…should be prepared to lose it."
I came across this quote in another essay and I think it is interesting.
Some people have blamed identity politics for Trump’s success. Is this just another way of blaming bigotry? Or shouldn’t cis-gendered right-handed heterosexual whites be the one category that is identity-free?
Welcome back!
I think bigotry is at least partly responsible for Trump’s victory – IIRC, the best predictor of support for Trump is negative feelings about black people (or maybe people of color in general, along with Muslims – I’ll see if I can find the link later). I don’t know if this is “identity politics” or not – the way the phrase is thrown around makes me think that any mention of any issue related to race at all is identity politics, to the point that MLK Jr. would have been accused of advocating for it. I think it’s reasonable and, in fact, vital to improving our society and making it more just, to identify issues in which different groups are generally or specifically mistreated, and trying to fix this.
First things first, shall we…? Cite evidence of systemic discrimination against cis-gendered right-handed heterosexual whites.
Can we start by defining identity politics so those of us not in the RW media bubble know what we’re even talking about? In spite of being a Left Coast Big City Liberal* I have no idea what that phrase actually means.
*for the US anyways, really I’m a moderate
More often than not, it’s a group of people that doesn’t identified as being cis-gendered right-handed heterosexual whites, expressing their socio-political interest which frequently don’t align with the interests of cis-gendered right-handed heterosexual whites.
Perhaps I’m wrong and OP will help us out with the definition that fits whatever argument he is trying to make.
One can indeed build a powerful coalition of clueless ninnies, so I’d amend the catchphrase to:
“The only way to lose the identity politics game is not to play.”
Treating straight white men like they’re equal to everyone else instead of giving them the special treatment they feel entitled to.
Historically, straight white men did receive special treatment. So treating them equally to other people is a genuine demotion in status. I’m a straight white man; I can see this.
I can also see that this demotion is fair. It was the previous situation where we were getting special treatment that was unfair.
But not all straight white men can see that. Or care if they can see it. They feel it’s unfair that their status has been demoted and they want to go back to the old system where they got special treatment.
That’s one way to look at it.
Another way to look at it is treating minorities and women equally to straight white men.
I believe this to be a distinction of significant difference.
I agree with you but perceptions are strange. I recall quite some time ago in “World of Warcraft” they reduced the level and cost to get mounts (a faster means to travel). There were quite a few veteran players who reacted as if this were taking something away from them. They had earned mounts when it was harder and more expensive. Of course, it wasn’t taking anything away from them technically except the status of having a mount when others didn’t.
An example not from gaming is the phenomenon that people view salaries comparatively (I can get some cites from economic/psychology journals if it is really necessary). If a person is making X and others get a raise there is a social comparison that causes them to react unfavorably even though they’ve lost nothing.
I think the same thing could be said here. A raise in status from your perceived lessors can be psychology perceived as a loss for you (I mean general you here, not QuickSilver).
Identity politics is why Hillary lost, true enough. She thought all the identity groups that voted for a black person would vote for a white woman. They didn’t; they stayed home.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a terrible example. When salaries increase, and yours don’t, you need to examine why. If you were being overpaid, or others were underpaid, and this is just bringing salaries to their correct levels, that’s one thing. But if others get a raise because of something like a cost of living adjustment or to keep up with inflation and you don’t, then you are effectively being paid less. It’s circumstantial.
Trump won the Republican nomination, presumably on the back of not-identity politics. Given his considerable success without it being an issue, why are you assuming that all those factors that garnered him support melted away nigh-entirely when it comes to the Presidential election?
The main point which is people view salaries and other symbols of social status comparatively. I.e. it isn’t how much I make but how much more I make than others. This is a very well known psychological phenomenon.
I understand the point. It’s like being on a freeway, going 65 MPH with no other traffic around is fine. But if you’re going 65 MPH behind someone you want to pass them because you don’t like being behind someone, even if the speed you’re traveling would be otherwise fine. It’s being overly competitive to your own detriment.
I’m just saying that the salary example is a poor one because you might have a legitimate complaint there depending on the circumstances.
That’s a simplistic summation of a complex answer, I think. There are a lot of reasons she lost – I think the most significant was not focusing anything in terms of resources on MI and WI, and focusing too little on PA. But there are many others.
And yet, more people voted for her than Obama.
Still looking for a workable, non-snarky definition of “identity politics.”
To take the argument a step farther: many events conspired to make Trump win the election, including, probably, quite a few that would have been determinative if they’d happened differently. (My top-two guesses: Comey’s letter and Clinton’s overconfidence rooted in misleading polling.) Hindsight is 20/20; I’m inherently suspicious of anyone who uses this election to prove the point they were harping on BEFORE the election.
Getting back to the OP: playing any game is risking losing the game. I suspect that many of the most conspicuous people who “play the identity politics game” are not terribly focused on winning; they want to make a moral/ethical point. A cynic would call this virtue signaling (“Look at those racist losers”); a believer would call this speaking truth (“Look at the suffering Group X is experiencing, largely ignored”).
I am inclined to be very sympathetic to the aims of “identity politics” folks. It’s sometimes frustrating to see them making choices that seem tactically unsound, but I also think that speaking truth, even to those who don’t want to hear it, and might turn against you, is a sound long-term strategy.
(Ideally, we’d find a way to balance these impulses to be both correct AND effective right now.)
Pretty much.
Look at what, just for example, LGBT identity politics is. “We want to have access to the same basic rights and protections as everyone else. We want some help against the overwhelming bigotry and discrimination we face, up to and including being killed explicitly for our gender or orientation. We want to be respected as human beings, not treated as second-class citizens.” How about black identity politics? “We want to stop the discrimination and monstrous inequality visited upon us; we want police reforms so that we don’t have to constantly worry that any interaction with the police could easily end in a deadly way.”
Things like that.
Remember, when it comes to LGBT identity politics, we’re talking about a case where one party supports this group’s rights, and the other is torn between the position of “You’re fine, just don’t get married” and “You’re fine, just don’t get married, shop at most stores, expect any protection from discrimination, or talk to me, you disgusting faggot.” Identity politics in this case is literally a matter of “this party respects my basic humanity and rights; this party does not”. With the African-American vote, the situation is not quite as dire, but it’s still a matter of “We are suffering from serious institutionalized racism; one party acknowledges the cause and is dedicated to fighting it, while the other ignores and actively exacerbates it”.
What indignities has white America been subjected to that demand such a clear and immediate response? What’s the massive party divide here? What horrible evil has befallen straight, white, cisgendered men in America? The only answers to this question I have seen are either things which have happened to everyone (mainly the recession) and yeah, straight-up bigotry.
You need to define your terms.
The whole point about “live by identity politics, die by identity politics” IIRC goes back to an explanation someone made about why Hillary lost where they said the dems had painted themselves into a corner by relying on and promoting identity politics and identity politics voters as their main base, and that this was dangerous because now disaffected, angry whites were beginning to see themselves, not as an amorphous “majority” but as a specific ethnic group, and to the extent this happened they were easily powerful enough to swing elections.
The general point/warning in the statement was if everyone else is identifying themselves as an “other” with a gripe, eventually the white working class will begin do the same thing on an organized and systematic basis not just in bar conversations. The gist was that working class whites are reacting to having wagging, judgmental political and social fingers pointed at them with group pushback and that liberal whites being aghast they would do this was clueless and naïve.
This is relevant on the left as well, as it represents a sizable fracture point. Generally the socialists want to focus on class issues, whereas liberals want to focus on race, sex, and sexual identity. The former went Bernie, the latter went Clinton. Both have some fair critiques of the other.