Identity Politics

Yesterday, Andrew was fretting about the turn toward a focus on identity politics in the presidential campaign:

Some cultural identification is inevitable in America, and not the worst thing in the world. What's worrying is when candidates do not just accept this, but seek to exploit it directly. Huckabee's appeal to Christianists is the most troubling; but Clinton's on gender grounds is not that much better. So far, Obama's campaign has resisted crude racial appeals, but this has seemed to unravel a bit in the wake of the Clintons' rhetorical slips this past week. Less is more, on this front. Or we begin to lose the capacity to see ourselves as equal participants in a democracy, rather than interest groups fighting for what's and who's ours.

I believe things are different in the UK, but it's worth saying that American politics has typically been more structured around issues of identity than around issues or ideology. In northeastern urban areas, for example, Italian-Americans have traditionally been Republicans for no better reason than that Irish-Americans have traditionally been Democrats. Similarly, white protestants were Republicans because Catholics were Democrats (except for the Italians) but southern white protestants were Democrats because Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

I tend to agree that this tradition hasn't been the most admirable element of the American political system, but parties organized around clumsy ethno-sectarian coalitions are the practical alternative to the much-bemoaned partisan polarization of the present day. On the Democratic side, the candidates have allowed almost no ideological daylight to shine between them, so you get identity-based coalitions. On the GOP side there are bigger ideological differences so the voters aren't breaking down as strictly along demographic lines. Even here, though, each Republican is presenting himself as the One True Reagan Conservative instead of explicitly self-identifying as representing an ideological sub-sect.

Comments

Of course, it's true in the UK as well (and everywhere else, for that matter). Just ask the Welsh Conservative Party.

Posted by Pithlord | January 14, 2008 12:31 PM

In the UK, politics aren't structured around identity? Sure -- that's why they have a "Labour" party for self-identified members of the working class.

Its always about identity in almost any country. It's just the nature of the identity (class, race, ethnicity, language, region) that changes.

And Sullivan is an arse. That's true in the UK and the US.

Posted by Sullivan-o-Fascist-phobe | January 14, 2008 12:36 PM

just what is it that sullivan thinks democracy is all about if not interest groups fighting for what's "ours?"

Posted by howard | January 14, 2008 12:40 PM

All politics are identity politics. It's just a question of the construction of the identity. "Evangelical" seems like a pretty coherent identity, as does "white Southern," and both play big in Republican politics. Precisely why ethnic--surely the above-mentioned groups have been problematic at times--is special is not clear.

Complaints about "identity politics," however that "identity" is structured, always strike me as moronic.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 14, 2008 12:40 PM

"In the UK, politics aren't structured around identity? Sure -- that's why they have a "Labour" party for self-identified members of the working class"

Not particularly analogous to the American situation. "Working class" is an economic and philosophical/ideological identifier (the ideology is why being "working class" matters), and doesn't have much to do with the ethnic or religious background of Labour party members. (Though it's true that the other major parties of British history - the Liberals and Tories - did have significant religious ties).

Irish-Americans, for instance, tended to be heavily Democratic no matter what their economic circumstances. Extremely wealthy Irish-Americans (the Kennedys, for instance) were usually Democrats just as much as extremely poor Irish-Americans.

Posted by burritoboy | January 14, 2008 12:47 PM

Irish-Americans, for instance, tended to be heavily Democratic no matter what their economic circumstances.

Dollars to doughnuts says that is at least as much regional or urban or religious (as MY suggested) as anything else.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 14, 2008 12:58 PM

Burrotboy
class" is an economic and philosophical/ideological identifier (the ideology is why being "working class" matters), and doesn't have much to do with the ethnic or religious background of Labour party members.

Burritboy wins a prize for missing the point entirely.

Posted by Sullivan-o-Fascist-phobe | January 14, 2008 1:11 PM

Sullivan: "So far, Obama's campaign has resisted crude racial appeals, but this has seemed to unravel a bit in the wake of the Clintons' rhetorical slips this past week."

What he means is Obama has been playing the race card by trumping up bogus "slurs" out of nonracial comments made by the Clinton camp.

