Am early into reading Appiah's book The Lies That Bind and finding it well-written, intelligent, thoughtful, and stimulating.  He attends to complexities some who talk about identity and identity politics ignore, give short shrift to, or may simply be ignorant of.  I've read other stuff by him and appreciate him.  This book so far is reading like an elaboration and perhaps further refinement of themes he's written on previously.  

From Chua's earlier World on Fire, I learned a lot about how ethnic dynamics play out domestically in other countries she is well familiar with, and thought it was interesting.  She is perhaps better known to more of the public for her writings on the Tiger Mom phenomenon.  

Just finished Mistaken Identity, a short critique of identity politics from the left by Asad Haider.  He is an interesting guy and I thought it had some good insights and information (I hadn't heard of Hubert Harrison before, and I was not familiar with the work of Theodore Allen, either), but that those could have been communicated more effectively in an article carrying less ideological freight.       

Chua's and Rubenfeld's depiction of the "Left'" questioning the right of free speech leaves important elements unsaid. First of all, what that might mean in the context of opposing institutional racism is not the same thing as challenging the power of corporations to own speech and where it can be heard. In the case of Citizen's United, for instance, the opposition and dismay concerns free speech not being safe from moneyed interests. Gosh, when I say it that way, it doesn't sound like I am using the Bill of Rights to fire up my grill.

Tolerating free speech from voices deemed by some to be too awful can be a constitutional issue but is also bound up with mores and standards of acceptable behavior. When it becomes a matter of law, then it also becomes a matter of Equal Protection. While discussing the difference between procedures of representation and the substantive meaning as it applies to citizens, David AJ Richards said the following:

• First, the very ground for our constitutional worries about representational unfairness, here and elsewhere, is itself guided by substantive considerations, often considerations of equal liberty itself. And second, the way in which equal respect for conscience and speech forbids content bias itself expresses a deeper procedural conception of the justice of constitutional democracy. Each point should be elaborated as a preface to any alternative interpretation of equal protection.  Toleration and the Constitution. Chapter 10

Chua and Rubenfeld chastise simplistic impulses but they aren't making the issue complicated enough themselves.

While I am picking bones out of the stew, I would like to complain about this statement:

When we think of tribalism, we tend to focus on the primal pull of race, religion, or ethnicity. But partisan political loyalties can become tribal too. When they do, they can be as destructive as any other allegiance. The Founders understood this. In 1780, John Adams wrote that the “greatest political evil” to be feared under a democratic constitution was the emergence of “two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” George Washington, in his farewell address, described the “spirit of party” as democracy’s “worst enemy.” It “agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”

George is making a distinction between tribes and party that is critical to the message. Different communities and organization with different aspirations are not the enemy. While the Establishment of Religion clause is a decision as a nation to stop killing each for believing stuff, its primary function is to encourage people to differentiate themselves from others. It is a charter for not living a way of life that is against your will. Let there be as many tribes as needed to achieve this condition. The binary quality of party allegiance militates against this principle. The "spirit of party" is not another tribe or animal. It is an intoxication that leads a person away from the divisions and customs they would preserve if not under the influence. 

George Washington is saying this in the context of building an alternative to the Divine Right of Kings but he is addressing the King Killer, Oliver Cromwell. The negative outcomes he fears has already shown itself.