. . . in an essay for Foreign Affairs . . . she argued that the philosophy of intersectionality—a philosophy that suggests that Americans must organize by group identity in order to tear away hierarchies of privilege—was a necessary precondition for the betterment of the country.
Abrams rightly pointed out that marginalized groups were originally forced into group identities by a racist white majority who used legal tools in order to discriminate against those minorities. And she correctly noted that those groups had to organize in order to fight back. But then she stated that political beliefs of which she did not approve were hallmarks of that same dominant, bigoted majority—and that the majority’s bigotry therefore necessitated the continued use of identity politics by minority groups.
“When the groups most affected by these issues insist on acknowledgment of their intrinsic difference, it should not be viewed as divisive,” Abrams wrote. “Embracing the distinct histories and identities of groups in a democracy enhances the complexity and capacity of the whole.” Indeed, Abrams rejected the “amorphous, universal descriptors” of liberty and equality and individual rights. Instead, she relied on “an expanded, identity-conscious politics.”
This is an ugly vision of the future of the country: a future in which all political differences are chalked up to thinly-masked bigotry, and in which the only solution to that supposed bigotry is identity politics in search of power. That was Abrams’ response to Trump’s articulation of an America united by creed, history, and vision—an America divided by race, class, and sex, but united by a desire to see the system overthrown. And that contrast of visions is sure to be at the center of the 2020 presidential race.The thing is, though, this "vision" winds up being a fast trip to nowhere. Any and all of the demographic groups present at any "intersection" wind up devouring each other, as Rich Lowry points out in a piece for Politico:
Democrats are about to embark on the first woke primary, a gantlet of political correctness that will routinely wring abject apologies out of candidates and find fault in even the most sure-footed. The passage of time will be no defense. Nor the best of intentions. Nor anything else.
Any lapses will be interpreted through the most hostile lens, made all the more brutal by the competition of a large field of candidates vying for the approval of a radicalized base. The Democrat nomination battle might as well be fought on the campus of Oberlin College and officiated by the director of the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.
Being a progressive hero of long-standing doesn’t afford any protection. Consider Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She certainly deserves all the grief she gets for her laughable identification of herself over the years as an American Indian. But for the identity-politics Left, her fault runs deeper: In trying to rebut the allegedly racist mockery of her as “Pocahontas,” she herself committed a racial offense.
After taking a DNA test to prove her (distant) Native American ancestry, she stood accused in the words of a member of a tribe in South Dakota of “privileging nonindingenous definitions of being indigenous.” According The New York Times, she had also tread “too far into the fraught area of racial science—a field that has, at times, been used to justify the subjugation of racial minorities and Native Americans.” Not to mention how she had given “validity to the idea that race is determined by blood—a bedrock principle for white supremacists and others who believe in racial hierarchies.”
Yes, Warren stood exposed as implicitly in league with the oppressors of Native Americans—and here she had just wanted Donald Trump to stop referring to her by a derisive nickname. Cherokee Nation activist Rebecca Nagle told CNN last week that Warren needed to apologize “to the tribes that she has harmed and to Native people broadly.”
Sure enough, she apologized, and presumably will keep on doing it as long as she’s running.
It is a season of apologies. When recently announced candidate Kirsten Gillibrand went on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the MSNBC host hit her for having in the past used the term “illegal alien,” although it was standard and technically correct usage. Gillibrand allowed that she was embarrassed by her past positions on immigration. She, of course, was last seen being an enforcer herself, and pushing Al Franken out of the Senate over groping allegations.
Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, recorded a four-minute apology video over her former opposition to gay marriage: “In my past, I said and believed things that were wrong, and worse, they were hurtful to people in the LGBTQ community and to their loved ones.”
In this environment, being a white male, particularly a white male not obsessed with gender and race, is a risk factor. This is a major vulnerability of Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose outright socialism is no defense.
Segments of the Left jumped on him this week for doing the same State of the Union response that he’s done for the past couple of years. This time was different because he’d be following the African-American activist Stacey Abrams, and somehow or other supposedly upstaging her. Activist Marc Lamont Hill called Sanders’ choice “racially tone deaf.” Never mind that Sanders had praised the choice of Abrams for the formal rebuttal.
In every presidential campaign, candidates have to explain and backfill to get with the party’s latest program. What will make this process so much more intense for Democrats is the belief that even past mistakes involving the choice of words or symbolism are affirmatively injurious of other people. And the belief that such mistakes represent deep sins to be repented.
Joe Biden was speaking sardonically when he said a couple of weeks ago regarding the criticism of his praise for a Republican, “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.” If he runs, Biden will find himself repeating essentially the same sentiment over and over again, given his lengthy record prior to the sharp turn of the Democratic Party toward identity politics.
Even Sen. Kamala Harris, who calls racism, sexism, and trans-phobia matters of “national security,” isn’t safe. She was once a prosecutor, after all. Reviewing her record, a New York Times op-ed writer said “she needs to radically break with her past.”
Who doesn’t? No one will be woke enough to emerge from this process unscathed.Indeed. Somebody's purist standards are always going to collide with somebody else's.
Italian fashion brands are finding out that there's a minefield wherever one deigns to step:
Gucci pulled a black polo neck sweater from its shops Thursday after it sparked comparisons with racially offensive golliwog and "blackface" imagery.
The "balaclava jumper" can be pulled up to the eyes with the mouth visible through large red lips.
"Happy Black History Month y'all," one African American fashionista tweeted ironically, with others pointing out the resemblance to a golliwog.
It is the third Italian brand to be hit in recent months by race rows, after Prada was forced to pull a line of accessories in December because of their resemblance to blackface imagery.
Dolce & Gabbana are reeling from a boycott in China after a calamitous advertising campaign of a Chinese woman struggling to eat spaghetti and pizza with chopsticks that was decried as racist.The way out of the booby trap? Have none of it in the first place. Proceed through this world with the bearing of a grownup. Let it be known that you'll do no puking all over yourself about anything.
Abrams is full of excrement. The only worthwhile approach to culture or public policy is on the basis of universally applicable principles. A worldview worth having is one that sees that anybody can be a sinner or a saint. Victims and oppressors are not automatically so due to some way they can be categorized.
Accord others the respect of assessing them as individual souls and insist on that for yourself.
"Spiritually flawed human being" is a category that can include us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment