If you’ve spent any amount of time on the internet, whether it be The New York Times or surfing Twitter, you’ve heard the phrase “identity politics”. It’s tossed around constantly in both the news, social media, and everyday conversations. People use it as a filler word to mean many different things in many different situations. But what does it actually mean? And why is it suddenly rising in popularity now?
Google defines identity politics as “a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.” Identity politics really began to take shape during the Civil Rights Movement in which a minority group would form a coalition with the majority group for a particular cause based on that minority identity. The practice of identity politics is in response to social oppression, so it makes sense that it would become popular at this point in American history. The rise and fall of identity politics seems to coincide with the rise and fall of social movement activism. Though the term itself wasn’t coined until the 1970s, it can be applied to multiple social movements throughout history, including gay liberation and black feminist movements.
Identity politics has received its fair share of criticism. Some critics say the emphasis of minority interests breaks down the unity of the country. If we’re going to fight for certain rights in a liberal democracy, some argue, we need a solid foundation and basis to unite us. Arthur Schlesinger, a historian, said that “movements for civil rights should aim toward full acceptance and integration of marginalized groups into the mainstream culture, rather than...perpetuating that marginalization through affirmations of difference.” Others argue that identity politics promotes self-centered thinking and causes those who subscribe to it to surround themselves with like-minded people, creating a sort of “moral force field” to protect themselves from criticism, which doesn’t exactly help fight for marginalized groups.
Though identity politics has spurred much social change throughout history, it’s role in American politics has shifted. It certainly seems that there’s been a shift from conventional right and left parties to parties centered around identity. There’s no doubt that identity politics has drastically altered the focus of American politics as a whole for the better. Groups like Black Lives Matter and women’s rights organizations have brought national awareness to still prevalent issues that have historically been ignored. But the most recent presidential election revealed the consequences that taking identity politics too far can have.
Both Trump and Clinton’s campaigns were based not on their particular policy positions but their identities and which identities they claimed to support if they were to be elected. Clinton’s campaign was based on her support for marginalized groups--African Americans, Latinos, LGBT+ people, women--and people who weren’t part of one of those groups, mainly white people, felt left out. Clinton calling an entire group of people, the white working class, “deplorable”, was the nail in the coffin of her campaign. With America in a state of extreme economic inequality, Clinton’s write-off of an entire economic class wasn’t the smartest move. So naturally, the white working class looked to their other option and Trump played off of this by appealing to their interests. Clinton’s own use of identity politics to garner support and votes is exactly what created white identity politics. White people, who do make up the majority of the American population, felt threatened by the rising prevalence of identity politics within minority groups and formed their own version in response. So it’s really no surprise Trump won the presidency. The increased focus of American politics on identity cost the left the presidential election.
