On Identity Politics: They're Bad

There's a fine, faint, and sometimes indistinguishable line between "telling it like it is" and stereotyping. I'm going to try and walk it, bear with me.

About 8 years ago I often found myself in the company of people who identified as "Conservative", who were often nodding their heads in agreement to what I was saying. Now I often find myself with people who identify as "Liberal" who also nod in agreement to things that I say. Or I them. One thing that has stayed constant, though, is my general disgust with those who are "fashionably liberal". I'm using the liberal stereotype here, not the actual political orientation. What I mean is, those who slavishly participate in vaguely political causes, not to acheive political ends, but to be a part of a cultural thing.

Matt's Abortion War of 2012 has brought up some of these old familiar feelings. In and about myself, not anyone else. I've questioned my motives, regarding my own position on abortion, and ultimately found them to be acceptable - but there have been times I had to pause and stop myself from seeking fashionable acceptance and refocus on the fundamentals.

Those who emphatically endorse policies as a means of identifying as part of a collective are engaging in identity politics. They are putting their identity as part of a group (In the case of liberals, an enlightened group; In the case of conservatives: a genuine, down-to-earth group) ahead of the correctness of the policy to which they subscribe.

Those who stereotype political opponents into a narrow identity, based on support of certain particular policies are also engaging in identity politics. They are forcing opponents into an oversimplified description, which is easier to dismiss and ridicule.

These identities come in conservative, liberal and apolitical flavors. But the flavors are entirely artificial. Like grape soda is to an actual grape, the "Liberal" identity has little to do with actual liberal politics. The identity itself may not even exist, in it's entirety, in the mind of a single person. It may simply be an amalgamation of various liberal-ish ideas, images and stereotypes (The shirtless, barefooted, dreadlocked white guy playing acoustic guitar on a college campus, to an audience of rapt young ladies is my fav), all spliced together into a single large, fictitious tapestry.

Yet today's Conservative movement seems almost entirely defined in it's opposition to this "ghost" of a political ideology. Which makes this "Conservative" incarnation just as phony as the "Liberals" it seeks to vanquish. Add to that confused identity the liberal stereotyping of conservatives as illiterate, gun-stroking, fundamentalist rednecks AND the conservative movement's recent, middle-finger-firmly-raised embrace of that stereotype for themselves (Palin - PALIN!) - And the practical definition of Conservative policy is hopelessly confused and lost.

What does it mean to be conservative?
To be a hawk?
To seek tax cuts, period?
To seek less government, period?
To be Christian?
To crave a certain kind of pre-1960's culture (which may have not ever existed, in fact)?
To see yourself and your preferred culture as under siege by an unfairly biased media?

Three of those points aren't even matters of policy, just culture. The other three are technically advocating a policy, but are so inflexible and intemperate that they can't be compromised, and thus can't be achieved - in any real sense - in a democratic setting. Besides that, they're not really desirable to most Americans. Most Americans don't want to go to war with Iran. Most Americans want to pay for at least some government assistance.

Yet these points are the litmus test which any aspiring Republican politician must at some point pass. The reason why is this "Conservative" identity that has taken control.

Liberals have the same problem, to a certain extent. American liberalism is constantly defined, for good or ill, by it's role in the social and political changes of the 1960's and 70's. Those changes were relevant, but America has moved on. The conversation is changed. Hardcore left-wingers are just as intemperate and irrational as hardcore right-wingers, and they should be careful not to claim Democratic political gains, or skepticism on war in the middle east as an affirmation of their own agenda.

But I don't really care about left-wing identity politics. For one, because it's not one that I share a lot of affinity for. For another, because it's been firmly rejected for a long time. The "Liberal" identity isn't really used by many Democratic politicians anymore. The name itself has become toxic. Very few people have any tolerance for the kind of freaks that glitterbomb GOP candidates, or get naked for PETA. Successful liberal activist groups (such as those campaigning for gay rights) take a tone of moderation, and attempt to appear "normal" and reasonable, without using extreme or hyperbolic rhetoric. In short, the "Liberal" identity is, and has been, on a long slow decline. Conservative identity politics are, on the other hand, just hitting their stride.

What can you do?

Identity politics is a lose-lose proposition. You lose some of your representation when politicians try to pander to a cartoon image of you, rather than the real you ("I'm a severe conservative"). America loses because it gets either gridlock or non-sensical policies that most people don't even want, as opposed to real governance. Politicians who engage in it, I suppose, get a win because it makes their pandering that much easier.

Identity politics is a weakness. It allows us to give in to intellectual sloth and complacency. It allows us to shut out dissent without addressing it. It allows us to focus on a stereotypical opposition, and thus relinquish our own political responsibilities to our country.

So what can we do?

Define your own politics in positive terms. Never, even for an instant, define yourself in terms of what you are opposed to. This is the mark of a phony. If you can't describe your agenda in terms of what you want to see done, then you don't actually have an agenda.

Focus on policy. Nothing else matters except for what you want to see done in real, practical terms. If you understand want you want and why: write your congressman. If you don't know what policy you want: shut your mouth and study until you do. Or just shut your mouth.

