So, we have a diary complaining about complaints about “Identity Politics”.
First, I want to state that this dispute is really a proxy, between those who were, and those who weren’t, deeply invested in Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president. (I’m the latter)
I think that there are a number of reasons for this, most importantly that the two “Sides” are talking past each other.
I’m going to run down what I see as basic facts, followed by my conclusions regarding these facts.
So, here is my rundown.
Q: Is there a problem with US society regarding inequality and rigging the game.
A: Yes.
Q: Is bigotry a part of this problem?
A: Yes.
Q: Do the powers that be use bigotry to divert attention away from inequality?
A: Yes.
Q: Are there elements of the Democratic Party, both among the leadership and among the general party members, who personally benefit from problems with US society regarding inequality and rigging the game.
A: Yes.
Q: Do some of the people who benefit from inequality attempt use the fight against bigotry to avoid addressing the issues of inequality by which they personally benefit.
A: Yes.
Q: Do the people who use the fight against bigotry to ignore more general issues of inequality constitute a significant portion of the Democratic Party?
A: This is where we might disagree. I would say yes, but this varies with definitions of “significant”, “Democratic Party,” etc..
Q: Does this faction in the party wield significant power?
A: Again, this is where we might disagree. I would say yes.
When one looks at the last 2 Democratic Presidential administrations what we see is:
- Support for Wall Street and implicit guarantees to bail them out. (Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, etd.)
- Support for increased subsidies (by way of more draconian laws) for monopolists in Pharma, Entertainment, etc. (Look at NAFTA or the TPP, and it is clear that the primary US goal was to expand the reach and power of monopolies, and in the case of the TPP, it involved ignoring slavery promulgated by some of the nations engaged in the negotiations).
- A lackadaisical approach to control fraud at the top of the management pyramid. (Martin Shkreli should have the last of hundreds of such prosecutions).
When Jesse Jackson was running for President, he was asked why white steelworkers should vote for him.
His reply was, (paraphrasing) “I’ll show them that they have more in common with black factory workers than they do with management.”
The people who argue against “Identity Politics” do so for 3 reasons:
- That “Identity Politics” is promulgated (by some) AT THE EXPENSE OF MORE BASIC AND UNIVERSAL ISSUES IN SOCIETY.
- That “Identity Politics” in its more extreme form serves to prevent groups with common interests in social justice from actually working together.
- That “Identity Politics” in its more extreme form ignores intersectionality, which means that the challenges to specific populations are applicable only in so much as they apply all members, which frequently means a laser-like focus issues of the already well off. (For example, tenure in faculty, while janitorial staff at that university are stripped of pay and benefits)
For example also means that the alpha and omega of discussions of unions in the United States are limited to the (deplorable) history of racism in trade unions in America for example, and any discussion of Taft-Hartley, right to work, etc. is subsumed in this observation.
There are very real issues of lethal bigotry against women, communities of color, the LGBT, religious minorities, first peoples, etc. in the USA, and they can and should be addressed.
But there is a class of Democrats, of which the now thankfully moribund DLC was the avatar, who choose to use these issues as a cudgel to protect Wall Street, eternal war, and feudal working conditions.
When I complain about “Identity Politics”, it is directed toward the folks who claim to be liberal, but lobby against anything that might actually effect them. (Amazon, Google, etc. come to mind)
Also, I would note that this argument is largely an artifact a divide from the 2016 primaries, which have been over for more than a year now.