the Absurdity of Identity Politics


If Bruce Jenner can be a woman, why can’t an over-bronzed blue-eyed blonde white woman be black? Or a blue-eyed fair-skinned Elizabeth Warren be Cherokee? Or a president who underpays women on his staff rail on about pay equality? This incomplete list of examples shows, not the reducto ad absurdum, but the actual result of the slicing and dicing of Americans into cubby holes of victims, each of whom can blame everybody else for their plight.

If we can pick and choose to which cubby hole we belong (even a two mansion-owning, chauffer-driven, Secret Service protected, millionaire Hillary Clinton claimed to be a debt-ridden member of the poor), the whole idea is devolving back into un-hyphenated America. If everybody belongs to a special interest group, there are no special interest groups. If everybody is somebody’s victim, than we are all somebody’s villain. We are all victims/oppressors. It’s textbook absurdity.

Maybe Rand Paul should declare himself to be a poverty-riddled bi-sexual Chinese-speaking black woman of Mexican descent.

Aside from the philosophical depravity of dividing Americans against Americans, identity politics, in reality, doesn’t work. In singling out a group to get special treatment from the rest of us, you’ve stigmatized them to the rest of us. The society you’ve told the group that you’re helping them into, resents them for the lowered standards, or mandatory hiring, or whatever special treatment they get. And the group members themselves are told that they can’t make it on their own – that they need the assistance of their political benefactors. In practice, it’s just crass bribery for votes.

We’ve finally reached the point where European whites have become the disadvantaged – the only ones who don’t get freebies from the political class (they’re just paying for everyone else’s). So Bruce Jenner, Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal are the vanguards of the “pick you oppressor” movement. Bruce Jenner is getting a reality TV show, Elizabeth Warren got a Senate seat, and Rachel Dolezal got a leadership position with the NAACP, all out of being someone they’re not. No need for character, honesty or credibility.

Maybe Hillary is the most apt next president.

8 thoughts on “the Absurdity of Identity Politics

  1. I can’t believe that you actually wrote this blog! I could care less about “Caitlyn” Jenner or Rachel Dolezal and their comings and goings. And I’m surprised that you do. As to your “theory” that Americans of white European descent have become the persecuted “victims” and the “disadvantaged” in America…I call that paranoia plain and simple. You must have taken a silly pill before you wrote this.

    • The “disadvantaged white Europeans” comment was, in fact, tongue in cheek, but the ludicrous depths to which identity politics have sunk is real. You may not care a whit about Jenner or Dolezal, but your professional Democrats do. The permanent damage done to hordes of people by endless entitlements is very real, and the depravity of identity politics is very real. Those were the points of the piece.

  2. Please explain to me what “entitlements” either Jenner or Dolezal are asking for. Are they asking for federal funds? No. They are asking for societal approval of their choices in lifestyle. Obviously you don’t approve of either of their lifestyle choices. And neither does any other political “Conservative”. And neither does any of the conservative right wing Republican candidates running for the Republican nomination I might add. They (like you) consider both people “depraved” and they ( and you) consider their lifestyle choices a “threat to the societal values” of the country.

    • I don’t remember writing anything about threatening the social values of the country. The point of the piece is that we have sunk so low into the identity politics game that we’re having to make them up now. It’s the precedent – if I can choose gender and race, what can’t I choose? It’s the proliferation of “special” interests that is becoming burdensome. And no, Jenner and Dolezal haven’t ask for government entitlements, but they both got beneficial treatment simply for being someone they are not. If that act becomes acceptable, or even chic, that actually is a failure of social values, but that’s a footnote, not the idea behind the blog. I know I’ll never convince you of my thinking – probably not even get you to understand what I’m trying to say, but I try (and I do it without calling you or your political allies names).

  3. You are right. I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. The point that I THOUGHT you were trying to make I don’t agree with. And you say you make your point without name-calling. I assume you are implying that I have called you and / or people who agree with you names? I just re-read all of my comments and I don’t see any example of “name calling”. Please cite an example.

    • Oh, not really … just how you assume I consider people I don’t agree with to be “depraved”, or that anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky to “right wing” or “Tea Party.” I just try so hard to have conversations about issues, and you’re all about the people and feelings.

  4. Paragraph 4 first sentence: “Aside from the philosophical depravity of dividing Americans against Americans…”

    • Yes, the act of dividing Americans against Americans for political purposes is depraved – not the people who espouse it. Difference between us and you guys – we see behavior as correctable, you see people as correctable.

Comments are closed.