6 Reasons Conservatives Should Embrace Identity Politics

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

6 Reasons Conservatives Should Embrace Identity Politics

Written By : John Hawkins

One of the great ironies of American politics is that the least bigoted group of people in the country, conservatives, are continually accused of being hatemongers by the most prejudiced and race-obsessed people in our nation. No matter how often conservatives advocate race-neutral policies, condemn racism, or prove we’re not racists, we’re still smeared for the flimsiest reasons imaginable — usually by people practicing identity politics. So, not only does identity politics cut against the conservative belief that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, we’re very familiar with the ugly side of race-based politics in this country.

All that being said, even though it goes against our natural inclinations, there are some extremely important reasons why conservatives should take a fresh look at identity politics.

#1) What we’re doing now isn’t working and isn’t ever going to work: Conservatives talk a lot about minority outreach, but in practice, we don’t do it very well. No wonder. A lot of minorities simply won’t listen to a message from a white conservative and if the message does seem to be getting through, some liberal will shut the conversation down by screaming “racism.” This works for the Left again and again. There are minority communities that have been voting Democrat for decades, have nothing to show for it, and yet, they still won’t consider voting for a Republican candidate because they’ve been falsely convinced we hate them. Worse yet, there’s absolutely no indication that identity politics is doing anything but becoming more accepted and more entrenched in American politics.

So, if what conservatives are doing now doesn’t work and identity politics do work and aren’t going away, then perhaps we should take a harder look at that style of politics.

#2) Doing nothing isn’t an option: It’s no secret that the demographics in this country are changing. By 2042, white Americans will be a minority in this country. What that means is that if minority voting patterns stay the same as they are today, diehard socialists will soon have a permanent lock on power in this country. Look at the damage that has been done to this nation’s future just since Obama has gotten into office. Now imagine that as the permanent state of affairs. That’s what we’re headed towards unless there’s a change.

#3) Embracing identity politics is the least bad option available: If what we’re doing isn’t working, it’s best to look at our options. There seem to be three available at the moment:

A) We can shrug our shoulders, decide it’s too hard to do anything, and allow the Left to permanently take over America.
B) We can begin to embrace identity politics.
C) We can take the path that establishment Republicans seem to be most enamored with: Embracing left-wing positions in an attempt to appeal to minority groups. We can support amnesty to try to appeal to Hispanics, Affirmative Action and reparations to appeal to black Americans, gay marriage to draw gay support, wink at creeping Sharia to appeal to Muslims, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, pursuing option C would mean moving the conservative movement and the Republican Party to the Left — and there’s precious little evidence that it even works. For example, John McCain was the biggest advocate of amnesty in the Republican Party and yet, he still only pulled 31% of the Hispanic vote.

Whatever you may think of identity politics, it does appear to be the only option that could conceivably work.

#4) We’re already dabbling in identity politics: For all the conservative talk about avoiding identity politics, if we’re honest, we have to admit that we’re dabbling in it already. Would Sarah Palin be such a sensation if she were a man? Would conservatives have been such big fans of Condi Rice for so long if she wasn’t black? Would Marco Rubio have generated as much excitement among the conservative grassroots if he wasn’t Hispanic? When the Tea Parties are attacked as racist, don’t we take a little extra pride in pointing out all the minorities who’ve attended events? Aren’t we particularly thrilled when a Muslim speaks out eloquently against the Ground Zero mosque?
Don’t we already have conservative groups that engage in identity politics? Sure we do. Look at GOProud, Project 21, Smart Girl Politics, and the Hispanic Leadership Fund among others. These groups exist already, but they’re under-funded and under-appreciated. With more money and support, these groups could expand very quickly. But, why does it matter?

#5) Conservatives are losing culturally with minority groups even more so than we are politically: When you look at minorities in America, if you set race aside, you’re left scratching your head as to why they’re not voting Republican in much larger numbers. There’s absolutely no POLITICAL REASON why the GOP shouldn’t be getting a third of black voters and at least half of Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, and Jews.
The reason why that doesn’t happen is because Democrats come at those groups from a cultural angle that Republicans don’t. Republicans get upset when Harry Reid says, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK?” or Jesse Jackson quips, “You can’t call yourself a black man and vote against the health care bill,” but guess what? Minorities in this country are bombarded with messages of that sort on a regular basic and it seems to work really, really well for the Democrats. Now, we can stamp our feet, get mad, and say “That’s not fair” all we like, but it’s not going to change the fact that conservatives have a cultural problem reaching out to minorities that can only be addressed by other people from those same minority groups.

#6) When you give up on identity politics, you give up your chance to set the agenda: Why are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP considered “black leaders” instead of “leaders of black liberals?” Why is La Raza treated like it’s representative of Hispanics instead of liberal Hispanics? Why is NOW considered to be a group that represents women instead of liberal women?

Along similar lines, why is a policy that’s as harmful to black Americans as Affirmative Action considered to be a “pro-black policy?” Why is supporting illegal immigration, which hurts Hispanic Americans economically more than the average American, considered to be a pro-Hispanic policy instead of an anti-Hispanic policy?
Here’s something else to ponder: How is it that conservatives can have their careers destroyed by “racist” remarks that would barely merit an apology if a liberal said the same thing? How is it that both liberals and conservatives can have the exact same position on the Ground Zero mosque and gay marriage and while the conservative is considered a “bigot,” the liberal is given a pass?

