5 ms·

All politics is identity politics. After the revolution only rich white land owners could vote, elections and governing were based on the wills of a single iden

All politics is identity politics. After the revolution only rich white land owners could vote, elections and governing were based on the wills of a single identity: rich, white, men. Not much has changed in America since then but as more enfranchisement came to the population it is OBVIOUS that other groups would focus their politics on what would help them over what would help others. I'm sure that it's more likely that female voters would lobby for a sexual harassment bill than men; its already been shown that Asian voters gathering in opposition to affirmative action moves because they feel that their kids are targeted (see NYC specialized schools, Harvard). Even throughout the 2016 election and the postmortem most news outlets focused on the "identity" of the white, middle aged, "heartland" / rust belt voter who has been shafted by globalization. It seems to me the term identity politics and everything that comes with it is simply a backlash against groups that have been traditionally marginalized but who are now entering the political arena and making demands.

forgottenpass 8y ago
>All politics is identity politics If your definition of the two terms is identical, perhaps you should look for some subtlety that you might be missing but causes other people to differentiate. For example, maybe there is an attitude that acknowledges political interest groups tend to be made up of constitute group(s) that share more-visible property(s) than a political goal. But wants to de-emphasize those other properties compared to the political interests of the group and raise the importance of principled policy reasoning above surface-level characteristics. I dunno... just spitballing here. >Even throughout the 2016 election and the postmortem most news outlets focused on the "identity" of ... Election reporting is disappointingly focused on hot takes and the horse race. Does anybody actually find utility in the focus on the stories about Little Timmy falling down a well rather than a more systematic analysis?
toasterlovin 8y ago
> After the revolution only rich white land owners could vote, elections and governing were based on the wills of a single identity: rich, white, men. Not much has changed in America since then TBH, it's hard to take anything else you say seriously when you claim that nothing much has changed in America since the revolution 240 years ago. And, regarding your other points: the concept that people deserve certain inalienable rights because they are human, rather than because they belong to certain a group, is the moral foundation upon which women's suffrage, black emancipation, and the civil rights movement are all based. It would be really stupid to dismiss this idea in favor of a system where groups fight it out for political power. And it would be doubly stupid for members of less powerful groups to do so.
- 40acres 8y ago
  I think you are misconstruing what I've said. I'm all for inalienable rights based on the fact that people are human, what I'm trying to point out here is that there is an idealized view of politics and a realistic view. And you can look back throughout the history of this country and all countries and see that political movements are mostly driven by those whose stake is directly tied to their identity. A majority of the civil rights leaders were African Americans. A majority of the women's suffrage movement were women. Just last year you had the investor class lobbying for special deals in the tax code so that the estate tax was lowered. What I'm saying is that you can look at any political issue today and find that the driving force behind it is usually driven by some ideology based on identity. NIMBYs drive NIMBY policy because they are homeowners. Young people are more concerned about policies that would alleviate student debt, rural farmers want their animals to graze on federal land. Everywhere you look identity politics are at play because fundamentally your identity (age, race, sex, profession, lifestyle) helps shape who you are and what you care about.
  - factsaresacred 8y ago
    > What I'm saying is that you can look at any political issue today and find that the driving force behind it is usually driven by some ideology based on identity. I think if you look closer you'll find that more are motivated by values rather than immutable characteristics. And that's the problem with identity politics - it elevates immutable characteristics over shared values and assigns a type of original sin ("white privilege") to the identity it sees as the cause if its woes ("old white men"). It's disgusting.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    A majority of the civil rights leaders were African Americans. A majority of the women's suffrage movement were women. There were thought leaders in both groups who rose above the crude politics of identity, and were able to promulgate a politics of principles. A problem with leaderless movements is that the philosophy can devolve to a Least Common Denominator of crude identity. Even wholly ideological movements can devolve in this way to become identity politics.
stcredzero 8y ago
It seems to me the term identity politics and everything that comes with it is simply a backlash against groups that have been traditionally marginalized but who are now entering the political arena and making demands. It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands merely on the basis of identity. People should be treated with fairly because of merit and the "content of their character." People should not be treated with because of their age, their sex, who they are attracted to, or their skin color. What we should also recognize in 2018, is that tribalism itself is toxic. Tribalism can also be attached to life choices, political stances, and subculture, and those sorts of tribalism can be toxic to the same order of magnitude as older forms, such as those based on ethnicity. Tribalistic toxicity stemming from immutable characteristics is arguably worse, because people are trapped on a side. This is why identity politics should be avoided in general. A politics that would be humane should be about principles and policy, not identity. This is also why the association of principles like Free Speech with particular identities, even identities of choice, is also particularly corrosive.
- 40acres 8y ago
  > It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands * merely on the basis of identity.* I think the problem with the term identity politics is that people have a very limited view of identity. Being white in America is apart of your identify, being gay is part of your identity, living in a big city is a part of your identity, being college educated is a a part of your identity. Each of these things and dozens more help to drive your political viewpoint and what you lobby for. I think for the most part the political groups that have been branded as "identity politics" are all about fair treatment for all, these groups arise usually when fair treatment is not given to them specifically and so they lobby on their own behalf. Look at Black Lives Matter, this is an organization / movement that sprung up after multiple killings of black men by police and is focused on police reform. You can call this identity politics if you want but then I would also say that Right to Life groups who protest abortion because of their Christian beliefs are also identity politics. So are PACs funded by wealthy individuals who would like to see their taxes cut. This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics.

