The Use and Abuse of Identity Politics (Patreon)

The Left faces a global challenge, namely the rise of authoritarian right-wing pseudo-populism. Naturally, the myths and symbols upon which these movements draw vary from region to region and country to country.

Yet, whether we are talking about the thuggery and gangsterism of the Duterte regime in the Philippines or the brutality of the Erdoğan’s neo-Ottoman Sultanate in Turkey – to name but a few examples of this disturbing trend – these movements represent a culturally specific form of the same toxic politics: a crony capitalism which seeks to legitimize itself through the politics of religious, cultural, and/or racial prejudice.

In this light, the ascension of Donald J. Trump to the presidency and the concurrent rise of fascism and white supremacy (as seen in Charlottesville) in the United States, far from being an isolated case, is very much in line with global trends.

There is little doubt that liberals, social democrats, and socialists cannot but view the rise of the pseudo-populist right as their primary political opponent. However, the left also needs to engage in a robust critique of neoliberal centrism and the ‘pseudo-woke’ identity politics that often accompanies it. This is not because it is as destructive as the menace that the Trump Presidency represents. Those on the ‘left’ who believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been anywhere near as damaging to the fabric of American society as what we are currently experiencing are clearly deluded.

No, the reason this pseudo-woke centrism, which combines a relatively progressive attitude towards issues of race, gender, and sexuality with a commitment to the same failed neoliberal economic policies that have been political orthodoxy for nearly four decades, must be opposed is that it is wrong-headed and dangerous. In their rush to obscure structural politics and their desire to account for the Trump presidency solely through the lens of bigotry and misogyny, the pseudo-woke centrists present a reductionist account of the rise of the right that divorces issues of racial and gender inequality from the structural context within which these inequalities have gestated.

It is important to note here that the point is not to denigrate or dismiss the ‘politics of identity’.  Within the United States, racial and gender inequality are very real and those who seek to account for the rise of the pseudo-populist right in purely economic terms are equality reductionist. 

No, the problem with the pseudo-woke center is not identity politics per se but their cheapening of it. Indeed, it is hard not to conclude that there is a certain degree of cynicism in the way that some centrist liberals deploy accusations of racism and sexism against those on the left. Figures such as Joy-Ann Reid and Peter Daou (or indeed the army of Hillary-or-Busters one encounters in the Twittersphere) routinely accuse those on the left who critiqued figures such as Booker, Harris, and, of course, Hillary Clinton, as being driven by misogyny and/or racial animus.

This seems nothing less than an effort to derail a very real policy debate that needs to be engaged with by everyone on the American left who is serious about stopping the advance of reactionary politics.  More specifically, can progressive structural reforms to the US economy (such as banking regulation) and the establishment of universal government programs (such as Medicare-for-all or tuition-free college) serve the interests of social and racial justice in the United States?

When some centrist liberals attempt to stifle this debate, it is hard not to conclude that  they are trying to discipline the social democratic and socialist left. Those who believe that structural reform is necessary to enhance the position of minorities are ‘shamed’ into silence through accusations of misogyny and/or racial animus.

The evident desire of some centrist liberals in the United States to separate the question of gender and racial justice from the question of structural reform is at best misguided. However, there is also a darker side to it. One need only look to South Africa to see where the cynical deployment of identity to evade questions of structural reform can lead.

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma is currently engulfed by multiple corruption allegations, most notably his relationship with the Guptas, a family of Indian industrialists. This burgeoning political crisis has been further exacerbated by the generally lackluster performance of the South African economy. Yet, despite growing evidence of the corruption at the very top of the ANC, and despite Zuma’s all-too-cozy relationship with a family that, according to former public protector Thuli Madonsela, bullied its way to wealth and power, South Africa’s president continues to maintain his vice-like hold on the country.

Zuma’s continuing political ascendancy can partly be explained by his cynical deployment of a form of identity politics. As recently leaked emails demonstrate, Zuma and the Gupta family have sought to orchestrate a campaign against ‘White Monopoly Capital’. Ironically, this campaign was executed by London-based ‘white monopoly capital’ firm Bell Pottinger, hired by the Guptas to smear critics and distract from their own venality. While the structural legacy of Apartheid – namely the vast ongoing wealth disparities between the black and white populations – is very real and remains an issue that South Africa must address, for Zuma and the Guptas to deploy such a discourse while they go about the business of looting the country is perverse.

Obviously, the social, economic, and political conditions prevailing in South Africa and the United States are quite different (although perhaps not as different as some might wish to believe), therefore one must be wary of drawing too direct a comparison between the way in which elements of the American center deploy accusations of racism and sexism and the way in which corrupt political and business elites in South Africa seek to make political capital out of the very real suffering caused by the economic vestiges of Apartheid. However, the difference is in degree not kind. One cannot help but see a certain commonality in the cynical way a twisted and deformed version of identity politics is used by elites to distract from questions of structural reforms and smother genuine policy-oriented debate.

Unfortunately, while the Reids and Daous of the world may well believe that they are the ‘adults in the room’ and the true intellectual leaders of #theresistance to the privations of the Trump administration, their efforts to disentangle issue of race and gender from questions of structural economic reform plays into the hands of Trump and his allies.

As former White House éminence grise, Steve Bannon, explained to American Prospect’s Bob Kuttner, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.” 

Of course, the correct response to this is not to throw women and minorities under the bus in favor of a policy platform that focus on economic inequality to the exclusion of questions of racial and gender justice. Rather, Trumpism must be faced head-on with a bold progressive program that regards issues of race, gender, and class as inextricably linked to one another. To do otherwise is political malfeasance.