The answer to all these questions is the same: You can’t win if you don’t play the game. Because conservatives eschew identity politics, they allow liberal groups to claim the “leadership” mantle of every minority group in America by default. Perhaps in theory, that shouldn’t make any difference. In practice, it allows these liberal groups to define what’s racist and what’s not. It also allows them to determine what issues supposedly matter to each group — and often, even conservatives accept their supposed “leadership.” Long story short, either we get more involved in identity politics or groups like La Raza, CAIR, and the NAACP are going to deliver enough votes to the Democrats to allow them to permanently drag this country to the left.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

As much as I hate this concept, I have to agree. I'm not a conservative, but I definitely get along best with conservatives, and prefer them in power.

gfchicago

You and me both. As much as I hate identity politics, as John points out, they have been kicking our asses for the last 50 years. I'm getting a little tired of taking the high road, particularly after this fiasco with the “Sun King Obama I” (a Smithwick ^TM) and his high priest & priestess (Reid & Pelosi), took this crap to a whole new level.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

“If you can't beat 'em join 'em.”

It is a despicable concept to some, but it works. When you guys defeated the Apaches, they switched sides and fought for the Americans. Your military hand-to-hand combat is almost all Apache fighting styles.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

You've gone completely off the reservation with this one, Hawkins. Identity politics is not Conservative, and it's sad to see you abandoning Conservative principles to try to win votes by playing the Liberals' game.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

The problem, CX, is that if conservatism doesn't change, it won't survive. That doesn't mean you make changes for the sake of change. It means you make changes based on what makes sense and is proven to work. As times change, so must certain ideas. As Hawkins has stated, whites will be a minority before long, and the other groups, which will continue to vote Democrat as long as only the Democrats continue to use identity politics, simply won't change with the times. If conservatism doesn't adapt, it will die. Do you really want to destroy your entire way of life simply to halt change in its tracks?

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

The problem, Justin, is that identity politics is a complete violation of core Conservative principles. Abandoning your core principles to win votes is not adaptation, it's suicide.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

So if you are correct, then you get either suicide by not changing, or suicide by abandoning principles. Either way, conservatism dies.

Sometimes, you have to take risks, and this might be one risk you guys have to take.

I'll be fine regardless, I'm not a conservative.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“So if you are correct, then you get either suicide by not changing, or suicide by abandoning principles. Either way, conservatism dies. … I'll be fine regardless, I'm not a conservative.”

I understand that you're the kind of person who feels that throwing away his entire worldview to try and win votes by out-pandering the opposition is acceptable, but that's WHY you're not a Conservative.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

I'm not a liberal either. I had too many issues with established ideologies, so I'm actually designing my own.

Regardless, that isn't the argument, and you've started to act like a liberal here. You just attacked me personally instead of arguing about how doing it your way will save conservatism. Sad, and part of the reason why I'm no longer a conservative.

When it comes to issues like this, homosexuality, morality, etc., I argue for the sake of argument with you and other social conservatives. I've been writing about how socially conservative laws have moral authority. That post will be heavily edited over time, it is only a basic principle at the moment.

Personally, if I ever seek political office, I will never pander. That is completely antithetical to my worldview. However, my worldview allows me wiggle room when it doesn't have power. Conservatives are highly idealistic, constantly trying to live their lives to the best they can, even if it in the end harms them. I think that's noble, but nobility doesn't win battles. Ruthless and harsh tactics do.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“You just attacked me personally instead of arguing about how doing it your way will save conservatism. Sad, and part of the reason why I'm no longer a conservative.”

But I didn't attack you personally at all. I accurately described what you're telling Conservatives to do — throw away a core principle in order to compete for votes.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

Wrong. You stated, and I quote, “I understand that you're the kind of person who feels that throwing away his entire worldview to try and win votes by out-pandering the opposition is acceptable”

You directly stated “you”, meaning me, and “his”, again being me. It was a personal attack, and rather shameful.

What I was doing was pointing out that your current options put you in a death spiral. The goal was to make you think, but unfortunately it didn't work. I'll try another tactic.

YOU'RE CURRENT PATH IS GOING TO LEAD TO YOUR DESTRUCTION! ADAPT OR DIE!

Did that get through better?

You don't necessarily have to throw away this principle. What you do have to do is change your current tactics, because you are losing the cultural war.

I'm trying to help you here, not hinder you. The fact is, my ideology doesn't have a hope in hell of coming to power in my lifetime. I recognize this, and so I picked an ideology that I can work the best with. That ideology is conservatism, despite my opposition to certain parts of conservatism that led to my breaking with it. Conservatism gives me personally the best chances, as well as the best chances for my ideology to enter the battleground of ideas. If liberalism wins, I'll survive. If conservatism wins, I'll flourish.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

Fine. I'll amend my earlier statement to “I understand that you agree with the kind of person who feels that throwing away his entire worldview to try and win votes by out-pandering the opposition is acceptable” Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but it's still an accurate description of what you're advising us to do.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

I hope you read more than that, otherwise my opinion of you will have to drop to “ant” status.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

I doubt I'll lose any sleep over your opinion of me. Your argument boils down to “if you can't beat 'em, join 'em” (meaning the Liberals) exactly as you told gfchicago above. Your premise is wrong. Conservatism will survive. The problem is that if we give up Conservative principles to win votes, we'll no longer be Conservative. It's like pregnancy — you either are, or you aren't.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

And you continue to ignore just about everything I've said. This is just sad, CX. Really, really, really, really sad. I expect this kind of intellectual ignorance from a lieberal, not a conservative.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

Okay, does anyone else here see a comment from Justin that I'm not seeing, one that doesn't say that Conservatism must change and use the tactics of Liberals in order to survive? Anyone?
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

How about this part?

“You don't necessarily have to throw away this principle. What you do have to do is change your current tactics, because you are losing the cultural war.”

Seriously, CX, this is the saddest thing I have ever seen you do.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“You don't necessarily have to throw away this principle. What you do have to do is change your current tactics, because you are losing the cultural war.”

