Identity politics is currently the most common phrase used to dismiss issues that affect marginalized groups. It’s prevalent in right wing media, but also in some leftist enclaves. Essentially, it conflates the idea that identity and politics are closely related with the propensity to base a person’s virtue solely on their identity. The great debate, therefore, about whether the rampant presence of identity politics on the left gave Trump the presidency, is full of misnomers and canards.
The movements that gave rise to identity politics were all somewhat related to raising awareness for the issues that marginalized communities faced. This history hence makes it easy for pundits to further forge the imaginary schism between social and economic issues. That creates room for people in the normative majority to claim the supposed ability to discern real political issues from social issues. This pseudo objectivism is almost exclusive to white men. But here’s the thing: if you think that your identity gives you no inherent bias, you’re much less useful to political discourse than someone who’s aware of their perspective. There is irony in telling marginalized groups, under the guise of objectivity, to stop using their identity to dictate their politics. Because if your identity is invisible in society, it’s easier not to notice social issues, and therefore easier to minimize them. The refusal to acknowledge the impact of your identity on your political views is a pretty strong indicator of how your identity is socialized. How does the saying go again? Privilege by any other name still smells as sweet.
With that as a precursor, there is an important parts of this narrative I want to dissect—the false dichotomy between identity politics and economic issues. For some reason, people pretend that if you're in a marginalized group, only social issues affect you. In the world of identity politics, the economy works differently; the housing market is perpetually stable and education is more affordable. The failure to see the intrinsic connection between a person’s identity and their economic status creates a gap between them that’s impossible to bridge. And it was one of the major failures of Bernie Sanders’ “revolution.” You can’t end systematic oppression by fixing the economy. What happens when you deregulate banks, but black families are still denied loans or given higher interest rates? What happens when education is more affordable, but transgender students are still denied housing? This is why the depiction of the wounded and forgotten white working class ridden with economic anxiety is so disingenuous. Economic anxiety is served, well done on a platter to people in marginalized communities regularly, the only difference being that it comes with a choice of racism, misogyny or homophobia. There is a present and persistent trend of intersectionality between social and economic issues. To hold them at an arm's length from each other is not only counterproductive, it’s naive.
If there’s anything this election has shown us, it’s the power of identity politics. You want to know who elected Donald Trump? It wasn’t PC culture, it wasn’t economic anxiety. It was the people who voted for him because they felt something was being taken away from them. It was people who felt the need to retaliate against “diversity.” It was the blue lives matter crowd. People who chose their whiteness. People who saw two options and chose their privilege. It was white identity politics. Often, when the right needs examples of what they’re criticizing the left for, they need only look inward. Alas, they’re seldom so introspective. But I digress.
Elections have consequences. And the consequences of this one are going to break the backs of the people who decisively made it what it was. And as for the rest of us, as we watch our brothers’ killers set free, almost in a perpetual loop, we’re finding it hard to sympathize.
