“The End of Identity Politics?” Sydney Williams
http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com
Here we are in early December, almost a quarter of the way through the 21st Century. Growing up in the mid-part of the 20th Century, I thought I was living in the future. The 19th Century – the past – was ever-present in grandparents, great aunts and uncles, and older neighbors. The “future,” foretold in books like The Time Machine, Brave New World, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 and movies like The War of the Worlds and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, provided fanciful entertainment, but hardly accurate predictions.
But the world does move on, and change is one constant we can count on. Politically things change. The Party of Lincoln lost the black vote. The Party of segregation became the party of civil rights. Today we are going through another political change, as the Party of the working class is becoming the Party of elites, and of those dependent on government, and the mindless woke. And the Party of Lincoln, the Party of opportunity, is beginning once again to make inroads among the nation’s minorities.
Mr. Trump’s victory on November 5th may have marked the end of identity politics as we know it. Economic class, the election showed, mattered more than ethnicity, race or gender. Identity politics is based on the natural tendency for people of a specific race, ethnicity, gender, cultural, or religious group to band together, in friendship and to rectify past injustices. But that tendency has been employed and advantaged by politicians who, with the assistance of allies in the media, have divided people into oppressors and oppressed. Identity politics has led to an absence of focus on issues more relevant to individuals.
The election showed that the American public is receptive to merit being the determinant to earned rather than “deserved” reward. DEI and ESG have fallen from favor. With the election, they fell further, defeated by common sense and real-world issues like the border, inflation, crime, disarray overseas, and excessive government intrusion and spending. Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist historian, wrote in the November 21 issue of American Greatness of culture wars: “The age of flashing pronouns, renaming iconic landmarks, statue toppling, trashing the dead, vandalizing with impunity the campus library, or spouting anti-Semitic venom is passing.”
But the going is sluggish. While a CBS News/YouGov poll found 59% of American adults approve of how the Trump team is preparing its return to the White House, the Progressive Left is in denial about the election, as they continue to genuflect at the altar of Wokeness. Many believe that America remains racist, a society divided between victims and victimizers – that its history must be expunged and re-written; and that, for the nation’s redemption, taxpayers should continue to fund government departments of diversity, equity and inclusion. And they feel convinced that Mr. Trump symbolizes all that is wrong with the nation. But who is out of touch with America’s electorate? Mike Gonzalez and Armen Tooloee wrote in last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal: “Donald Trump’s most effective campaign ad featured the tagline, ‘Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.’”
In any event, is it accurate to call Mr. Trump a racist, sexist, bigot? Piers Morgan, in the November 23 issue of The Spectator, noted that he received “so many new votes from black, Latino, female, Jewish and Muslim voters, and celebrates by dancing on stage to the Village People’s gay anthem ‘YMCA’.” Empirical evidence suggests the answer to the question is no.
Democrats have created a bell-bar approach toward their Party – the elite (the media, the entertainment world, college professors and administrators, coastal tech and Wall Street billionaires) on one side, and those financially dependent on government on the other. It is a policy that ignores working class people, including legal immigrants, those who had once been the backbone of their Party. It is policy that downplays the role of aspiration, dedication, and effort – traits that lead to economic success. Having lived in Connecticut for almost sixty years, I have witnessed this change – wealthy enclaves and country clubs that were once dominated by Republicans have become bastions of Democratic group-think.
Politicians have long campaigned by compartmentalizing the electorate. The Marxist Left Review, a semi-annual publication, in August 2021, defined the term: “Identity politics is a set of ideas and practices that aim to build recognition of and expand representation for particular identity groups” to elevate them “to moral and political pre-eminence.” The second half of the 20th Century saw the emergence of such large-scale political movements: women’s rights, Black Civil Rights, gay and lesbian liberation, native American movement. They were all, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, based on claims about injustice having been done to them. And their claims were, largely, valid.
But while these issues were imperative sixty years ago, the world has moved on. Those legitimate arguments have morphed into demands that male athletes be allowed to compete in women’s sports, that tampon dispensers be placed in men’s rooms, that school children should be allowed to take hormone-altering drugs without parent permission, and universities where students are fearful of expressing conservative opinions because of retaliation from professors and other students.
Despite what we read, see and hear in and on mainstream media and despite claims by Progressives of disinformation from conservative social media outlets, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia have been in retreat. Are there still bigots? Of course. There always will be, but they are less ubiquitous than before. Given that the percentage of votes cast for Mr. Trump among blacks, Hispanics and youth increased suggests that the United States is approaching the goal which Martin Luther King sought – that the color of one’s skin is less important than the content of one’s character. The election was an affirmation that merit, aspiration, effort and ability are critical to success, and that affirmative action is yesterday’s answer to yesterday’s problem. The election’s outcome found that economic class was more critical to voters than race, gender or ethnicity. The U.S. is becoming more of a melting pot.
People should be judged by ability, effort and their accomplishments. We are each an individual. Today’s identity politics has led to racial and gender discrimination. It was the excuse Nazis used to persecute Jews in the 1930s and ‘40s, and it is what Chinese Communists do today to tyrannize Uyghurs. Its ugliness is seen in anti-Semitism on college campuses. And it is what led the ICC (International Criminal Court) to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant.
I hope my optimism about witnessing the dying embers of identity politics is not pollyannish – that its setback is not just temporary. On February 18, 1958 Senator John F. Kennedy spoke at Loyola College Annual Alumni dinner in Baltimore: “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our responsibility for the future.”
Read and re-read Christopher Hitchens’ wise remarks that preface this essay. Once anger over the election’s outcome has subsided and common sense returned, cooler heads should prevail. In an interview with Jason Riley in last Wednesday’s The Wall Street Journal, Shelby Steele said, the election was “…a vote for individualism over group identity.” And that it was “… a real note of progress for black America politically.” Aspiration, ability, effort are not characteristics exclusive to one’s gender, race, or ethnicity. But they have not been meted out equally, which explains differences in outcomes. Each of us is unique. Government should support the concept of equal opportunity, and individuals should be encouraged to take advantage of their God-given talents. Merit, regardless of who the individual is, should be the deciding factor in college admission and job offers. If we do, we will put “paid” to the belief in identity politics, at least as we know it; and then we can concentrate on today, the future and new problems that confront us.
Comments are closed.