So you think we can “win” by using the tactics of the opposition, tactics we abhor and despise. Do you also think we can win the war against terrorists by deliberately bombing innocent men, women and children? We don't have to give up our principles, just change our tactics to match theirs, right?
mightysamurai

You don't necessarily have to throw away this principle. What you do have to do is change your current tactics, because you are losing the cultural war.

Changing current tactics =/= embracing a repugnant and illogical political tactic.

You seem to be engaging in a false dichotomy. You speak as if our choices were limited to “embrace identity politics” or “DEATH!”
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

As with CX, I hope you read more than that. The objective of the exercise was to make you think, not to actually see conservatism embracing identity politics in the way lieberals do.
Mr. EMT

Heh, two blind people feeling an elephant, you both seem to be correct and you both seem to be wrong.

Can you give an example of what everyone would agree to be a core conservative principle is and how conservatism would die if it changed?

Can you likewise give an example of a core principle that would HAVE to change in order for the ideal to survive?

I missed the part where an ideal dies just because it doesn't change…
Isn't that what separates hypothesis from theory?
One withstands the test of time, one does not.

When someone asks me personally what I believe the governments role to be. You can't sum it up in a paragraph, there are too many issues.
But limited government interference in our way of life, no hinderence from pursuiing prosperity as long as I am not conducting criminal activity. Securing our shores and borders, protecting us from military dangers, aiding our allies in times of crises, empowering our nation's self reliance.

The middle ground? John, I could give a shit what color someone's skin is as long as they are not a dreg on society.
And sitting on your ass claiming that you are entitled to free shit at tax payer expense because you were born is a DREG.

Next time some leftard cries it isnt fair to discriminate because “all men are born equal” throw it in their face they support freeloaders who want to sit on their asses and earn a welfare check.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

I didn't see you explain exactly in here where I appear to be wrong. Please point it out. Gotta exercise my brain.
Mr. EMT

You say conservatism will die if it does not change or adapt.
What is it about conservatism that needs to change?
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

The main issue is how lieberals are able to use identity politics to keep a choke hold on non-white voters. The conservative tactics of simply staying away from identity politics are failing, and some form of identity politics (certainly not the same tactics the lieberals use) may have to be embraced. Just as the basic principles of war stay the same but the tactics change, conservatism can hold on to its core principles while changing it's tactics in the culture war. The current tactics aren't working, and so conservatism needs to devise new tactics in the culture war, the same was a commander on the battlefield will devise a new tactic in order to turn the tide of a battle.
Mr. EMT

Like I stated above in other previous posts. I do not believe this is so much a culture war as it is a class war.
Libtards are just mixing culture with class since they perceive lower classes to be made up of minorities, then they keep them in the lower classes by offering them entitlements such as welfare, housing, and healthcare as long as they dont get a job.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

In this circumstance, culture war would mean the battle of ideas between lieberals and conservatives, and the lieberals have a choke hold on non-whites, and even Jews. Their use of race based tactics works to their advantage, even if it harms the people who vote for them. The point is, conservatives have to find a new tactic to combat the lieberal race based tactics.

Using identity politics doesn't have to mean selling out principle. It could simply mean having black man speaking to the black community about all the damage lieberals have done to black people. It doesn't harm the conservative principles of a colour blind society, but it could potentially get conservatives a better foothold among minorities.

It is all about tactics, not changing principles. That is all I'm advocating here, and I find it rather disturbing that you, CX and others can't see that.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

Apparently, we need to pander to victim groups more, even though their aims are opposed to ours, like Hawkins with his Homocon sponsorship.
Mr. EMT

I totally disagree.
If the conservative movement wants to go down that road to hell, I will no longer consider myself in anyway shape or form to be conservative and I will have no problem pulling punches when it comes to telling conservatives they need to grow the hell up and accept responsibilities.

I made these same points in my previous lengthy posts above.
The only options I see is as you say, pandering to self made victims and give them entitlements…
Or tell them to grow up and get a job and make sure they actually have an opportunity to get a job.

Fun Fact about Mr EMT:
I did not become an EMT because I wanted to be one, I started my medical career as an EMT because I needed a job while I retrained myself for something bigger and better than what I was.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“I totally disagree.”

Well, I was being sarcastic by seeming to agree with Hawkins that we must embrace the tactics of the opposition to win, and am about to be again: stay tuned for Hawkins' next column, in which he says we can beat the terrorists by targeting innocent civilians for mass murder!
Mr. EMT

LOL, yeah that pretty much nails Hawkins' current attitude it seems.

Mr. EMT

The problem is “conservatism” like the Tea Party, has a vague platform that is hard to really define by itself.
Its like the story of three blind people feeling a separate part of an elephant.
You can't really say that John is wrong about whether this is an issue for conservatism or not when John has been labeld by himself and others as a voice for conservatism.

For me the issue is this. If john is conservative, what is to the right of him because he tends to be too mainstream for me to want to be considered in the same ilk.

baoxian

This is one of the weakest articles I've seen from you, Hawkins. It's a list of excuses and mealy-mouthed cop outs. As we discussed yesterday, not all identity politics is bad, but your approach here is totally wrong. Allow me:

The liberal approach to identity politics is all wrong because it is based on highlighting differences and controlling people through division. You play by the rules of group x, or you're not a “real” member of group x. Personalize, isolate, polarize. Sound familiar?

It's our old friend Saul Alinsky, and liberals use his tactics on each other. More effectively then they do on us even because they are based on emotion and holding the individual's self-esteem hostage to the collective. So how do we break this powerful hold when Alinsky tactics are used against us and against the liberal's were trying to reach out to?

We have the template from Sarah Palin, and a more ideal one from say, John Galt or Howard Roark.

