Hi all! I found an interesting article the other day about identity politics and its role in the Democratic Party and in furthering democratic goals. The interviewee, Mark Lilla, makes the sweeping claim that "Democrats’ focus on identity politics is destroying the party". As an example, he uses the Women's March earlier this year and argues:
"Lilla: Just an example that you know what happened at the beginning of the organizing of the Women’s March. After Trump’s election, it was a very simple idea: This woman in Hawaii posted something on social media saying, “We should just all go to Washington, and we ought to demonstrate against this president who has spoken about women the way he has, has acted the way he has, and to make our voices heard.” What could be simpler to rally people around the country? And immediately what happened is she was criticized because she hadn’t created a committee that was multicultural, everyone had to feel included, and the thing really ground to a halt.
Interviewer: Wait, but it happened, it was one of the biggest marches of the modern era and broadly considered a giant success.
Lilla: Oh well, it was with us. But for instance, one feminist group that’s also religious and pro-life was originally accepted into the coalition, and when it was discovered that they were there by other groups, they were disinvited. This happens in public. I mean this was on Fox News every night."
I start to see Lilla's point, that the method of inclusivity, and specifically who can and should be included, can slow, complicate, and even undermine a political movement. And, I think similar fragmentations, often due to class and racial identity, appeared in the women's suffrage movement. What do you all think of Lilla's claim? Do you think his argument holds? Does it apply to the women's suffrage movement?
You can find the full interview here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/08/mark_lilla_thinks_identity_politics_are_destroying_the_democratic_party.html
Lila makes an interesting claim in this interview - that suffrage and voting rights fundamentally relied on an equal citizenship arguments that emphasized similarities over differences. This is true for some of the suffragettes, but it's rather ironic because the primary source document we looked at clearly emphasized the differences of women and men by highlighting their "traditional" role as maternal caregivers. Not really an equal rights argument in that context.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do understand where he comes from. Political change requires political compromise and intelligent strategy, so idealistically alienating half the country (the rust belt, etc) to appease coastal elites probably isn't the best tactic (at least attract voters). If anything, the suffrage movement shows us the importance of political strategy.