Blaming politicians for divisiveness fails to acknowledge historical inequity
Politics: noun — the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power
Trump’s surprising victory over Hillary Clinton has led many people to question the efficacy of “identity politics.” This misplaced focus on the failure of listening to a diverse set of voices will ultimately lead to future defeats. For until America commits to and realizes true equity, “identity politics” will continue as the natural manifestation of past and present shortcomings.
It is important to recognize that “identity politics” are not unique to America. In democracies around the world, as well as in all other sorts of governments, there are political organizations based on identity. Imagining “identity politics” as a phenomenon of the American political system fails to account for the role that race and other identifying factors have shaped global systems.
Here, in America, our political system is designed to foster peaceful — if vigorous — public conversations that give all stakeholders a chance to voice their concerns. It is built to channel the frustrations of the marginalized into the public forum where their grievances can be considered. Democracy, literally Greek for power of the people, strives to avoid conflict by replacing it with conversation. It is a noble, and difficult endeavor.
Historically, political and economic disagreements have been resolved through violence, often with racial and cultural identities underpinning and driving the propaganda efforts. Horrible sufferings and injustices have been committed in the name of racial or other purities, qualities of the superior races.
As we now seek to overcome the inherited historical track record, we must recognize that overcoming “identity politics” is a pipe-dream. A possibility only in a world in which history’s sins stay in the past, and have no impact on the present. Politicians aren’t stirring up trouble by inciting identity groups to organize for equality; people who are denied basic rights and fair treatment, and have been for a very long time, are demanding equal treatment under the law — often for the first time in a representative society in which they feel safe doing so.
If and when Americans — and others — can acknowledge how the historical track record has shaped the modern landscape of inequity, and address those concerns, then we can begin to move beyond “identity politics.” Until then, there are two possible outcomes, either political blocs shaped by the historically dispossessed will remain an important — indeed growing — part of our system, or we will sink back into a more primal form of politics in which those who look, speak, and behave differently are silenced rather than allowed to advocate in the public sphere.
This acknowledgement should start by recognizing that identity politics aren’t the agitations of troublemakers, but the voices of those who have been left out of the political conversation trying to get in. American politics are and always have been a game for white men. Other groups want seats at the table. Black Lives Matter leaders aren’t fomenting destructive dissent, they’re organizing African-Americans who have and still do feel the effect of racist policies, from slavery to Jim Crow to mass incarceration. The Women’s March, held the day after Trump’s inauguration didn’t occur because some women were encouraging others to be angry for no reason, it happened because women are legitimately scared and furious that a man who casually brags about sexual assault could become president. In countries all over the world LGBTQ people have been — and still are — killed because of their sexual orientation. To imagine that their demands for equality are results of ambitious politicians and not the legitimate grievances of those treated as second-class citizens and human-beings is naive and offensive.
If we ever hope to move beyond identity politics, we must provide equal treatment and equal opportunity under the law. Blaming politicians or other agitators for artificially creating this dissent only highlights the privilege that is part of the problem. We must acknowledge, rather than criticize, those who reject that they should be treated with less dignity and respect because something about their identity is or has been deemed unfavorable, out of the mainstream, or inferior. If you view identity politics as a problem, a commitment to equity is the antidote.