Opinion of "identity politics"?

[VAR]

10/10, Freedom Practice, I seriously don't get why some people dislike it. It did wonders for the GOP this year.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"WHAT DA FUK IS IDENTITY PAWLITICS?" shouts the Staten Island restaurant owner in an Italian flag tracksuit who voted for Trump because the Democrats hate our boys in blue.

HP.

[Estrella]

Please define.

[afleitch]

Please define.

I think Nathan did.

Identity politics is a game we all play. Indeed the most successful form of idpol has shaped the GOP and the country since Reagan.

[Battista Minola 1616]

When I polled this in August it got ratio'ed (I didn't vote in the poll).

Anyway, I would vote HP, but the reality is that I like to play identity politics. So my answer is Neutral. So I won’t vote in this poll either.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Easily the best way for deciding how to vote between terrible options.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

All politics is in some sense rooted in identity.

[Red Velvet]

Hate them when it’s used as virtue signaling and self-servicing speech. When people talk about politics in a bigger scale they ideally should think about the collective good as a whole, not only one individual group they’re part of.

But they also tend to be counterproductive as a main political strategy, which is different thing than actually addressing civil and human rights. Usually the right loves to push the discourse towards cultural wars because that’s a playfield of populism they can win more easily.

That said, much of the people who attack “identity politics” do it for wrong reasons and just use identity politics from other opposite groups. Their issue isn’t exactly against identity politics , but the voicing of concerns from groups that they don’t like.

In the end, I believe most social and cultural transformation that is necessary will only come from the people themselves, by stimulating conversations, amplifying representation in regular spaces of power, etc. But that isn’t and shouldn’t be the role of a politician in the executive because that’s someone who has to be an administrator of the common public interest, someone who executes stuff and will drive the economy.

Like, presidential candidates (or governors/mayors) shouldn’t get way too detailed about these specific issues as they have to represent EVERYONE, even sectors that are considered antagonists to the other. From the gays all the way to the evangelical Christians. You gotta respect all groups and govern for everybody, at least that’s what I expect from them.

The most identitarian I get when picking an executive candidate is to see whether their heart is on the same place regarding the protection of minorities since they also pick judiciary members. But it’s in a very “as a matter of fact” approach.

For the legislative, I think identity politics are way more valid because that’s someone who writes the law. So if you’re from a group that you consider to be underprivileged because of the legislation, you naturally will support someone who will put your group’s interests with more priority. But even then, the change that will come from legislation is still somewhat limited, you gotta change society’s mindset for the biggest change.

In the end, identity politics isn’t inherent bad, it mostly got a bad reputation because of how flanderized it got in current political discourse. Like, people using it in a way to sound superior to others as if they were “authorities” on a determined topic. Or the way IdPol was weaponized to stimulate the apolitization of the discourse, as if you just needed to be more inclusive and change the leaders and not care about the policies they advocate or the system they will defend.

For example I’m gay and I would never act like I alone would represent the “gay community” in all its diversity and different facets. There’s a sense of arrogance that I associate with IdPol (at least in the way it’s used nowadays) because of the false moral purity some of its advocates act like they have and stand for. It’s self-centered, doesn’t come from real concerns and instead becomes a weapon to attack all people from a different ideological so that you don’t have to hear them, creating a very toxic environment and also stimulating people to isolate themselves in their own ideological bubble, leading to more division and polarization, which is counterproductive to the goal.

[DK_Mo82]

Negative I prefer focus on economics issues as that encompasses the issues to begin wit. Making working poor working class better off, helps racial minority disproportionately to begin with. Identity politcs is used as the wedge to divide working americans from working together towards shared interests.

[parochial boy]

It is well known that the right do not do identity politics, they just have « legitimate concerns » or « common sense » or are worried about « traditional values »

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It is well known that the right do not do identity politics, they just have « legitimate concerns » or « common sense » or are worried about « traditional values »

White supremacy identity politics??

[thumb21]

Everyone's politics is to some extent based on their identity because people aren't robots making 100% logical and objective calculations about each policy, ideology or candidate, they have a context that makes them more predisposed to some things over others.

However, there are different degrees of identity politics. If someone's politics is so based in their identity that lose any grounding in the fact that politics affects real living people and isn't just about their own personal identity, that's when identity politics is very dangerous.

Overall, I don't think identity politics is an inherently good or bad thing, it can be used by many different politicians/parties, some of which I like and some of which I don't like, and thats a normal fact of human life unless you want to force humanity to be a monolith where people all have the exact same identities and experiences; but when politics is almost entirely identity based, it can be very dangerous and especially if it gets or is in power.

[MT Treasurer]

Awful. Democrats can only reach rural/small-town America by abandoning it for a genuine populism that focuses on real kitchen-table issues and drops the blatant, shameless pandering:

[Former President tack50]

Easily the best way for deciding how to vote between terrible options.

Lol what? Identity politics are literally the worst reason for someone to decide their vote.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Easily the best way for deciding how to vote between terrible options.

Lol what? Identity politics are literally the worst reason for someone to decide their vote.

You are both right and both wrong in a way. Using a *totally* random example:

Catholic votes Al Smith gained in 1928 because of his religion (see: MA, RI, NY) are based, awesome, amazing, etc.
Anti-Catholic votes Al Smith lost in 1928 because of his religion (see: NC, FL, AL) are ugly, horrible, disgusting, etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All politics is identity politics.

[John Dule]

All politics is identity politics.

This has literally never been true (unless you fabricate a needlessly broad definition of "identity politics" that is too vague to be useful in political analysis).

[anthonyjg]

Too broad of a thing to form an opinion on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All politics is identity politics.

This has literally never been true (unless you fabricate a needlessly broad definition of "identity politics" that is too vague to be useful in political analysis).

Any political grouping exists to advocate the interests and values of a specific subset of society at the expense of others, whether they do so explicitly or implicitly. If you have a different definition of identity politics, I'm curious to hear it, but if it's only about setting an arbitrary threshold of explicitness I don't think that's a particularly useful distinction.

[Xing]

Great when my favorite party uses it, terrible and inexcusable when my least favorite party uses it.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

All politics is identity politics.

This has literally never been true (unless you fabricate a needlessly broad definition of "identity politics" that is too vague to be useful in political analysis).

Any political grouping exists to advocate the interests and values of a specific subset of society at the expense of others, whether they do so explicitly or implicitly. If you have a different definition of identity politics, I'm curious to hear it, but if it's only about setting an arbitrary threshold of explicitness I don't think that's a particularly useful distinction.

I think it absolutely is useful to differentiate between definitions of identity politics or else the phrase becomes completely useless. Imo "identity politics" is all about the motivations behind (and consequently rhetoric associated with) a bloc voting in unison. Identity politics would imply the group backs a certain candidate because they explicitly represent their demographic indicators. It ranges from the purely superficial to the patronage-based. Bloc voting--outside identity politics--implies people vote the same way as their demographic peers because of shared policy concernsthat are relevant to that particular group but not because of a consious effort to increase the relative power of their "tribe." Both motivations behind bloc voting have--of course--existed for a long time but they're not the same.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All politics is identity politics.

This has literally never been true (unless you fabricate a needlessly broad definition of "identity politics" that is too vague to be useful in political analysis).

Any political grouping exists to advocate the interests and values of a specific subset of society at the expense of others, whether they do so explicitly or implicitly. If you have a different definition of identity politics, I'm curious to hear it, but if it's only about setting an arbitrary threshold of explicitness I don't think that's a particularly useful distinction.

I think it absolutely is useful to differentiate between definitions of identity politics or else the phrase becomes completely useless. Imo "identity politics" is all about the motivations behind (and consequently rhetoric associated with) a bloc voting in unison. Identity politics would imply the group backs a certain candidate because they explicitly represent their demographic indicators. It ranges from the purely superficial to the patronage-based. Bloc voting--outside identity politics--implies people vote the same way as their demographic peers because of shared policy concernsthat are relevant to that particular group but not because of a consious effort to increase the relative power of their "tribe." Both motivations behind bloc voting have--of course--existed for a long time but they're not the same.

