Laurie Penny, The New Statesman: No, identity politics is not to blame for the failures of the left
All politics are identity politics, but some identities are more politicised than others. The notion that the politics of identity and belonging have been allowed to overwhelm seemingly intractable issues of class, power and poverty is, in fact, entirely correct – but this is not a problem for the traditional left. It is a problem for the traditional right, which has pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy for centuries, pitting white workers against black and brown workers, men against women, native-born citizens against foreigners in a hierarchy of victimhood that diverts energy and anger away from the vested interests bankrolling the entire scheme.
Tell me who in the current group of Democratic elected officials understands that in practical terms at the core of their being. Note that Bernie Sanders is still independent, was savaged for not having this at the core of his being, and although an important voice in the Democratic caucus (in contrast with the Democratic Party), has influence really only among 10% of the people required to win national elections.
This goes again to the question of who is the opposition coalition and what they stand for.
What won the election was the idea of exclusion and the freedom to exclude. Laurie Penny rightly asks who really benefits from that result? The cabinet appointments should make the answer to that question pretty apparent.
Who will stand against that idea of exclusion for the sake of collective bargaining in real populist power?
I don’t understand. She says this: “It is a problem for the traditional right, which has pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy for centuries, pitting white workers against black and brown workers, men against women, native-born citizens against foreigners in a hierarchy of victimhood that diverts energy and anger away from the vested interests bankrolling the entire scheme.”
But does she mean ‘problem’ or ‘opportunity?’
I think that the spin to “opportunity” is a switch of perspective to that of the powers-that-be that the traditional right defends even when they are not part of it. For those not among the powers-that-be but supporting the traditional right, it is a huge problem if not recognized. She is speaking from the perspective of what it would take to have a pan-worker political movement. For that, it’s a problem.
Hm. Yeah, I can see that. But … I think those not among the powers-that-be must be gaining something as well, and something they value.
I love the last paragraphs. Sort of thing that I suspect a few of us have tried to say for ages, only to be ignored. Now that nothing is “normal” perhaps we’ll attempt to grasp and act on the need to address the social and economic inequalities that are baked into the system – here and globally. What I won’t do is idly watch as those wanting to lead us chide us into ditching social justice. They go hand in hand. As that old saying goes – we can stand together or we can hang separately. Those last two paragraphs:
I think there seems to be confusion about what identity politics is. I define it to be a message of ‘vote for me, because I’m in the same group as you’. Its not ‘vote for me because I’ll protect you from the bad people who look different from you’ – thats just racist/xenophobic politics.
Trump (really, most Republicans though in a masked way) did the latter, while Hillary is the epitome of the former. Hillary campaigned to women, and when she loses she implies the loss was due to her gender rather than her personal failings. Can you imagine the outcry if Obama had lost in 08 and said in his concession speech that he may have lost but he put x million marks in the ceiling for AAs?
Civil rights was always about equal protection of the law.
I am curious why there is so much resistance in Democratic and progressive circles to not seeing that this is the fundamental issue, not some sort of tribalism.
I frankly think its time to stop relitigating the 2016 election and think about what must be done to bring together the 99% into a populist political movement and parties that will change the institutions that keep all forms of discriminatory behavior in being.
Hillary Clinton now is history. And in six weeks, so will be Barack Obama. As political forces. Time to focus on the changes that need to be made leftward of Mitt Romney to be able to move forward. Putting to rest a silly divisive narrative about identity vs. class is one of them if there is to be popular power again instead alternating co-option into veal pens for the 1%.
I can’t tell how this is responsive to sny’s comment.
I gave my reason for disagreeing with what sny argues identity politics is. That seems to be arguing that Hillary Clinton’s claim to black voters was being married to the “first black President”, as a compliment extended in the 1990s had it.
The politics of ethnic, gender, and sexual identity classes is at root about equal protection of the law. It is majority’s position these days that the freedom to discriminate and not provide equal protection of the law is part of majority or dominant group identity, whether that majority be white, male, heterosexual, or cis in sexual identity.
Part of equal protection of the law is the ability not to be excluded from political office because of your identity. So far in the US, we have not successfully proved that that equal protection of the law or custom exist when it comes to Presidential politics.
Part of that failure is the reduction of equal protection of the law to “just looks like me” pandering to voters. That reduction is why Ben Carson did not have traction in black communities and why Hillary Clinton could not assume that women automatically agreed with her candidacy. That reduction of political principle limits popularity and generally presages a loss.
Lambert Strether at naked capitalism:
Now where this gets dicey is in the institutional arrangements of engrained discrimination that in fact discriminate against women and minorities while spinning the narrative that it is white males who are getting the short end of the stick. That after 50 years is a horrible management practice endemic to many industries and frequent enough in small and medium business firms.