Why 2020 Is A Defining Year For The Left
The continuing drift of American politics towards either end of the political spectrum is evidenced by the fact that, a mere four years on from his seemingly revolutionary primary campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination, Bernie Saunders’ (mildly) socialist policies have been adopted by most of the early contenders for the Democratic 2020 ticket. How the Democratic primary plays out will make for compelling viewing, and it will provide an indication as to whether the Democratic Party have learned from the hubris of their 2016 election campaign. For 2020 represents a defining year for ‘The Left’ in light of how some of the fallacies and imperfections of liberalism have been exposed by reactionary, populist politics. The Left appears to be torn between its more radical, post-modernist wing and the traditional element founded upon classical liberal values. As such the strategies that the Democrats choose to employ in seeking to regain The White House will have ramifications far beyond the United States. Will the Democratic Party double down on a strategy which was once a source of political gain but has recently produced seemingly counter-productive and alienating consequences — namely identity politics?
In Mark Lilla’s recent book The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics the Columbia University professor explores the historical intellectual trends which resulted in the Left losing sight of the basic pre-requisite for effecting change: political and institutional power. Lilla outlines how the Republican Party has seized control of the core institutions of power in the US, from Congress and the local and state legislatures to the Supreme Court, while conservative think tanks and lobbyists have simultaneously monopolised political influence in Washington DC. President Trump has already appointed two dogmatically conservative Supreme Court Justices in his three year reign, the same number of Justices that President Obama appointed in his full eight years in office. The effect these appointments will have on the fundamental rights and liberties of US citizens will reverberate for decades.
In order to regain a foothold in the institutions of power, which approach will the Democratic Party adopt? Identity politics was a core feature of their 2016 campaign, and the party has continued with this strategy in the intervening years, reflecting the desires of a core minority of its base. In its original guise identity politics brought forth the civil rights movement and a whole host of other progressive and egalitarian social developments. Yet it would appear that the increasingly exclusive focus on identity has diminished its original political and social utility. The radical elements of the Left have become consumed by the role of identity as the explanation for all social issues, to the alarming point where they have actually gone full circle and at times promote the same divisions that the Far-Right’s ethnocentric tribalism inculcates.
One of the fundamental flaws of identity politics is its de-humanisation of the individual through the reductionist categorisation of each person to a social construct — be that race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc. Deconstructing and defining human beings exclusively by their biology is not representative of how most of us actually interact with one another in the world. That is not to dismiss the institutional and personal biases minorities and historically oppressed peoples face on a daily basis, far from it, but to pigeon-hole individuals based on the very categorisation by which they are often oppressed in the first place seems inherently disempowering, and possibly even perpetuates such discrimination. This fragmentation and disintegration of society into increasingly microscopic sub-groups can be evidenced by the emergence of the academic concept of intersectionality. Despite being driven by collectivist ideology, intersectionality is an attempt (whether conscious or unconscious) to transcend one’s group identity and to be recognised as an individual.
Unfortunately today’s identity politics plays right into the hands of those who control the corridors of power. In 2017, while still employed by The White House, Steve Bannon told journalist Robert Kuttner that “the longer they [The Left] talk about identity politics, I got ’em … I want them to talk about race and identity … every day.” Bannon’s contention appears to have been that the explicit priority that group identity now occupied in American politics produced the fertile breeding ground for white ethnocentric nationalism to enter the realm of public discourse, ultimately contributing to the election of Donald Trump. The paradox is disturbing. The radical priority and emphasis the Left have placed on identity politics in this century has had the unintended consequence of placing a white supremacist — in the words of Ta-Nehisi Coates — in the White House.
The Left have strayed from its liberal roots since post-modernism emerged in 1960’s academia. Once a bastion of free speech, the Left have become preoccupied with issues like de-platforming speakers on campuses who don’t hold views replicate of their own, and we are even beginning to witness the compelling of certain forms of speech through the codifying of politically correct language into the legal framework of society. The Left’s traditional intellectual pursuit of truth has been thrown aside in favour of relativism, academic deconstruction and revisionist literary interpretations.
It is much easier to be against something, anything, than it is to proactively put forth effective political proposals. In the diminutive figurehead of Alexandria Oscasio-Cortez, Bernie Saunders and the New Green Deal proposal, there are roots of potential from the Left in producing something of tangible value. If the Democratic Party sincerely wish to alleviate injustice for minorities and address the litany of social issues facing the United States, they may be best served in discarding the zero-sum ideological game of identity politics. An integral approach is required, one which leverages the positive aspects of both sides of the political spectrum and prioritises a grassroots movement involving and including all American citizens.