Build on values, not "principles". Principles are often invoked in a political discussion as a way of avoiding an explanation or persuasive argument. There's nothing wrong with principles (in principle..) but it's gotten to the point of just being an excuse for laziness. Instead start with core values - for yourself personally and for your country - and build a political agenda around it. Let the labels fall where they may, all that matters is the substance of your ideas.

Make practical decisions. Vote based making progress, even if it means compromising on some issues in favor of others. Try to get a net gain for yourself. Support politicians who make clear promises about what, specifically, they intend to do. What policies they will champion, and how they would implement in the real world. This is exactly what politicians do not want to do, because policy ideas can be scrutinized. Given the choice between a candidate who is clear about policy, but most of the policy is against your agenda and one who has made no definitive statements - choose option A.

Hold yourself to a rigorous mental discipline. Do not allow yourself to stereotype opponents. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and react to the substance of their statements. Not for their sake, but for yours. Anything less is a weakness that will hurt you in the long run.

As is American tradition when dealing with a trend we don't like, I'm declaring war. I dedicate this as the "War On Identity Politics", and I will describe it the most aggressive - and therefore best - rhetorical terms. I want YOU in my ARMY. I want us to SODOMIZE identity politics. I want our JACKBOOTS SMASHING THE FACE of political stereotypes - FOREVER. I want to use Al Sharpton's rhetorical entrails to GREASE the WHEELS of our TANKS. I want Sarah Palin's rhetorical identity DEAD. I want it's RHETORICAL FAMILY DEAD! I want it's RHETORICAL HOUSE BURNT TO THE GROUND. I want to go there tonight, and I want to PISS ON IT'S RHETORICAL ASHES! I want to CRUSH IDENTITY POLITICS, SEE IT DRIVEN BEFORE US AND HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF IT'S WOMEN.

Framing the "Religious Exemption" Debate

Reading this post by Zach Beauchamp, an intern at The Dish, I find myself nodding my head. I had a similar take during a discussion with John some months ago, but I don't think I expressed it as well.
Money quote:

[T]hese "voluntary communities" aren't the Rotary Club - they're employers that wield a significant amount of financial clout. The market, though we refer to it as the "private sector," is in a certain sense very public: we all have to participate in it. Because in capitalist economies no one has much of a choice about getting a job, all but the most extreme libertarians accept that the government has to set some standards about how employers treat the employed. Allowing "conscience" exemptions whenever an employer doesn't feel morally clean when complying with regulations in principle neuters all regulation. The argument for allowing Catholic hospitals a pass on covering birth control has to rest or fall on the specifics of the case rather than a general commitment to protecting "voluntary communities."

I had hitherto taken the stance of understanding where the legislation is coming from, but hoping they make the exemptions a little more general, just to put the issue aside and move on. No more. I'm doubling down.

The whole point of universal health care is that there is consistent participation from all consumers (individual mandate, with everyone paying into the system up front), and consistent standards of coverage from all providers (government regulation of coverage, to provide a guarantee of bare minimum coverage to qualify as medical insurance). Allowing people to protest their way out of whichever points of coverage they wish basically removes any accountability from the provider side.

Like Mr. Beauchamp mentions, the Health Care market is - just like the job market - something that we all have to participate in. It's not like the electronics market. One can decide to do without an iPhone. One cannot decide to do without health care. If the consumer side of the equation is constrained, so must the provider side.

How many times have I heard the whining about how, if religious affiliated hospitals can't follow their conscience, then well, maybe they'll just take their toys and go home? See how you do without their charity and hard work!

Good. Go then.

Believe it or not, religious organizations are not required to run a health-care system. "Catholic" hospitals are still run as businesses, because they are. Patients with insurance pay; Those without pay later, or not at all. It's the same everywhere. If the Catholic - or any other - Church wants to give up it's share of the market, I welcome it. I'm sure there are plenty who would be happy to buy your unused real estate, and hire the medical staff you're forced to lay off. And I'm sure that whoever buys in will be willing to play ball.

You are not providing a public service. You are meeting a consumer demand. And you are replicable.

Thoughts On Komen

First off:

1. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to direct funds to Planned Parenthood.
2. Pro-Life individuals and organizations were within their rights to publicly criticize this.
3. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to cease sending funds to Planned Parenthood.
4. Planned Parenthood was within it's rights to publicly critize this.
5. Pro-Choice individuals and organizations were within their rights to publicly critize this.
6. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to reverse their decision about Planned Parenthood.
7. Susan G Komen For The Cure was within it's rights to fire any of their employees over this.
8. Pro-Life individuals and organizations are within their rights to critize these moves.

So, are we clear then? No one's rights have been violated in this. There really is no controversy here, except that Komen didn't anticipate the reaction of pro-choice patrons and clients. I don't buy their excuse about the investigation, but that's nitpicking. It really doesn't matter what their reasons were, they're free to do whatever they want for whatever reason. And the millions of people who donate to them are free to take exception, for whatever reason.

Is there anyone out there who doubts whether Komen makes these decisions based on which party is willing to donate more? It's a simple equation: money from one party versus more money from another party.

The ideological debate lies - as it always has - between the Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers with money to give. Not the charity itself. And each and every one of us is guilty of exactly the same "crime": having an agenda beyond helping people with cancer. If we want to be pissed at someone, let's be pissed at each other.