1. Tell the truth. Most people have no idea how to react when confronted by it.

2. Hold others accountable for their actions, and take responsibility for yours.

3. Resist the temptation to mock or ridicule your opponent. Engage them in honest conversation and they will eventually get off script to allow for real dialog, or discredit themselves. (The video of Palin confronting the “teacher” with the sign in her yard is a great example)

4. Speak from principle, and prepare to be savaged by people who want and need you to be personally destroyed. (Trick is, if you stick to these points, they can't destroy you.)

How does this relate to identity politics? Conservatives are going to have to be willing to have some uncomfortable conversations with minority groups as part of the process of reaching out. They'll have to clear up misconceptions, let people vent their frustrations, and acknowledge where there have been mistakes and injustices. They're also going to have to be willing to call out phony accusations of racism (etc), and walk straight into the teeth of the liberal hate and smear machine.

But maybe most of all, conservatives have to show up. They need to speak in the inner cities and uppity liberal suburbs where they know the audience may be hostile. They need to speak before the very kinds of identity groups that they might disagree with, knowing that it's the best and perhaps only route in.

Nothing terrifies liberal leaders like the idea of an open and honest discussion between their constituents and conservatives. That why it needs to be our goal.
Sean

Let's all do what the collectivists do. Great idea. You are circling the toilet bowl that LGF did, and you will achieve the same results. Stop calling yourself a conservative or a patriot, because you are neither. Enjoy the Kool-Aid. Rubbing elbows with a few celebrities does this to people sometimes. Just can't put that feeling down, right?You'll also become used to the feeling that traitors have. Tragically misunderstood. Totally rejected, but misunderstood. So long, and spend your inheritance quickly.

TheDickNixon

Nixon thinks your comments are somewhat over the line.

TheDickNixon

John, Nixon understands your thought process but must disagree with you in this matter.
President Friedman

The thing you have to be careful of here is in defining and enforcing the difference between a conservative message that is tailored for specific identity groups vs. going to those identity groups and asking, “What can we do to get you to vote for us?” I'm not sure how effective conservative identity group politicking can be since it must also be ideologically forbidden from promising special treatment to those identity groups, but I do think there is promise in the idea of recognizing that politics in the USA are not experienced through a single monoculture, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with encouraging people from a similar culture to organize together to fight for a group of political ideals.

I agree with Hawkins that in many ways the conservative movement is already engaged in identity politics, it's just usually a more informal variety (mama grizzlies, the Christian right, college republicans… these are all poplitical identity groups). And the demographic problems he points out are very real. So unless every conservative who posts here wants to go out and have 5 kids and raise them to be conservatives, I don't know what the other options are. I'd just say you have to tread lightly and very carefully into this new political arena. We can't do it like the libs do it.

D-Vega

You summed it up best, PF.

This is already happening and has been happening. It's politics. It's just a matter of how much you cater to those specific identities.

It's just like Homocon. I am sure those gay conservatives would be willing to forego a couple of their main issues (which didn't even include marraige) in order to get their other issues advanced.
mightysamurai

I agree with Hawkins that in many ways the conservative movement is already engaged in identity politics, it's just usually a more informal variety (mama grizzlies, the Christian right, college republicans… these are all poplitical identity groups).

As I said below, I consider this different from what is commonly called “identity politics”. To my mind, “identity politics” is saying “My position is right because I identify with [insert group]“. Simply joining a group that shares a common identity is not what I would call “identity politics”. By that definition, ALL politics are “identity politics”. The very existence of political parties would be considered “identity politics”.

Mr. EMT

It should be almost impossible for anyone to not be able to identify with almost every group and culture in America at this stage in our history.
Every race and creed has history of perseverance and persecution.
Democrates love to keep reminding us of the persecution and buy votes with entitlements.
GOP sits on their thumbs and takes a step back for every step forward it makes.

President Friedman

“It should be almost impossible for anyone to not be able to identify with almost every group and culture in America at this stage in our history.”

To a degree that's true, but let me ask you: If you could go to an Emergency Responders convention full of a bunch of other people who grew up in rural Texas vs. one full of urban northeasterners, or one that was 95% a different ethnicity than you, which would you feel more at home in? Sure, you could find some things to identify w/ the other group about, and you're probably going to spend time talking about the same issues at either convention, but all other things being equal, which would you choose to attend?

Mr. EMT

Well… I ran Texas for 3 years before moving to northern virginia for 5 years, now I have been back in The Great State of Texas for a little over a year…
I turned down a job working with DC metro due to the fact you are issued a bullet proof vest, but no side arm. It's ok for responders (firemen and EMT's) to be targets for gang initiation, but not ok for you to defend yourself.
I remember hearing a story during Katrina that there was a firehouse in Louisiana, I think it was in Gonzales? Anyway, gang members were shooting at the firemen and their families inside of the fire station there, keeping them penned down.
I was informed that wearing my stetson in certain parts of the areas I lived in would probably get me shot or in a fight. Funny how people usually gave me a smile and a nod instead.
So if I had to choose which of the three conventions I would be most at home in, that would be pretty difficult considering the only one I might not would be one that had 95% different ethnicity than me…which doesn't exist.
Either event, EMS responders are all brothers and sisters and I would not be anymore uncomfortable in an EMS conversion anywhere than I would any other social setting.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

I can't think of a single way in which I can identify with the Arab culture, other than a few rules they took from Judaism when they made their religion.

Mr. EMT

I don't believe arabs are defined by islam, I do recognize the fact that an overwhelming percent of their culture is islamist though.
And I think your point could be made that we can not identify with islam…
And that, i would have to agree with.

President Friedman

I agree that conservatives can't play identity politics under the common definition of that term, at least not if they want to call themselves conservatives. But what I think John is saying (he really should spell out better what he means, because it's hard to tell) is that if we are going to applaud a bunch of conservative women running around calling themselves 'mama grizzlies', why is that any different than applauding a group of conservatives who identify with being black or hispanic and organize accordingly?

mightysamurai

It's not, but like I said, I think we are confusing the definition of “identity politics” with something else. Using groups like those to prove the point that the right is not racist or sexist is not what I would call identity politics. It might fit an overly broad technical definition of the term, but politics doesn't work on broad technical definitions.

See the whole “pro-life vs. pro-choice” issue. By a purely technical definition, a person who calls himself “pro-life” must be opposed not only to abortion but also to warfare, capital punishment, and police officers carrying guns, because all of those could be considered “anti-life”. And a person who calls himself “pro-choice” must not only support abortion but also support gun rights, oppose the income tax, and oppose a federally-funded healthcare system, because all of those could be considered “anti-choice”. Of course even a cursory glance at American politics reveals that this is almost never true. Pro-life just means you oppose abortion and pro-choice just means you support it.

“Identity politics” is no different. Being part of a political group that shares a common identity is not what most people think of when they hear the term “identity politics”. They think of someone who uses their identity to justify their beliefs. I.e. “This person is right because he is black” or “This position is correct because black people support it”. (Or alternatively “This person is wrong because he is an old, stuffy white person” or “This position is wrong because its supporters are mostly white”.)

That's what conservatives should never start doing. A person is not magically right or wrong because of their race, religion, or gender. Nor is a certain position correct or incorrect because of the race, religion, or gender of its supporters.

However, I see no problem with (for example) pointing out that a prominent black people supports the Tea Party purely as a way to refute accusations of racism. In that case we would not be using that black person's race to claim our position is correct, we would merely be using his identity to keep the focus on the real issues and prevent the opposition from using an illegitimate tactic to discredit us.

President Friedman

“However, I see no problem with (for example) pointing out that a prominent black person supports the Tea Party purely as a way to refute accusations of racism.”

Agreed, but what I think (again, not sure) John is talking about is taking it a step farther, and saying what is wrong for instance with a concerted effort, mostly of and by black people, to draw other black people to the conservative movement by? Not because white people should be excluded from their reindeer games for being white, but because, just maybe, black people can communicate the conservative message to other black people better and with more authority than white people can?

I agree it needs a different name than “identity politics”, but “cultural marketing” sounds pretty blah, even though that's what it boils down to.

How about “representational profiling”? ;-)
mightysamurai

Agreed, but what I think (again, not sure) John is talking about is taking it a step farther, and saying what is wrong for instance with a concerted effort, mostly of and by black people, to draw other black people to the conservative movement by? Not because white people should be excluded from their reindeer games for being white, but because, just maybe, black people can communicate the conservative message to other black people better and with more authority than white people can?

I don't see a problem with that, so long as we don't have anybody trying to argue “These people are right because they're black”.

I'm not sure why John would define that as “identity politics” though. It sounds more like common sense to me.

mightysamurai

I agree with Cav. Either John Hawkins is defining “identity politics” very differently than we think he is, or he's gone completely nuts.

Identity politics is the very CORE of what we commonly call “racism”. Remember, racism is the belief that there are certain inborn characteristics possessed by all members of a certain race.

#1) What we're doing now isn't working and isn't ever going to work: Conservatives talk a lot about minority outreach, but in practice, we don't do it very well.

Then we need to do it better. I refuse to believe that our only option for attracting minority voters is to embrace the race-mongering and race-baiting tactics of liberals.

#2) Doing nothing isn't an option:

You're right, doing nothing isn't an option. But I don't see how our choices are limited to either “do nothing” or “embrace identity politics”.

It's no secret that the demographics in this country are changing. By 2042, white Americans will be a minority in this country. What that means is that if minority voting patterns stay the same as they are today, diehard socialists will soon have a permanent lock on power in this country.

Only if you assume minorities are some kind of hive-mind intelligence that will always vote a certain way for as long as humanity exists. Not only do I not believe this is the case, the argument smacks of the same kind of quasi-racist liberal thinking that has caused so many of the problems faced by the minority community in this country.

#3) Embracing identity politics is the least bad option available: If what we're doing isn't working, it's best to look at our options. There seem to be three available at the moment: A) We can shrug our shoulders, decide it's too hard to do anything, and allow the Left to permanently take over America. B) We can begin to embrace identity politics. C) We can take the path that establishment Republicans seem to be most enamored with: Embracing left-wing positions in an attempt to appeal to minority groups.

Okay, you MUST be defining identity politics differently from how I do because to my mind, “embracing identity politics” and “embracing left-wing positions” are one and the same.

In which case, I don't know why you titled this article “6 Reasons Conservatives Should Embrace Identity Politics” in the first place. If all you meant was that conservatives should do a better job at convincing minorities that our positions are better for them and for the country, then you're not really “embracing identity politics” at all, are you?

#4) We're already dabbling in identity politics: For all the conservative talk about avoiding identity politics, if we're honest, we have to admit that we're dabbling in it already. Would Sarah Palin be such a sensation if she were a man? Would conservatives have been such big fans of Condi Rice for so long if she wasn't black? Would Marco Rubio have generated as much excitement among the conservative grassroots if he wasn't Hispanic?

Again, you apparently are using a different definition of “identity politics” than I am. None of those examples are what I would call “identity politics”. The reasons Palin, Condi, and Rubio are popular is not because they are “minorities”. They are popular because (at least in theory) it forces the left to try and argue based on the merits of their ideas by removing their ability to fall back on accusations of “racism” or “sexism”. We don't argue that they're positions must be correct because they are “minorities” as the left does.

