media outlets and social media platforms. Every other existing institution now appears "left-wing" by comparison. That's not universities' fault.

View on HN

Not true, at least on social issues, which is what the universities are getting burned for. Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.

That's how society progresses though. Before 1865, slavery was mainstream and abolitionists were weird radical crazies. Before 1965, "Jim Crow" laws that said non-whites had to use different bathrooms and drinking fountains were mainstream, and people who opposed them were seen as unreasonable.

And back in the 1960s a planned economy was normal and reasonable, and many progressives openly called for normalisation of sex with teenagers. Sometimes shifts in attitudes are progress. Sometimes they're just a random walk. Sometimes the left is right, sometimes the right is.

Eugenics as in forcible sterilization of the “unfit” was similarly Progressive back in the early 20th.

I'm not sure either of those are particularly progressive -- the current president seems to be a fan of tariffs, a form of planned economy popular in the 19th century (and condemned by most economists since, who favor free trade). And child brides are a common feature of many right-wing religious groups, argued on the grounds that that people (particularly female) traditionally married in their teen years.

> Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.

Such as?

gay marriage?

Presumably you mean opposition to gay marriage?

Yes, opposition to gay marriage was so mainstream that even Barack Obama campaigned supporting Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act. Even in the Democratic primaries, as late as 2008, being pro gay marriage was seen as a liability.

I don't know that it's painted as far right as much as conservative (which it is) and by some as bigoted.

The Overton Window moves. Upper marginal tax rates above 90% were not just a position but the actual law in USA during the 1960s, but now are seen here as "far left". Seatbelt requirements were initially felt to be over-intrusion by government, and are now seen by almost everyone as just common sense. And so on and so forth.

> Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.

Painted? Historically, there is a bunch of groups that were opposed to homosexual rights. I wonder how do you think those organization are "painted" on the political spectrum?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_...

- https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230294158_9

- https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-00994-6

> Policy positions that were mainstream in 2000 are now painted as far-right.

Maybe that speaks something about a country that still has the KKK, and allowed its African American population to vote in 1965, not even 40 years before 2000.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation

- https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/white-supremacist-ideals-o...

Honestly man since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the left in the US threw their whole weight into pushing the Overton window on identity politics/intersectionality to the point that "real" old time leftists and communists (like my father) were treated like some sort of conservatives, lol. They went way past the sustainable point.

I feel like the people who say things like "communists were treated like some sort of conservatives because of identity politics" are telling on themselves.

If you look at the people on the actual political left in the US (Bernie, AOC, etc) are they talking about identity politics? Last time I checked they were talking about the problems that impact non-billionaire Americans: Healthcare, Social Security, Raising Minimum Wage, and other efforts to improve quality of life for Americans.

The only times I ever hear about identity politics is when I listen to conservatives describe what people on the left are talking about.

> If you look at the people on the actual political left in the US (Bernie, AOC, etc) are they talking about identity politics?

Great example! So... what happened to Bernie in the Democratic party?

I'm saying that the problem isn't identity politics, but that the American right is terrified of actual policies from the American Left. And they're so terrified they have to make a bid deal of the more divisive social policies (characteristic of the term "identity politics") rather than their economic policies that are incredibly popular.

The majority of the Democratic party is the group being actually shifted by the Overton window away from the actual political left. They are mostly centrists, and not leftists. Frequently they are conservatives. I wish Harris suggested half of the policies that got ascribed to her, but she was honestly to the right of Clinton.

>Healthcare, Social Security, Raising Minimum Wage, and other efforts to improve quality of life for Americans.

But then why are they supported, for the most part, not by the most oppressed masses, but by the oppressive elites?

Gosh "who is an oppressive elite?"

Musk, Trump and the billionaires in their administration sure look like "oppressive elites" to me. Can you name multiple oppressive elites?

Edit: I think you answer your own question here. The actual oppressive elites have convinced the masses (and you) that there's a different amorphous group of "oppressive elites" that aren't the obvious ones standing right in front of your eyes. Obligatory https://xkcd.com/1013/

They talk about identity politics all the time. It is us vs them on everything. Worker vs employer is the quintessential example. Two groups that in the real world must work together, and do. But in the mind of the political left they are not just people that occasionally have adverse interests but mostly shared interests (my success is yours). No, they are sworn enemies.

I don't think you know what "identity politics" are, which is kinda funny to me. I would love to have discussions where identity politics meant "Worker vs Employer".

Worker vs Employer aren't actually 2 groups of people, unless you really consider corporations as people.

Well firstly, bodies corporate are obviously legal persons and nobody with any clue disagrees with that. But that isn't what I am talking about.

Every company has a board of directors who are natural persons, and ownership eventually is traceable back to natural persons, and their officers are natural persons. Grouping people up doesn't make them unpersons.

Worker and employer not your preferred languahe? Call it worker and manager, worker and executive, worker and CEO. Whatever you want. But the sentiment is very real. It is about treating the workplace as an antagonistic, conflict-driven, zero-sum environment. If I win, you lose. If you win, I lose.

I don't think that is how real workplaces actually work. I like my employer and I like my boss. Without them, I'd be out if a job. Without me, they'd be out of a worker. I don't think we have opposing interests at all.

It is definitely identity politics. It is the original identity politics: Marxism. The proletariat against the bourgeoisie and all that rubbish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com