Posted by kyle | January 14, 2008 1:11 PM

"Even here, though, each Republican is presenting himself as the One True Reagan Conservative instead of explicitly self-identifying as representing an ideological sub-sect."

But this isn't a case of identify politics at all (as broadly understood), but an ideological contest. You have McCain asserting that the essence of Reaganism was a vigorous foreign policy, Romney that it was a committment to a low tax, relatively unregulated economy, Huckabee that it was a cultural movement of the silent majority, Thompson that it was a cocktail of all of the above and Rudy arguing that the most important trait of Reagan was his late-term senility (OK, cheap shot).

The field is fighting over a party base that is very favorable to Reagan by making competing claims about what the essential elements of the Reagan approach were.

Posted by sd | January 14, 2008 1:17 PM

Shorter Sullivan:

I like Obama as long as he doesn't become too black

Posted by Rob | January 14, 2008 1:21 PM

To the extent that the Democratic campaign degenerates into interminable squabbles about what is or is not a racial or gender "code word", and who did or did not play various kinds of cards, and when, it is bad news for the party overall. Independent voters really hate this aspect of Democratic Party politics. Howard Dean should be making phone calls to the campaigns to get the race out of this temporary rut.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 14, 2008 1:29 PM

Huh. I've always thought that Andrew Sullivan was one of the most identity-politics oriented bloggers out there. He manages to identify with white resentment, even when much of it is aimed directly at him and his sexual orientation.

Posted by Patrick | January 14, 2008 1:37 PM

But it's interesting. Both Democrats and Republicans are seeing hard-fought battles for the nominations, but much more on the GOP side do you have the feeling that the coalition is coming apart. That's precisely because the differences on the GOP side are not identity-based but rather ideological. In other words, the evangelicals hate the business elites and vice versa. That's bad news for the GOP in the long run.

On the Democratic side, you have the feeling that everyone agrees mostly on what needs to be done, but the disagreements are partly ethnic/gender-based but also bound up in Mark Schmitt's "theory of change." What you aren't seeing is, the unions hate the elites and the elites hate the minorities, or whatever. That just isn't happening. The Democrats are lucky that the differences are taking shape the way they are -- that is, not along ideological differences in the coalition.

Posted by Martin | January 14, 2008 1:40 PM

Does the above categorization of Italians require conflating the Northeast with New York? In Philadelphia, where Italians are the dominant white ethnic group, the mayor (who is black but more popular among white voters) just won with over 80% of the vote. And when I was growing up the dominant Democratic political machine was headed by the Rizzos. In Boston the Italian vote is not very signicant, but still seems to be mostly democratic.

Is there really anything to this idea of urban Italians being mostly Republican (particularly in response to the Irish rather than blacks)?

Posted by Lon | January 14, 2008 1:42 PM

Identity politics? No doubt the calculating bitch demographic is firmly behind Hillary.

Posted by Tom | January 14, 2008 1:47 PM

To say that the GOP is having an ideological battle while the Dems are having a race/gender interest group battle affirms the central fallacy about race in the United States. Whiteness is a racial identity, not the lack of a racial identity. It just assumes to be a universal identity. The GOP is the party that protects white people, white privilege and white dominance while all the time, pretending that it is above mere race. That Andrew Sullivan cannot and does not see this is to be expected -- the British invented this rhetorical game.

Posted by Tom in Ma | January 14, 2008 2:19 PM

Lon: It is true that that there was some tendency before the New Deal for Italians (and French Canadians, too) to vote Republican on the theory that since their Church was largely controlled by the Irish, they might as well have some variety and join the WASP-dominated rather than the Irish-dominated political party. Sometimes they actually rose through the ranks to genuine positions of power: In Rhode Island, there was a French Canadian Catholic Republican Governor (Aram J. Pothier) as early as 1909, and a couple others of that background served as Governor or Senator over the next couple decades. In New York, Fiorello LaGuardia started out as a Republican, albeit a very liberal one.

I think most Catholics of all varieties did sign on to the New Deal coalition, however. Many Catholics of all ethnic backgrounds supported Eisenhower, but I believe Kennedy and Johnson received 80 percent or so of the Catholic vote.

Posted by James Kabala | January 14, 2008 2:25 PM

British politics have traditionally been about identity. The tribal class-based loyalty to parties is dying but it's how it has been for a long time. And, within immigrant communities, black, Pakistani, Irish and Bangladeshi communities are Labour. Indians are, generally, Tory.

Posted by Shaun | January 14, 2008 2:39 PM

Shaun -

I have always found that interesting, and I think it has something to do with religion.

West Indians and Irish tend Catholic (although West Indians are also pretty Anglican), and of course Paks and Bengalis are Muslim.

Meanwhile, Hindu Indians probably don't have the same beef with Anglican Christianity, so they don't mind going Tory.

Posted by Greg | January 14, 2008 2:59 PM

The Labor Party was, of course, in its origins a class based party. But it also had some cultural/religious affiliations, specifically with evangelical (Nonconformist) Protestantism. As the proverbial saying goes, 'The Labor Party owes more to Methodism than to Marxism."

Posted by Hector | January 14, 2008 3:06 PM

Hector-

I would think that's particularly after the defection of a lot of the old Liberals to Labour, even if David Lloyd George himself stayed.

Posted by Greg | January 14, 2008 3:44 PM

Going back to the nineteenth century, the basic difference between the Liberals and the Tories was that the former represnted non-conformists and the latter the Established Church.

To some extent those religious identities reflected class differences. The upper aristocracy was entirely Anglican (with the odd recusant), while the urban proletariat tended to be non-conformist.

The Labour Party emphasized class, but it was really a "class identity" rather than class interest. The Labour Party never got very far among Anglicans "in service" or in the English countryside.

Today, British politics may be more identity-based than it was during the "Old Labour" era. Celts, East Londoners and Yorkshireites are not going to Cameron, so if he wins it will be by carving London up and thumping home in the rest of England.

I assume Sullivan has heard of Ulster?

Posted by Pithlord | January 14, 2008 3:45 PM

Somewhat irrelevant, but from what I can remember, the recusant Lords, particularly the Howards (aka the Dukes of Norfolk, the lay leaders of the Catholics in England) were even more conservative than most Anglicans.

Posted by Greg | January 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Although he is constantly denouncing identity politics when other people (especially blacks) engage in them, Andrew Sullivan's own elaborate and widely publicized identity accounts for many of his views. He tirelessly reminds us that he is - let me see if I can remember the full litany - a gay British Catholic immigrant HIV-positive conservative.

Sullivan's crusades for classic identity politics obsessions like gay marriage and allowing HIV-infected aliens to immigrate are closely tied up with his campaign to publicize his own identity. You don't become a celebrity by being better informed and more insightful than your peers (although it can occasionally help), but by making your personality better known.

-- "Sullivan's Travails," 2001
http://vdare.com/sailer/sullivan_travails.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 14, 2008 4:39 PM

All politics are the politics of chimpanzees.

There, that solves the problem.

Except for the orangutans...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 14, 2008 7:36 PM

"Dollars to doughnuts says that is at least as much regional or urban or religious (as MY suggested) as anything else."

Not really - Irish-Americans in the MidWest and in San Francisco, for instance, were just as much heavily inclined toward the Democratic party as Irish-Americans in New York or Boston or Albany. In the one place in the South where there were a large number of Irish-Americans - New Orleans - they also supported the Democratic party (at least during and after the Long era), even though the Democrats were an entirely different beast in the South. It's true that, as Irish-Americans assimilated and moved to the burbs and the West, they became less heavily Democratic - as well as becoming Reagan Democrats in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But "Reagan Democrats" happened to almost every (white) ethnic group, so Irish-Americans aren't particularly notable in that.

"Burritboy wins a prize for missing the point entirely."

Why, what did I say? "Working class" isn't an ethnicity or a religion - "workers of the world unite", you know.

Posted by burritoboy | January 14, 2008 8:35 PM

The main reason the Irish were Democrats on the local level was the partonage system - job on the city payroll and a turkey at Christmas. On the national level, conscription during the Civil War and 'Rum, Romanism and Rebellion' in the aftermath.

Apparently there were some Irish Garfield Democrats back in 1880.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=940DEEDE143FEE3ABC4E52DFB166838B699FDE&oref=slogin

Posted by fighting 69 | January 14, 2008 10:12 PM