When the Tea Parties are attacked as racist, don't we take a little extra pride in pointing out all the minorities who've attended events? Aren't we particularly thrilled when a Muslim speaks out eloquently against the Ground Zero mosque?

Again, this is not the same as “identity politics” IMO. Nobody has said the Tea Parties are right because minorities have attended them. Likewise, nobody has said the Ground Zero mosque should be moved because another muslim has said so.

In both cases, citing the fact that minorities support our positions is only a method of preventing liberals from deflecting away from the issue by accusing us of “racism” or “bigotry”.

The reason why that doesn't happen is because Democrats come at those groups from a cultural angle that Republicans don't. Republicans get upset when Harry Reid says, “I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK?” or Jesse Jackson quips, “You can't call yourself a black man and vote against the health care bill,” but guess what? Minorities in this country are bombarded with messages of that sort on a regular basic and it seems to work really, really well for the Democrats. Now, we can stamp our feet, get mad, and say “That's not fair” all we like, but it's not going to change the fact that conservatives have a cultural problem reaching out to minorities that can only be addressed by other people from those same minority groups.

Again, you seem to be assuming that minorities are incapable of comprehending simple facts and logic.

And again, you seem to be conflating the definition of “identity politics” with something else entirely. Using a minority spokesperson to reach out to minority groups is not what I would call “identity politics”. If we were going around saying “See? This black person supports us! That means we're right!”, that is what I would call “identity politics”. But simply enlisting a spokesperson that black Americans can more easily relate to in order to educate them about what conservatism is all about is not “identity politics”, merely common sense. It's no different than enlisting small business owners to speak on policies relating to small businesses, or enlisting an economist to speak on matters of taxes and budgets.

Here's something else to ponder: How is it that conservatives can have their careers destroyed by “racist” remarks that would barely merit an apology if a liberal said the same thing? How is it that both liberals and conservatives can have the exact same position on the Ground Zero mosque and gay marriage and while the conservative is considered a “bigot,” the liberal is given a pass?

Simple. Because we have a left-wing activist media masquerading as an “unbiased” media that refuses to treat both sides of the political spectrum equally. If we had a truly impartial media or, alternatively, if we had an equal distribution of biased media sources (i.e. the same number of prominent right-wing networks/newspapers as left-wing ones) we wouldn't be in that situation. Prominent liberals wouldn't be given a pass when they utter racist remarks and prominent conservatives wouldn't be constantly under siege whenever they happen to make an innocent remark that some liberal decides is “racist”.

The answer to all these questions is the same: You can't win if you don't play the game.

So you say. But isn't this “game” part of the reason that our country is in the sad state that it is right now? By participating in this “game” would we not be actively perpetuating the very problems we seek to avoid?

You say Barack Obama was elected by identity politics, and I agree that he was. But how does that prove your point that the right must embrace identity politics in turn? If the identity politics of the left got us the totally inept President Obama who was elected based on his race and not his ability to do the job, why would our use of identity politics get any better result? Couldn't we just as easily end up in the same situation, with a President in office who was elected based on his/her “minority” status rather than their ability to do the job?

Trench_Raider

Remember, racism is the belief that there are certain inborn characteristics possessed by all members of a certain race.

Um no. That the leftist “there is an evil racist behind every rock” definition.
Racism is distain or hatred based upon no other factor than race.

I see nothing wrong with identity politics as a general concept. it's perfectly natural for members of a group to look to advance the interest of that group. The problem is when you cross the line from helping your own to harming other groups. For example many have noted how the “civil right movement” of today is no longer about equal oportunity for blacks as much as it is for obtaining “pay back against evil ol' whitey”.
It's possible to have identity politics without racism, but the left usueally cannot pull it off. They also have a huge double standard about it as well. For example in two recent articles in mainstream media sources (I'll have to look for the links) leftist commentators stated that “White men organizing as White men is always illegitimate” an “the thought of a child being proud to be White is a horrifying thought”. The problem is that we've become so cowardly in the face of the left's overuse of that marxist construct word of “racism” that far too many on our side have come to agree with these statements.

TR

mightysamurai

Um no. That the leftist “there is an evil racist behind every rock” definition.
Racism is distain or hatred based upon no other factor than race.

Not true. The official, dictionary definition of racism is “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement”. Hatred or disdain for a particular race is a type of racism but not all racism is hateful or disdainful.

Is it not racist to claim that all asians are smart? Is it not racist to claim that all black people are good athletes? Neither one of those stereotypes are hateful or disdainful, but both are still racist.

Trench_Raider

To be fair, there are a number of dictionary definitions out there. The problem is that the one you chose smacks of the “race is a social construct and anyone who believes it exists is a racist” mindset.
The word “racism” was coined by Leon trotsky and used to slander and silence his political opponents. Given it's origin and general use i don;t tend to pay much attention to it anyway.

As to your second paragraph, the problem is that stereotypes usually have some basis in reality. They are not automaticly “racist” (whatever that means) in nature. To use your examples Asians on average score something like 5-10 points higher than Whites on IQ tests and are indeed over-represented in colleges. Likewise blacks have physical characteristics that thend to make them excell at certainly sports (for example people of East African ancestry make excellent sprinters due to the way their bodies are structured) and they are indeed over-represented in athletics. Both of these statements are true and are not “racist” (once again whatever tha means) by any but the most overly-broad of definitions.

TR

Trench_Raider

oops, I meant to say “certain sports” and “West African” above.
Damn, disqus is not allow me to edit posts again.

TR
Mahatma

To use your examples Asians on average score something like 5-10 points higher than Whites on IQ tests and are indeed over-represented in colleges.

