Interesting discussion on the Today programme this morning about identity politics.
While I am privileged to have an innate ‘identity’ - white, middle aged man, who is also well educated and in relative terms well off - which means I don’t have to think about my ‘identity’ often, I do know that because of this I find it literally impossible to conceive of being in the position where I feel that my identity - skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity etc, things which I can’t change - puts me at an historic and actual disadvantage, real or perceived, and I think about it all the time. So while my knee jerk reaction to identity politics is irritation, and that equality of opportunity especially in education and health, is the obvious answer, on reflection I really don’t think I have am in a position to have a valid comment. Other than trying to make me feel guilty about my own identity, which I can’t change, won’t help help anything (well I could black up and cross dress I suppose). I can sympathise but I can’t empathise and it would be wrong to pretend that I can.
The radio discussion was about whether the liberal left recent focus on identity politics and clearly defined ‘disadvantaged’ groups has made it unable to be elected to govern. It was claimed that in the US Clinton’s rainbow campaign put many off voting for her (though her clear membership of the ‘elite’ may have had a role there too), but the democrats are suffering everywhere - to the extent that the Republicans only need to gain control of two more states to be in the position to make constitutional changes. Over here, while the Labour leadership is anything but ‘liberal’ it is falling behind in the polls at precisely the time when it should be surging ahead.
So it could be argued (not completely sure if I buy it) that the right and populists, while moaning endlessly about identity politics, are benefitting from it when it comes to elections.