Politics As Identity

Race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity. Each is a notable fact pertaining to each of us, and each is as immutable as eye color.

Until recently, that is.

While the Rachel Dolezals among us have not yet broken the "born this way" barrier when it comes to race (though the “multiracial whiteness” loons are still trying), and while ethnicity retains its "factual" status, gender and orientation are migrating into the realm of choice. Gender is not only a spectrum, the de mode thinking goes, it's fluid and malleable, and one's gender identity can change over time. This notion is bewildering not only to the old-straight-white-folks who are the purported root of every problem, but even to "boring old gays" who are puzzled by the growing obsolescence of the "born this way" understanding of human sexuality.

I attribute this to postmodernism, which among other things "rejects the stability of meaning," and tells us that even facts themselves must be processed through filters of identity and personal experience. Two plus two doesn’t always equal four any more, and asserting that facts don't care about your feelings borders on being considered hate speech nowadays.

Bucking this trend toward identity Humpty-Dumptyism is one emergent category: your political identity.

I've covered, many times, how your skin color, sexual orientation, and gender (both biological and declared) are presumed to determine your political leaning, and how anyone from a "traditionally oppressed" or "marginalized" group (i.e. all non-whites, all women, and all non-straights) is expected to embrace progressive/leftist politics. Those who don't are treated as religions treat their heretics and apostates, i.e. worse than they treat anyone else. They are "traitors" to their skin color, their orientation, their gender, and their gender identity, and they draw the biggest howls of outrage.

This isn't new ground.

What is new, to me at least, is the intrusion of post-modernism and identity wars into political affiliation.

Consider how the findings of John Durham's investigation into the FBI's shenanigans re the Russian Collusion business pulled the curtain back and exposed ugliness even worse than we've come to expect from those we've granted power over our lives.

The facts don't matter. The abandonment of principle by the FBI's top dogs, in favor of nefarious efforts to sway an election, doesn't matter. The deceits don't matter. The willful blindness to evidence that blew up the narrative doesn't matter. The instigation of all this business by the Clinton campaign doesn't matter. The coverups, lies, and "expert" denunciations of the truth don't matter. The fabrication/falsehood of the collusion narrative doesn’t matter - many still believe it wholeheartedly.

To reiterate, this is born of postmodernism. Facts are relative, and to be run through identity filters. We now see that, in addition to race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and the like, political orientation is an "identity."

It's not limited to leftism, by the way. Trumpism has become its own identity, and anyone who breaks from the Trump pack is as much a traitor! as someone of the Left who accepts that "his team" was the real skullduggerer in the Russia collusion bit.

This new form of political identity must be considered apart from our traditional understanding. Whereas identifying ourselves as liberal, conservative, libertarian, or what have you is a declaration of beliefs, the new version is about allegiance to a team, come hell or high water. Instead of your political identity serving as shorthand for your views and positions, it’s akin to announcing “I’m a Yankees fan” or “I support Real Madrid.” Doesn’t matter who’s on the team, all that matters is the team and its victories. Worse, nasty business, carried out for or on behalf of your team, is perfectly acceptable. Necessary, even, if it keeps the other team from succeeding.

Durham's unmasking of that nasty business gets the same response as a black man embracing conservatism. It elicits howls of outrage - at the unmasking, at "getting caught." The nasty business itself doesn't offend, because political identity is zero-sum contact sport, where winning is all that matters. This sport is not a "gentleman's game," where the spirit of competition motivates an underlying sense of fairness and propriety, where cheating and dirty play are abhorred, and where the victory can only be savored if it were achieved honestly. This is dirty, smash-mouth, gut-punch-in-the-scrum battle, and none of its players could possibly be deemed upright citizens honoring their oaths of office.

And it's all our fault. These are the people we put in office, and these are the people we keep putting in office. When you'd rather chew hot asphalt than vote for the other team, and when you denounce those who share your viewpoints when they don’t blindly support your team, the members of your team have no reason to do anything other than win at all costs. And, when our institutions are also captured by this Manichaeism, we shouldn't be surprised at their misdeeds.

Years back, I noted that the only path forward was "first, clean your own house." Perhaps the team that does that first might gain enough traction to restore some propriety to our government. Until then, only a naif wouldn't expect more of the same.