Brushfire of Freedom
The Irritable Pundit
According to Wiki ( a dubious source at times I admit) Identity politics can be defined as "... political arguments that focus upon the self interest and perspectives of social minorities, or self-identified social interest groups." As far as that goes, it is right on the money. Identity politics is seeing things through the lenses in which you were born or came to be associated. In this view, identity politics is not inherently bad or good, it simply "is what it is".
From there the Wiki entry proceeds on to quite a bit of blather, leftist theories-of-the-month and general pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble. The reason for the high-brow nonsense is the futile attempt by our fine wiki-liberals to turn "Identity Politics" as an organized movement or Raison d'être (reason for being) into something positive -- when it simply is not.
I think we can point this out by taking the wiki-supplied basis and boiling it down to the primary conservative critique ala the irritable Pundit. To me, Identity Politics as a movement is when any group, focusing only on the group view, misses the bigger picture, right, or good. This is my take on what is basically a core conservative view that strikes a chord among any defender of conservative values. The right action, belief or goal is based on the principle first, our own needs or group second. Anything else is is inherently wrong and is anathema to us. When we fail in this (as mere mortals are want to do) there is initially a desire to rationalize, but in the end we know we have failed ourselves.
Like a conservative friend of mine who mentioned his disgust with some of the intended politics of Obama, but that felt on election day an overwhelming need to vote for him due to an emotional pull on his basic identity, that of a black man. For the record, I have never asked "how's that hope and change working out for you?" as it would have been too crass in the face of his almost cathartic outpouring of regret and genuine anger at himself. I simply can't be annoyed at someone capable of being that honest on their own failings. Who among us hasn't failed in this arena at some point? Besides a lot of people were hoodwinked by Obama, and how many of them have the intestinal fortitude to admit they were hoodwinked on the basis of melanin?
Hmmm... I wonder if this is how Rush would have felt towards Colin Powell if circumstances had been different? If Powell had half the intellectual honesty of my friend their relationship might not be as strained.
Regardless, we have seen this destructive methodology again and again. It is La Raza, "fighting for immigrants," yet only allowing them to be exploited. It is the NAACP and Jackson and Sharpton calling for racial set-asides and preferences, while keeping a black underclass dependent. It is any group that in following it's goals with self-defeating narrowness-of-focus and robotic consistency, actually makes things worse for their own.
Let me be clear (heh, heh), identity politics is certainly not restricted to race. It is also the steel worker's union, that through untrammeled one-sided greed puts its own employers out of business, thereby causing good men and women to become unemployed. It is the teacher's union, that in fighting for the "rights" of its teachers, creates a situation where bad teachers can never be fired -- failing their own students and their profession in the process. It is the Democrats in one hundred different forms and names, mindlessly pushing for goals that hurt their own constituents. It is any group that jettisons their own principles in favor of "the advancement of the group".
Most recently, it is also the Republican party.
Wait, what?
Yes, you heard me. The Republican party is playing its own brand of identity politic, and that is the cause of the disconnect between the base and party leadership. The base, though perhaps not consciously seeing it in these terms, is in fact reacting to the sudden injection of identity politics. We are rejecting it, even if many of us do not recognize the roots of our own anger. As conservatives we react viscerally and angrily when confronted by identity politics and it's purveyors. It is something liberals use as a weapon, but conservatives are supposed to be stronger than that (assuming we live up to our own principles).
Currently the Republican purveyors are many of our own leadership. Think of Newt Gingrich endorsing the far-left Scozzafava, putting the interests of the Republican party ahead of Hoffman and his principled conservative stand on issues. Never-mind the fact that Scozzafava is mind-numbingly wrong on many issues, never-mind that a liberal destructive "R" will hurt the people of NY's 23rd congressional district (and the country). And never-mind that she is in bed with labor (literally). Scozzafava is running as an "R" and that is most important to Newt.
Now before some of you start talking about RINOs, that is not the case here. Not at all. Newt is not a Rino, he is partisan Republican. That is, he is a Republican first, second and third with being a conservative coming in a distant fourth (at best). To Newt, it is all about the numbers the party can bring together, not who it's members are or what they believe. This is somewhat to be expected from a former Speaker of the House. It is numbers after all that create the ability to have that position (Speaker) in the first place.
Other examples of Republican identity politics abound. John McCain and his unwillingness to fight in the political arena as he did in the personal, whistling innocently as his own aids undercut a true conservative. Lindsey Graham, who never met a principle he couldn't immediately ignore for a few more voting members. Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords, who proved that when identity politics fail, the craven will switch identities before they even think to try principles.
As members of the base, we have rejected identity politics and we should continue to do so. We need to support conservatives first, Republicans second. We need to stand on the firm bedrock of conservative principles, instead of the shifting sand of the latest polls. We need more Mark Rubios, we need more Michelle Bachmanns, we need more Doug Hoffmans.
And oh yes, we definitely need more Sarah Palins.
Contact The Irritable Pundit Brushfire Home
Copyright 2009. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.