forgottenpass 8y ago

>All politics is identity politics If your definition of the two terms is identical, perhaps you should look for some subtlety that you might be missing but causes other people to differentiate. For example, maybe there is an attitude that acknowledges political interest groups tend to be made up of constitute group(s) that share more-visible property(s) than a political goal. But wants to de-emphasize those other properties compared to the political interests of the group and raise the importance of principled policy reasoning above surface-level characteristics. I dunno... just spitballing here. >Even throughout the 2016 election and the postmortem most news outlets focused on the "identity" of ... Election reporting is disappointingly focused on hot takes and the horse race. Does anybody actually find utility in the focus on the stories about Little Timmy falling down a well rather than a more systematic analysis?

toasterlovin 8y ago

> After the revolution only rich white land owners could vote, elections and governing were based on the wills of a single identity: rich, white, men. Not much has changed in America since then TBH, it's hard to take anything else you say seriously when you claim that nothing much has changed in America since the revolution 240 years ago. And, regarding your other points: the concept that people deserve certain inalienable rights because they are human, rather than because they belong to certain a group, is the moral foundation upon which women's suffrage, black emancipation, and the civil rights movement are all based. It would be really stupid to dismiss this idea in favor of a system where groups fight it out for political power. And it would be doubly stupid for members of less powerful groups to do so.

40acres 8y ago
I think you are misconstruing what I've said. I'm all for inalienable rights based on the fact that people are human, what I'm trying to point out here is that there is an idealized view of politics and a realistic view. And you can look back throughout the history of this country and all countries and see that political movements are mostly driven by those whose stake is directly tied to their identity. A majority of the civil rights leaders were African Americans. A majority of the women's suffrage movement were women. Just last year you had the investor class lobbying for special deals in the tax code so that the estate tax was lowered. What I'm saying is that you can look at any political issue today and find that the driving force behind it is usually driven by some ideology based on identity. NIMBYs drive NIMBY policy because they are homeowners. Young people are more concerned about policies that would alleviate student debt, rural farmers want their animals to graze on federal land. Everywhere you look identity politics are at play because fundamentally your identity (age, race, sex, profession, lifestyle) helps shape who you are and what you care about.
- factsaresacred 8y ago
  > What I'm saying is that you can look at any political issue today and find that the driving force behind it is usually driven by some ideology based on identity. I think if you look closer you'll find that more are motivated by values rather than immutable characteristics. And that's the problem with identity politics - it elevates immutable characteristics over shared values and assigns a type of original sin ("white privilege") to the identity it sees as the cause if its woes ("old white men"). It's disgusting.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  A majority of the civil rights leaders were African Americans. A majority of the women's suffrage movement were women. There were thought leaders in both groups who rose above the crude politics of identity, and were able to promulgate a politics of principles. A problem with leaderless movements is that the philosophy can devolve to a Least Common Denominator of crude identity. Even wholly ideological movements can devolve in this way to become identity politics.

stcredzero 8y ago

It seems to me the term identity politics and everything that comes with it is simply a backlash against groups that have been traditionally marginalized but who are now entering the political arena and making demands. It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands merely on the basis of identity. People should be treated with fairly because of merit and the "content of their character." People should not be treated with because of their age, their sex, who they are attracted to, or their skin color. What we should also recognize in 2018, is that tribalism itself is toxic. Tribalism can also be attached to life choices, political stances, and subculture, and those sorts of tribalism can be toxic to the same order of magnitude as older forms, such as those based on ethnicity. Tribalistic toxicity stemming from immutable characteristics is arguably worse, because people are trapped on a side. This is why identity politics should be avoided in general. A politics that would be humane should be about principles and policy, not identity. This is also why the association of principles like Free Speech with particular identities, even identities of choice, is also particularly corrosive.

40acres 8y ago
> It would be one thing to make demands on the basis of unfair treatment with regards to universal principles. It's another thing to make demands * merely on the basis of identity.* I think the problem with the term identity politics is that people have a very limited view of identity. Being white in America is apart of your identify, being gay is part of your identity, living in a big city is a part of your identity, being college educated is a a part of your identity. Each of these things and dozens more help to drive your political viewpoint and what you lobby for. I think for the most part the political groups that have been branded as "identity politics" are all about fair treatment for all, these groups arise usually when fair treatment is not given to them specifically and so they lobby on their own behalf. Look at Black Lives Matter, this is an organization / movement that sprung up after multiple killings of black men by police and is focused on police reform. You can call this identity politics if you want but then I would also say that Right to Life groups who protest abortion because of their Christian beliefs are also identity politics. So are PACs funded by wealthy individuals who would like to see their taxes cut. This is what I mean when I say all politics is identity politics.