Will Diversity Destroy The Left?

For the proud liberal, a quick thought experiment—or, rather, litmus test. Is the following group diverse? Four college students: one white, one black, one Asian, and one Hispanic. “Yes, of course,” you reply.

But what if I were to also note that these young adults hail from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan; Stamford, Connecticut; Brentwood, California; and Highland Park, Texas—towns located within what political scientist Charles Murray termed “SuperZips,” ZIP codes that rank highest based on a combination of income and education? Specifically, all four of our hypothetical subjects grew up in spacious suburban homes. They took tennis and golf lessons at local country clubs in the summer. They were handed keys to brand new—or relatively new—cars when they turned sixteen. All their parents are white-collar professionals, with at least one holding an advanced degree.

Drum roll. If you still feel the group represents diversity, you’re a subscriber to the 1960s-and-after Left. If your answer is an adamant, “No, this group is definitely not diverse,” you’re either an increasingly lonely living fossil or a time-traveling left-winger who’s arrived from an era prior to the emergence of the counterculture.

It wouldn’t be too surprising if the modern Left, with its blinding infatuation with “diversity” grounded in race, ethnicity, and gender, eventually pushes even some of the most devout conservatives to consider the analyses of Karl Marx.

Some of us have - you read that sort of analysis all the time here on FR. It is simply this: that Marx was extremely stubborn about there being only one class signifier that was pertinent to his analysis, and that it was economic class. Once the Frankfurt School got done re-aligning class analysis along other lines the whole thing fell apart just as old Karl knew it would.

The difference is simply that once multiple class signifiers are admitted one finds one's class interests fragmented along numerous fault lines. This is what the author means by "identity":

The Left is divided—although far from evenly—between those who believe that “identity” is the engine of history and those who believe that class struggle serves the same function.

One can only be proletariat, petit bourgeoisie, etc, if one sticks to economic class signifiers as Marx insisted. If, however, one's class identification happens to be wealthy, black, and a woman, one finds class interest fragmented; one cannot advance the interests of all these classes simultaneously because they conflict. And so one chooses whichever one seems expedient at any particular moment. Or, more often, one gives lip service to one and actual behavior to another. To be a Leftist along those lines is not to embrace diversity, it is to embrace hypocrisy. It's built in, one cannot avoid it.

There is, as well, the entirely subjective nature of identification, as we see in, say, a male who identifies as a female, or a black person who is accused of "acting" white. That does not bode well for right-thinking white leftists rioting in favor of interests whose adherents consider exclusively black.

The incredibly convoluted muddle that is contemporary Leftist social analysis is the result. If you get to choose your classes, or if others may do so for you, then literally anything one says in the way of class analysis is true; hence nothing is. It's a dead end road philosophically but it's sure well populated at the moment.

it will destroy us first, then it will destroy themselves.

Right now all those that are “diverse” are being smart, putting aside their astronomical differences and are laser-point attacking their enemy, us. Every minute, of everyday.

But once they have to live and work together, they’re done.

Case in point. When Blago was the IL Gov, he put together some diversity team of important power people that consisted of the rainbow of what the left sees as great. Black, Hispanic, gay, muslim, jew etc etc.

Within a few months they were at each others throats and the group died.

There is no way in hell they can get along. It’s just that right now they have kept it together by directing their hatred towards conservative Christians.

Interesting post.

I just caught something on another website that seemed to deal with a curious paradox. It was a view of a blogger, herewith.

The celebration of diversity and it's advantages for mainly white populations are well known. What has not been realized is that in countries where the population is virtually non-white, this is a fact. There is absolutely no outcry or a demand for "diversity". There appears to be absolutely no requirement for an influx of white people to those countries.

The real reasons for so-called "diversity" might well be an eventual subjugation and even elimination. This of the much maligned white people, in their own countries. They of an orderly and fairly prosperous society, evolving over hundreds of years.

Excuse my ramble.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.