After following the posts from both of you mental giants, I think it is safe to say neither of you are Asian.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

And neither are you, you aren't even a mental tadpole.
TheDickNixon

And you are no Einstein for sure.
mightysamurai

To be fair, there are a number of dictionary definitions out there. The problem is that the one you chose smacks of the “race is a social construct and anyone who believes it exists is a racist” mindset.

Not true. All dictionary definitions of “racism” say basically the same thing, though some add a modifier like “esp. so as to distinguish one race as superior or inferior to another”.

And race is a social construct. The genetic difference between the various “races” is so small it may as well not exist. Almost everything we think of as a “racial” characteristic is actually a cultural characteristic. Take a black child and raise him in a wealthy white suburban neighborhood and he'll grow up to act no differently from any of his wealthy white suburban friends. He'll speak the same way, like the same foods, and share the same interests as any stereotypical white person. Other than the color of his skin, he will be no different than any white person in the country.

The word “racism” was coined by Leon trotsky and used to slander and silence his political opponents.

Um, not likely. The word “racism” comes from the French “racisme” and dates back to 1865-1870. Trotsky wasn't even born until 1879.

As to your second paragraph, the problem is that stereotypes usually have some basis in reality.

ALL stereotypes have a basis in reality. It's when you apply a stereotype to all members of a certain race that it becomes racist.

Likewise blacks have physical characteristics that thend to make them excell at certainly sports (for example people of East African ancestry make excellent sprinters due to the way their bodies are structured) and they are indeed over-represented in athletics.

Not so. Body structure is not pre-determined at birth. It develops over time based on things like diet, activity level, etc. during childhood. Any person, regardless of race, who has an active lifestyle and a good diet during childhood can grow up to be an excellent athlete.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

“Not so. Body structure is not pre-determined at birth. It develops over time based on things like diet, activity level, etc. during childhood. Any person, regardless of race, who has an active lifestyle and a good diet during childhood can grow up to be an excellent athlete. “

Not fully true. Take classes on anatomy. Bone structure is actually very different between the different human “races”. You can identify someone's skin colour based entirely on their bone structure. There are actual some significant anatomical differences between the various races that change some physical characteristics, and it has absolutely nothing to do with with upbringing.
mightysamurai

Bone structure is actually very different between the different human “races”.

Not really. Bone structure is influenced by genetics but it doesn't correlate with race. To the extent that genetics factor into it, it depends more on what kind of bone structure your parents had than what race you are.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

Here's a medical journal on the subject:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/87/7/3…

Bone structure correlates with race. A forensic expert can determine skin colour by bone structure quite easily.
Trench_Raider

Sadly, I had to go back and re-check the byline of this post to make sure it was actually written by you, Sam. It's so full of leftist sounding discredited talking points that I would be forgiven for thinking it to be the product of one of our leftist regulars.
I'm a bit disapointed, but ah well. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
TR
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

There are regional differences between groups of people due to tens of thousands of years of physical adaptation to different environments, during which those better suited to the local conditions generally lived longer, prospered more and left more descendants with many of the same traits, but we are all the same species and race. The differences between regional groups are merely superficial. Otherwise we couldn't interbreed.
mightysamurai

No, sorry, but you're simply wrong. As Cav said, the differences between the various races are superficial. The genetic differences between any two races are so vanishingly small that they might as well not exist. Outward appearance is, quite literally, skin deep.

Your desire to agree to disagree on this simple fact does not make you thoughtful or intelligent. It makes you wrong.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

In truth, those stereotypes aren't fully stereotypes. There are actual anatomical differences between white and black people which make black people better athletes. It isn't true in 100% of cases, but the average black man can jump higher than the average white man. This is simple biology.

mightysamurai

It isn't true in 100% of cases, but the average black man can jump higher than the average white man.

Of course they can. But the difference is cultural, not racial. Whites are much more likely to have a more sedentary lifestyle, whereas blacks are more likely to have a more active lifestyle.

In the inner-city there's a lot of cultural pressure for black men to excel in sports. So from an early age they start playing basketball and football. The result of that informal training is an increased talent for athletics when they reach adulthood. Blacks are also more likely to have blue-collar jobs involving manual labor.

And in Africa there's a lot of pressure for men to be good hunters and fighters (since so many Africans still live in tribal or semi-tribal societies). If you spend years training to run down a gazelle for your dinner, you're going to grow up to be naturally fast and strong.

On the other hand, most white people today live in comparatively wealthy and industrialized societies where athletic achievement is not as necessary and not as valued. White people are more likely to have white-collar office-type jobs and feel less cultural pressure to play sports.

The result of all this is that the average white person is less athletically inclined than the average black person. But none of it was determined by genetics.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

It isn't cultural, it is 100% biological. There are actually anatomical differences between people of different skin colours. A forensic scientist can determine a person's skin colour by their bone structure. The bone structure in the knees and hips of a black person is different than a white person, making them on average a better jumper.

It isn't racism if it is factual. The facts are, the races actually do have biological differences.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

I think I've figured out what's going on around here. Hawkins is on vacation again and Lindsey Graham is ghost-writing.

Mr. EMT

John frequently channels Mccan't or newt when he gets distracted. Which is a lot.
I was proud of John Hawkins when he wrote an article saying the GOP needs to fight dirty… but ever since then he has been writing “We need to play nice and apologize our way to win”

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think like Rush Limbaugh, John sees the GOP as the last, best hope for conservatism so he's very sympathetic toward their efforts and ideas and sometimes that clouds his judgment. Plus, he has a lot of inside the beltway contacts and friends, and that can mess with your head too.

UFKA_Smithwick

Probably that is exactly it; either let the democrats win and lose everything you're fighting for or compromise and only lose some of then things you're fighting for.

