Are Identity Politics Legit?

So I often hear people lambast others for using Identity Politics, which is basically operating as if certain political issues tend to affect/be of interest to/be supported by/or otherwise divide along demographic lines, and forming responses and coalitions based on those lines.

But is this really bull****? As so many seem to think it is?

In my mind the answer is simple: It depends on the issue.

There are many issues that are not particularly related to demographic divides. Tariff policy, tax brackets, Education costs, environmental issues, speed limits, and a million of things and these don't tend to be identity politic issues.

But there are hot button issues in our country that do, to a high degree, impact particular groups. Gay Marriage tends to affect homosexuals. The Minimum Wage tends to affect the poor. A Border Wall is going to be most relevant to mexican immigrants, travel restrictions of Muslims are going to mostly impact Muslims, Abortion rights are going to mostly effect women, the list goes on.

For these issues, where in point of fact, by the very nature of the issue, some groups are affected more than others, then it is only natural that identity will come into the politics of the way that discussion plays out, it is almost unavoidable. How could it not?

Furthermore, lambasting people for using Identity Politics is kind of a cheat. If a group of people can be attacked as a block, but then told not to respond as a block, then that is granting greater political power right off the bat to the attackers, and weakening the coalition of the defenders.

Put short, if a political issue effects people based on demographic identity, then it is natural that they will respond as such, if it doesn't, then they wont.

I don't know why this would surprise anyone or anyone would consider that an illegitimate way to organize political action.

Identity politics fail because they are based on emotion and lies.

Yes, they are. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing the right give credence to Vance's Hillbilly Elegy.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Identity politics assumes that all people of a particular group seek the same goals and have the same values. I believe it encourages group think and a herd mentality. Often, especially in today's United States, if you are a member of an "Identity Group" (black, Hispanic, LBGTQ, pro-life, etc.) and you don't share your group's beliefs in some respect, you are branded a traitor of sorts. It also leads to in-fighting and arbitrary divisions.

Take the women's march for example and the problem the LBGTQ community had with all of the focus on women's genitalia. The "women's" identity group alienated the "transgender" identity group. It divides support and pits groups against each other that should truly be working together.

On the policy front, making policy to target a specific group is always discriminatory in some way. Policy should be applied equally to all. I understand that in the past that hasn't always happened but that should be the goal. One of the biggest issues with Identity Policy is that it is almost impossible to get policies changed once they become entrenched.

dorsai said:

Identity politics assumes that all people of a particular group seek the same goals and have the same values. I believe it encourages group think and a herd mentality. Often, especially in today's United States, if you are a member of an "Identity Group" (black, Hispanic, LBGTQ, pro-life, etc.) and you don't share your group's beliefs in some respect, you are branded a traitor of sorts. It also leads to in-fighting and arbitrary divisions.

Take the women's march for example and the problem the LBGTQ community had with all of the focus on women's genitalia. The "women's" identity group alienated the "transgender" identity group. It divides support and pits groups against each other that should truly be working together.

On the policy front, making policy to target a specific group is always discriminatory in some way. Policy should be applied equally to all. I understand that in the past that hasn't always happened but that should be the goal. One of the biggest issues with Identity Policy is that it is almost impossible to get policies changed once they become entrenched.

Click to expand...

It's not that they all are the same, but rather that there is a collective identity, which tends to produce certain impulses and concerns. Identy politics of the late 20th century formalized this and gives more explicit credence for it, particularly among minorities which have felt trivialized or harmed by society. Nevertheless, to argue that this is a singularly a bad thing is to argue against nearly all organizations, be it the nation-state, a state, township, economic class, an education grouping, and so on.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

I don't see much good in "forcing" or perhaps labelling people into identity groups based on demographic groups that have no intrinsic meaning. I grew up 60 years ago with the idea that one's color is skin deep and had no impact on what type of person he/she is. Apparently many think that is outdated thinking and that "Blacks" believe this and Hispanics believe that, while ignoring all the divisions within those groups to say nothing of the fact that there is no consensus on what "black" means or what Hispanic is. Just as examples.
Malcolm X made the comment in his great speech, The Ballot or the Bullet, that only African Americans get sh*t (this was in 1963). Africans did not get sh*t, in his speech. This implies cultural or social issues rather than race was the main issue. Of course, Malcolm X had a Grenadan mother and there is dissonance between British Caribbean blacks and urban US blacks as well as rural blacks. There are at least 20 subgroups under Hispanic, not including sub-subgroups made from gender, wealth, etc.

