The presidential election next year has lead partisanship to highest level in American Politics. While Democrats play to a multicultural identity politics with white candidates, the Republicans play white identity politics with multiracial candidates. Both sides commit excess like when liberals accuse Ben Carson being an ally of white supremacists and conservatives accuse Bernie Sanders of being a Nazi. Both claims are false while is true that some positions embraced by Carson are similar to people on the far right, I don’t really think that neo-Nazis or white supremacists would consider a black politician for president. On the other hand, Sanders fascination with Scandinavia isn’t because of their race but with its generous welfare state. Generalize that one side or another is racist had become a tactic for candidates playing to their base.

Donald Trump is maybe the biggest example of white identity politics, liberals had compared him to the Nazis, and however Trump is a loyal ally of Israel. On the other hand liberals love to accuse Carson of being a “House Negro” but when Ralph Nader said the same thing about Obama, liberals accused him of being racist. But it’s not only liberals versus conservatives, Kasich compared Trump to Hitler. Neocons distrust Trump despite his strong Jewish ties and hawkish rhetoric. Conservatives had for a long time argue the theory of “natural Republicans”, that minorities are traditionally socially conservative and therefore would vote republican but as Jim Antle wrote these was only a myth and that when it was time to go to the polls, minorities voted in an overwhelming majority for Democrats. There isn’t an honest talk about race by conservatives, Jack Hunter argue that a lot of people in the right are dismissing the Black Lives Matter movement and being hypocrites in respect of big government abuse by the part of the police.

Liberals are hypocrites on racial issues when they said they are in favor of minorities but attacked viciously minority candidates running against then. No matter if the opponents are conservatives like Carson, Rubio and Cruz or third party progressives like Nader. In 2003, the Democratic Party establishment endorsed Gavin Newson against a progressive Latino like Matt Gonzalez in the San Francisco mayoral election just because Newson was a Democrat and Gonzalez was a Green. However is difficult to predict if multicultural identity politics will always play in favor of Democrats, the victory of an Indian American like Kshama Sawant of Socialist Alternative show that minority third party candidates could made the difference. The Green Party has been savvy enough to make inroads with the Black Lives Matter movement, at least one leader in the movement seem to be running against an incumbent Democrat for the state legislature next year.

It is important that American politicians would talk honestly about race. Marc Fisher reflections on the GOP, show that despite having minority candidates they were lacking in support from minorities. Some people dismiss the idea of Black Conservativism, but even social democrats like Jeer Heet admit that these is a real ideology but says that is not what Ben Carson represents today. The idea of self-reliance for the black community is powerful, it was shared by both Howard Zinn and the Black Panthers. But in a mostly white Republican Party, minority conservatives spend most of their time in search for white voters than making inroads in their own communities. Democrats should also talk about race, for example how affirmative action has made complex the admission to college to Asian Americans. Democrats had for a long time saying that they are in favor of minorities however the regulations that they push had made difficult for minorities to start their own business and also the gentrification is more usual in liberal cities. I sadly had to admit that neither Clinton or Trump would speak honestly on race, they would do whatever to please their base. But maybe the Black Lives Matter movement could teach a lesson to all. Conservatives should learn that while minorities don’t usually support their ideas, they are protesting against the abuse of power by government officials in their protest against police violence. Liberals should learn to respect the fact that not all in diverse communities are going to agree with their agenda and that a lot of their policy made more difficult the life of minorities.

Advice for conservatives: stop using liberal precrime narrative for your wars

War, the great American pastime.

Forget baseball; forget apple pie. Our country is no longer one that bonds over a shared language, religion, ethnicity, or tradition. No, what brings Americans together more than mass consumerism is a foreign hobgoblin that threatens our way of life.

How great is it then for the national spirit that many political figures in Washington are agitating for war with Iran? And how ironic is it that many of the bellicose voices are self-styled conservatives? I say ironic because the drumming for war is based not a direct threat but what Philip K. Dick called “precrime.” And the right-wingers imposing their precrime verdict of guilt on Iran are giving in to liberal ideology. If they continue, conservatives will only fuel the ambitious progressive agenda of eliminating free choice in everything from gun rights to health care. Oh, and they will lead us down the warpath in the Middle East again. Because we totally need another costly quagmire in the land where people can’t stop blowing each other up.

Let’s review. In the wake of a prospective deal with Iran over its nuclear program, Republicans are foaming at the mouth decrying the bargain. President Obama, they say, is unwittingly becoming the new Neville Chamberlain (there must be some variant of Godwin’s Law that that applies to Chamberlain references). They also allege Iran is a state run by full-fledged fanatics who want to commit suicide by threatening Israel and the West.


You don’t win converts by being rude

“I’m going to be 100% honest with you,” her email started. “I want you there but I don’t want [her] there.” That’s the excuse I was given for why I was not invited to a friend’s engagement party. As an ardent anarcho-libertarian, she didn’t want my girlfriend in attendance. My expected guest committed the gravest of sins: she “honestly believed Romney would be a good president.” That belief might as well be the same as robbing starving children of their last scraps of food. My girlfriend also had the audacity of criticizing libertarians for both being too purist and not casting a ballot for Governor Romney when it mattered. In the libertarian world, this accusation is the equivalent of first degree murder. So she must be shunned.

When I first received the email, I stared at it for a minute before clicking off and hitting the “trash” button. At first I smirked about the declined invitation. I used to be a militant defender of libertarian non-politics. I avoided company with government workers, preferring to withhold my presence from those awful “thieves and murderers.” I understood where the disinvitation was coming from. But even still, I was hurt by the sentiment. I was being kept out of gathering of friends because of my girlfriend’s political beliefs. She’s not some bullhorn Republican, aggressively deriding everyone who doesn’t vote straight R. She’s as amicable around liberals as she is around conservatives and libertarians. This was strictly politics.

The liberal press loves to fret about the current polarization in politics facing America. Tea Party Republicans are painted as intolerant of compromise. President Obama’s aloof stance toward the loyal opposition is seen as a necessary undertaking if he is ever to get anything done. Washington, we’re told, is a town divided on ideological lines that is as cynical as it is inept. There’s a lot of truth in these caricatures. But the American polity isn’t all that venomous or divided as it was two centuries ago. In the contentious campaign between then-President John Adams and then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson, sycophants from both sides called the candidates everything from “a hideous hermaphroditical character” to a “gross hypocrite.” If anything, political discourse has cooled down to a level of respectful civility.