Not an entirely invalid theory. But it is based on the notion that winning on a true conservative platform (ie less government, more freedoms) is impossible at this point.

Something I do not believe.

UFKA_Smithwick

I get what you're saying but I still don't like the idea.

I think conservative ideals of small government and greater economic freedoms can make it on their own. Just make it obvious that all are welcome who share these core beliefs.

The main problem with recruiting minorities is the stranglehold the left has on the media, allowing them to constantly position conservatives as rabid racists (remember when every conservative got together to spit on black congressmen and call them n*gger over and over again? No? Well it never happened but that's how it was portrayed).

So if you're a minority and not particularly interested in politics (as most people are) when you go to the election booth knowing nothing else who are you going to vote for? The guys you've been told have your back or the ones you've been told want to enslave and murder you?

But I think that advantage is going away; the media is too diverse now for them to control the narrative, we've had a black president which will tend to demotivate race-based voters (and he was awful), and people are getting desensitized to “racism” accusations. Those draw more laughs and eye-rolls than honest shock any more.

So I think if we stick to the message we can win out. Hell, Obamas statist government that has been a complete failure must push people back in to the conservative column. He may prove to be a godsend.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Great points, and I agree.

Mr. EMT

I think it is impossible for John to come up with a title for an op ed essay with out including a number.
John Kerry did the same thing so much it became a pet peeve of mine.
“I have a 5 point plan for blah”
“This is outlined in my 8 point plan”
“I have a 12 point plan to solve this”

Summing up what it appears John missed in his article.
(sorry best I could do was briefly skim the points)
Sherry Sherod said it best, and she wasnt talking about identity politics when she said it, but it applies perfectly.
“It's not about black verses white, well it is but its more about the poor versus those who have”

As long as you play by leftard rules which are making this about race, when it is not, you will LOOSE.
This isnt about race, well it is but it is about those who want verses those who have earned.
And unfrotunetly the left is spoonfeeding entitlements to minorities.
“Oh you are an illegal alien, thats ok you are entitled to free health care at tax payers expense, you are intitled to come over here and take jobs with out applying for citizenship because “white people dont want those jobs” you are entitled to not be questioned about your citizenship status and you are entitled to all the benifits of being a citizen including voting on our elections, with out actually being a citizen.”

“Oh you are black, well for all that slavery your grandcestors endured you are entitled to never have to work again, we will put a roof over your head and money in your pocket and food on your table and gas in your car”

“Oh you are muslim? DOnt worry you can build your mosque where islamic terrorists just murdered three thousand of our citizens. You can honor kill your family members and hunt down infidels freely because this is the land of religious freedom and only a bigot has an issue with the things you do.”

Until politicians make the hard choices and actually lead by telling people, “Hey you know what? It was in the past, we are working on the future and we need your help. We need you to go to work, we need you to have jobs, we need you to contribute to the society you are living in so you can enjoy the freedoms and inalienable rights our government stands on”

YOU WILL LOOSE.
Democrates offer snake oil in a bottle labled “gaurenteed to give you free money and housing and healthcare”

And GOP is too chickenshit to say, hey that snake oil is POISON.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah this is weak. Basically you're saying “winning matters more than anything else, so let's do whatever it takes.”

Its one thing to reach out to everyone, and tailor your message to counter the left's lies about conservatism to whoever we speak but embracing identity groups? That just plays into the enemy hands.
huckupchuck

This is a fantastic thread and a topic on which I have been writing for a long time now. I'll reiterate my basic point of view as an explanation for why conservatives fare so poorly with certain groups based on what is being referred to here as “identity politics” and why liberals tend to succeed. It really boils down to one point: identity matters to people, and anything that matters to people touches on the political. Where liberals have succeeded is not in the Al Sharpton style of identity politics (evidenced by the fact that such types are hot air attention seekers, but hardly ever affect or influence voters or policy-making) but in simply acknowledging that our differences mean something to us and so we try to accommodate space for expressing and respecting such differences as differences. We don't try to minimize identity differences and try to sublimate such differences to some idyllic notion of the undifferentiated American — the “unum” of the “e pluribus unum” notion. This is where conservatives fail. It's not that conservatives pretend difference doesn't exist, it's just that conservatives tend to convey that the meanings people ascribe to their differences of identity (meanings that people take very, very seriously) are unimportant, secondary, or problematic relative to some other notion of a proper American identity. Hence, conservatives often talk about doing away with the “hyphen” all the while it is really the “hyphen” that has the most meaning to people. Hell, even the most assimilated American speaks fondly and often about his or her ethnic ancestry or cultural, ethnic, religious roots. So an American guy with an Irish name who has never seen Ireland, who has no clue what the Gaelic Language is, and probably couldn't identify an Irish accent from a British accent from a Scottish accent, will still get dressed up for St. Patrick's day and join in the festivities as a bona-fide Irish-American.

The day conservatives come to understand that the meaning people ascribe to identity is worthy of full consideration politically on its own merits (albeit without using this meaning as a point of social division) is the day liberals will have a run for their money in securing the favor, allegiance, respect, and appreciation of particular groups for whom their identity beyond being some generic (and undefinable) notion of “American” is more meaningful.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“The day conservatives come to understand that the meaning people ascribe to identity is worthy of full consideration politically on its own merits (albeit without using this meaning as a point of social division) is the day liberals will have a run for their money in securing the favor, allegiance, respect, and appreciation of particular groups for whom their identity beyond being some generic (and undefinable) notion of “American” is more meaningful. “

The day Conservatives start taking political advice from Liberals is the day we start digging our own graves. Hawkins has thrown the first shovels of dirt these last few days.
UFKA_Smithwick

Ah good, now I'm certain I'm on the correct side when I oppose identity politics.

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN