Columbia professor discusses apolitical polarization


Columbia University professor Mark Lilla (left) urged students to get involved in politics in a discussion moderate by Center for the Political Future co-director Mike Murphy (right). (Sinead Chang/Daily Trojan)

There is no easy fix for political polarization, Columbia University professor Mark Lilla warned students at Ground Zero Performance Cafe  Wednesday. But, he said, there is a glimmer of hope — the reality of a common good.

Lilla, who teaches humanities and religion at Columbia, sat down with Center for the Political Future co-director Mike Murphy to discuss the current state and direction of the Democratic Party. The event marked the second in the Center’s political conversation series.

The discussion began with a reflection on Lilla and Murphy’s 2016 presidential election predictions. Lilla, a Democrat, and Murphy, a Republican, both admitted they predicted incorrectly.

In reaction to President Donald Trump’s victory, Lilla wrote an op-ed for The New York Times titled “The End of Identity Liberalism,” which argued that modern liberals are more narrow-minded because they focus solely on groups whose ideologies apply to them.  

“I’d been dissatisfied for quite a long time by the way in which the Democratic Party and the presidential candidates had approached elections,” Lilla told the audience. “I tried to make the case that we were in need of a liberalism that didn’t begin with people’s identities.”

The piece became the Times’ most read opinion article of the year, garnering so much attention that web traffic temporarily froze the server at the Times. The paper had to turn off the comments on the article due to the high volume of responses, he said.

Lilla expanded on his explosive argument against liberal identity politics in his book, “The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics.”

“Very fruitful conversations have not happened in the United States,” Lilla said. “The reaction to the book has been so moralistic, preening and chest-beating, that I’ve had to go abroad to have a sensible conversation.”

When it comes to national and global issues like partisan divisions, Murphy said the Center encourages civil discussion rather than vilification of the other side.

“One of the things we try to do at the Center is address the problem of tribalism, where the basic equation of politics is ‘I’m right, they’re evil,’” Murphy said. “And the danger there is … if they’re evil, you can say or do anything to them.”

Lilla and Murphy agreed that identity politics have pushed the Democratic Party away from their vision for solidarity, making Republicans feel like the “other” party. Lilla said he originally believed that identity politics works toward equality of citizenship, but that it has caused these different parties to become more polarized.

“The identity idea became not one of demanding rights on the basis of equal citizenship, but an identity politics based on expressing, emphasizing and even exaggerating difference,” Lilla said. “The word difference popped into the vocabulary of the left to the extent that the rhetoric was … based on the notion that if you do not belong to my group, you cannot understand me.”

He ended the discussion by calling upon audience members to fight for solidarity through party involvement, rather than just through expressing political opinions online.

“Hitting ‘send’ is not a political act,” Lilla said. “In order to be involved, you have to be involved in the party. I keep trying to encourage young people to be involved.”

Jackson Reinhardt, a senior majoring in political science and law, history and culture, said Lilla’s work has influenced his views on political polarization.

“I’ve always loved Lilla’s writings,” Reinhardt said. “I found his argument on what the Democratic Party, or at least what American liberalism needs to do to unite to win elections, very persuasive.”

Mana Afsari, a junior majoring in classics and non-governmental organizations and social change, is also a fan of Lilla. Afsari said she enjoyed Lilla’s commanding presence.

“What I appreciate about the way he presents himself is that he doesn’t bother with nonsensical, firebrand questions,” Afsari said. “He’s come to talk about what he wants to talk about and what he’s an expert on.”