The more we talk about how Blacks vote for Democrats and whites voted for Trump and blah blah blah the more we encourage others to dislike these identities and resort to biased stereotyping. The more we grow apart. It may be good temporarily for politicians but not good for societies.

Heterogeneity is preferable to homogeneity. And identity politics leads to homogeneity within the identity groups.

ajn678 said:

Identity politics fail because they are based on emotion and lies.

Click to expand...

Care to explain what you mean?

jimithyashford said:

Care to explain what you mean?

Click to expand...

Grouping together people based on the categories that Liberals make takes away any individuality that the person has and tells them they need to feel this way based on their characteristics as a human that they can't control rather than who they are as a person.

dorsai said:

Identity politics assumes that all people of a particular group seek the same goals and have the same values. I believe it encourages group think and a herd mentality. Often, especially in today's United States, if you are a member of an "Identity Group" (black, Hispanic, LBGTQ, pro-life, etc.) and you don't share your group's beliefs in some respect, you are branded a traitor of sorts. It also leads to in-fighting and arbitrary divisions.

Take the women's march for example and the problem the LBGTQ community had with all of the focus on women's genitalia. The "women's" identity group alienated the "transgender" identity group. It divides support and pits groups against each other that should truly be working together.

On the policy front, making policy to target a specific group is always discriminatory in some way. Policy should be applied equally to all. I understand that in the past that hasn't always happened but that should be the goal. One of the biggest issues with Identity Policy is that it is almost impossible to get policies changed once they become entrenched.

Click to expand...

But is it not understandable, nay, inevitable, that if a group of people are attacked based on their identity that they will respond as an identity block? I mean if you try and take away marriage from Gays, of course Gays will react as a group. I mean maybe not literally EVERY gay of course, but by in large the impacted demographic will united to combat the policy that is impacting them. Thats just an easy and non-controversial. On more controversial notes, if (and please understand I am not inviting debate on IF this is the case, merely using it as an example) if blacks are targeted as a group, are they not likely to respond as a group, if Muslims or Women or LGBT folk are impacted as a group by legislation, are they not likely to respond as a group and form a coalition based on the identity trait they are being attacked on?

Not only is it not surprising that this would happen, but I can hardly imagine it not happening. History is a great teacher and if it teaches us anything it is that a common enemy is the quickest and most effective way to cause people to group up and circle the wagons. In short, the only way to combat identity politics is to make sure that our laws do not differentiate between, specifically target, or disproportionately impact, any one identity. The solution sure as heck isn't to go ahead and target people as groups, Muslims, Immigrants, Homosexuals, and then lambast them for circling the wagons in response.

ajn678 said:

Grouping together people based on the categories that Liberals make takes away any individuality that the person has and tells them they need to feel this way based on their characteristics as a human that they can't control rather than who they are as a person.

Click to expand...

What I am suggesting is that Identity Politics is the natural reaction to identity targeting. It's not like Liberals "made up" the identity gay. Gay is a real identity, and when you try and take a right away from Gays, whatever their other difference might be, you bring them together against a common foe. I am suggesting that Women, Gays, Muslims, Immigrants, Black Folk, LGBT folk, etc would not be grouped into identity politic blocks if there was nothing targeting them that they felt the need to defend against.

Just look at white folk. For many decades there was no such thing as a White Identity politics because there was no manifest concept of a common threat to whiteness that created such a block. In recent months we have seen white nationalist influence surge because the perception of a threat to whiteness has forged an Identity politic where it did not previouosly exist. Likewise a white identity politic developed in the south during and after the Restoration for much the same reason. Hell, going back even further in history, for the longest time in England the reason there was such a thing as Catholic and Protestant identity politics is because the two groups kept persecuting and killing each other. In 100% Catholic nations, there wasn't a catholic identity politic because there was no outside threat forcing that identity to coalesce. And while such a thing was unprecedented at the time, I suggest that likewise in a nation where nobody gave a crap about what religion you were and all religions were treated pretty much equally, there also would be no religious identity politics. That is not to say no religious identity, but rather no relgious identity politics. Like look as Protestants in this nation. There are 20k or so protestant denominations, but there isn't a protestant identity politic in this country, because they are all treated the same, and have no threat in particular targeting them, so they don't circle the wagons, and you have loads that run the gambit from really conservative to really liberal. Protestants show up holding signs on both sides of pretty much every debate.

The solution to identity politics is to take care to be very certain that your laws and policies and culture do not target/burden/harm any particular identity group, that there is no common threat to a demographic block that will forge them into a whole. The solution is not to go ahead and target the ability of gays to marry or of women to abort or of muslims to travel and then wag an accusatory finger at them for working as an identity group against those actions.