I just don't actually think this - issue voting that is truly divorced from a sense of self-identity - is really a thing. Ultimately, all issue voting is rooted in the interpretive lenses that are provided by group identity. Sure, those lenses might not always be made explicit, but I think we gain a better understanding by revealing them than by obscuring them. Like in Nathan's joking example, that Staten Island guy might claim that his politics aren't driven by group-identity, but if you peel the facade just a little, you realize that it's all about group-identity. And on a deeper level, that's equally true of the young white cosmopolitan PMC you and I are part of. Our attitudes are a product of our sociological environment, and that environment ultimately shapes which politicians and policy platforms we recognize as "our own" and which seem alien and hostile.

[John Dule]

All politics is identity politics.

This has literally never been true (unless you fabricate a needlessly broad definition of "identity politics" that is too vague to be useful in political analysis).

Any political grouping exists to advocate the interests and values of a specific subset of society at the expense of others, whether they do so explicitly or implicitly. If you have a different definition of identity politics, I'm curious to hear it, but if it's only about setting an arbitrary threshold of explicitness I don't think that's a particularly useful distinction.

I think it absolutely is useful to differentiate between definitions of identity politics or else the phrase becomes completely useless. Imo "identity politics" is all about the motivations behind (and consequently rhetoric associated with) a bloc voting in unison. Identity politics would imply the group backs a certain candidate because they explicitly represent their demographic indicators. It ranges from the purely superficial to the patronage-based. Bloc voting--outside identity politics--implies people vote the same way as their demographic peers because of shared policy concernsthat are relevant to that particular group but not because of a consious effort to increase the relative power of their "tribe." Both motivations behind bloc voting have--of course--existed for a long time but they're not the same.

I just don't actually think this - issue voting that is truly divorced from a sense of self-identity - is really a thing. Ultimately, all issue voting is rooted in the interpretive lenses that are provided by group identity. Sure, those lenses might not always be made explicit, but I think we gain a better understanding by revealing them than by obscuring them. Like in Nathan's joking example, that Staten Island guy might claim that his politics aren't driven by group-identity, but if you peel the facade just a little, you realize that it's all about group-identity. And on a deeper level, that's equally true of the young white cosmopolitan PMC you and I are part of. Our attitudes are a product of our sociological environment, and that environment ultimately shapes which politicians and policy platforms we recognize as "our own" and which seem alien and hostile.

This might be true for the conformist drones who comprise the core base of the major American political parties, but it cannot be applied to anyone else. There are innumerable stories about people who grew up in the same household ultimately developing wildly diverging political beliefs; people of the same race, gender, educational background, income level, and religion are in no way guaranteed to share the exact same opinions on all political issues. I hate to box you into a position where you must adjust your theory so that it accurately describes all political phenomena (even extreme outliers), but by making the sweeping claim that "all politics is based on identity" you leave me no choice. A huge amount of what shapes the average American's political views is rooted in the information that they encounter, which is in turn shaped just as much by dumb luck as it is by identity.

[SingingAnalyst]

FP, and most of us engage in it.

While we like to think of ourselves as "objective" and as voting based on what is best for the country rather than what is best for our "tribe", the truth is that most of us (myself included) are probably a lot more tribal, and less objective, than we like to think we are.

I'm a white, Italian, Catholic, and I vote accordingly. I am proud to have voted last month for the second Catholic President ever, whatever misgivings I may have had about the Biden/Harris ticket. I dislike Blaine Amendments, like the one passed in Michigan in 1970 with the strong support of rural Protestants and Republicans, and over the strong opposition of urban and suburban Catholic Democrats. Had I lived in the 1870s or 1880s as a new Italian or Irish immigrant, I would hope that I would have voted Democratic. Heck, I would hope I'd have voted Democratic in 1968, and even 1972, had I been old enough to vote.

I cannot help that fact that I was born white, to white parents. (My dad undoubtedly would have been sent to fight in Vietnam had he and my mom not had me immediately and my sister a year later). I cannot help that my dad, who later would get his GED, had to work well over 40 hours a week at a Teamster job hauling steel so that my mom could stay home with her kids; no country clubs, polo, or social clubs for my parents. My parents were marginally too young to vote in 1968, but my dad, who disliked George C. Wallace, undoubtedly worked around a lot of Wallace supporters.

So, do I vote in the best interest of the country? To the best of my ability, I think I do. I don't always necessarily vote for my short-term best interest, except to the extent that I think a variety of viewpoints being represented in government, and officials who care about the human consequences of their decisions, is a good thing.

Where I think it becomes a problem is when those with influence in popular culture put into practice George Orwell's statement that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." French names, culture, cuisine? Good. Polish ethnic pride? Bad. Yet both countries are in Europe. (At least that's how this Macomb County boy sees it).

I just can't bring myself to vote "HP" when it's such a human tendency, and one that I certainly engage in, myself. Hopefully everyone's identity politics can cancel each other out somehow, and some version of what is best for all will remain.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All politics is identity politics.

This has literally never been true (unless you fabricate a needlessly broad definition of "identity politics" that is too vague to be useful in political analysis).

Any political grouping exists to advocate the interests and values of a specific subset of society at the expense of others, whether they do so explicitly or implicitly. If you have a different definition of identity politics, I'm curious to hear it, but if it's only about setting an arbitrary threshold of explicitness I don't think that's a particularly useful distinction.

I think it absolutely is useful to differentiate between definitions of identity politics or else the phrase becomes completely useless. Imo "identity politics" is all about the motivations behind (and consequently rhetoric associated with) a bloc voting in unison. Identity politics would imply the group backs a certain candidate because they explicitly represent their demographic indicators. It ranges from the purely superficial to the patronage-based. Bloc voting--outside identity politics--implies people vote the same way as their demographic peers because of shared policy concernsthat are relevant to that particular group but not because of a consious effort to increase the relative power of their "tribe." Both motivations behind bloc voting have--of course--existed for a long time but they're not the same.

I just don't actually think this - issue voting that is truly divorced from a sense of self-identity - is really a thing. Ultimately, all issue voting is rooted in the interpretive lenses that are provided by group identity. Sure, those lenses might not always be made explicit, but I think we gain a better understanding by revealing them than by obscuring them. Like in Nathan's joking example, that Staten Island guy might claim that his politics aren't driven by group-identity, but if you peel the facade just a little, you realize that it's all about group-identity. And on a deeper level, that's equally true of the young white cosmopolitan PMC you and I are part of. Our attitudes are a product of our sociological environment, and that environment ultimately shapes which politicians and policy platforms we recognize as "our own" and which seem alien and hostile.

This might be true for the conformist drones who comprise the core base of the major American political parties, but it cannot be applied to anyone else. There are innumerable stories about people who grew up in the same household ultimately developing wildly diverging political beliefs; people of the same race, gender, educational background, income level, and religion are in no way guaranteed to share the exact same opinions on all political issues. I hate to box you into a position where you must adjust your theory so that it accurately describes all political phenomena (even extreme outliers), but by making the sweeping claim that "all politics is based on identity" you leave me no choice. A huge amount of what shapes the average American's political views is rooted in the information that they encounter, which is in turn shaped just as much by dumb luck as it is by identity.

"All politics is identity politics" is a set phrase that I used as a shortcut to make my point. If your retort to it is literally just to say that there are some people who don't think about politics in terms of group identity, fine, I'll apologize for being imprecise in my language. I'm sure there are a few enlightened chads like you who vote purely on the basis of concrete issues and ideological principles (hell, I'll bite the bullet and say I hope I'm like that too).

The point of saying "all politics is identity politics" is to say that this is how mass politics in a modern democracy are necessarily structured. The vast majority of people don't have principled views about most issues - rather, they tend to take their cues from leaders they trust, and which leaders they trust is typically a product of sharing salient identity traits. There's a considerable amount of evidence in political science that confirms that. This leads both parties to try to signal to enough groups that they're "like them" in the image they present, and to try to emphasize a particular aspect of identity at the expense of another.

The fun thing when I made that post is that you're not who I was expecting to argue with. Typically my discussion of identity politics is directed more at the leftists who believe that class is something ontologically different from other identity group, rather than simply an identity group that we have normative reasons to believe ought to be the organizing principle of politics. Although I certainly get why the prevalence of identity in politics might be disturbing to a radical individualist as well.