Merriam-Webster defines identity politics as politics in which groups of people having a racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.
Identity politics are a persistent part of the American narrative, as they would be for any non-homogeneous society. A homogenous society tends to assume a singular culture which would include the same beliefs and identity. This means that everyone will easily agree on how to use resources and what should be prioritized. This is an idealized benefit of homogenous society, but it also means the members of said community would have more difficulty interacting with people from other communities. It could even mean a more difficult time thinking outside of the proverbial box, stifling innovation. These would be the strengths of a heterogeneous society. . . if such a society could manage to cooperate but of course that’s if they could settle on an agenda. America elected to have a democratic republic and that means America should evaluate the weak points of such a system and make them less vulnerable.
I commend the fundamentalists for trying to stick especially close to what they believe is the exact vision of the Founding Fathers but as with most fundamentalists: they never consider that the context has changed since then. It’s always struck me as odd but of course, that would mean that they would find them to be self-evident truths. As these are the core values that they refuse to have compromised. That isn’t to say that federalists constantly make ethical concessions but that they’re constantly illustrated as being “less sane” due to their progressive agenda. Of course, this is just a tactic to win arguments in policy by targeting the public’s insecurity with change as well as the expenses that come with adjusting. Quite frankly, I’m of the opinion that the whole constitution of the American government is a social experiment with ideas borrowed from the Native Americans, the Magna Carta and The Enlightenment; therefore, the government would follow to have a progressive agenda on most matters. Of course, many things tend to be rather ambiguous when it comes to the more theoretical cases; that’s exactly why we elect presumed experts to oversee such things so that the everyday man can go about his personal affairs.
A democratic republic in and of itself is to appoint experts to oversee the operations of the government. Identity politics have a negative connotation whenever it’s mentioned in any commentary. It’s become the go-to for “I can’t empathize or remotely understand your mindset because I feel that it doesn’t affect me but I will acknowledge that a minority of the population is concerned with the same thing as the issue you have just presented.” Or even more demeaning, “The issue you have presented affects a small minority and for that reason, it is not a major concern that needs to be addressed. I dare say it is a waste of resources.” This is the polite way of putting it. I would advise readers to continue the discussion in the comments. The United States of America was founded on salutary neglect and identity politics. No one was advocating for the British colonists “across the pond”. So they advocated for themselves but there was an issue of the Loyalists and “Patriots”. Ultimately, America did get its independence despite the reluctance and opposition of others. I’d like to know why this differs from minority groups that have been systematically persecuted from doing the same thing. However, bear in mind that these minorities would like to be treated as equal and NOT superior to others by enforcing a hierarchy that means stripping others of their rights.
Liberals have started to advocate for intersectionalism (that the overlap of various social identities, like race, gender, sexuality, and class, contributes to the specific type of systemic oppression and discrimination experienced by an individual) to better unite the party with an identity. Largely because they unfairly characterised and branded the Republican party for years and for free without determining where they themselves truly stand. I assume it was to avoid limiting the scope of their audience by saying, “if you aren’t these things, we will warmly accept you” given the two-party system America has always had going on.
In the time that it took me to complete this article, Special Counsel Robert Mueller finally testified before Congress. In the time that it took me to write this article, 55 people were fatally shot in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas and there was an attempt in Springfield, Missouri. In the time it took me to complete this article, I was indignant to not be the devil’s advocate, before taking to the dreaded fence. The United States has internalized the bi-polarism of the Cold War to an excessive degree. As it stands, Republican is now synonymous with racist and Democrat with contradictory cradle cullers. Things have grains of truth but humans are such that we try to establish generalizations as to the regular standard by which “all of them” operate. It lends to the whole Us vs Them dynamic.