Tuesday, August 29, 2017

What Is White Identity Politics?

David Brooks is the gift that keeps on giving.

How Trump Kills the G.O.P.
It’s become more of a white party in recent years, of course, and adopted some wrongheaded positions on civil rights enforcement, but it was still possible to be a Republican without feeling like you were violating basic decency on matters of race. Most of the Republican establishment, from the Bushes to McCain and Romney, fought bigotry, and racism was not a common feature in the conservative moment.
You could be a good progressive and adhere to the secular religion while dissenting on the level of taxation, abortion, school prayer and gun rights.
Between 1984 and 2003 I worked at National Review, The Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and The Weekly Standard. Most of my friends were Republicans.

In that time, I never heard blatantly racist comments at dinner parties, and there were probably fewer than a dozen times I heard some veiled comment that could have suggested racism. To be honest, I heard more racial condescension in progressive circles than in conservative ones.
No doubt true.
But the Republican Party has changed since 2005. It has become the vehicle for white identity politics. In 2005 only six percent of Republicans felt that whites faced “a great deal” of discrimination, the same number of Democrats who felt this. By 2016, the percentage of Republicans who felt this had tripled.

Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.
David, I'm going to blow your mind here. Conservatism is largely a white American thing. What happened is you and your conservative ideologues flooded the nation with non-white immigrants who are also anti-conservative. When America was mostly white, there were ideological battles between left and right. Now, the left largely makes anti-white arguments that overlap almost entirely with the groups we call "conservatives" (and "libertarians"). There is little practical difference in making a pro-white argument and a pro-liberty argument, except to the extent to which it is effective. Shifting politics in a white direction also shifts it in a right direction. In fact, that might be the only way to move politics rightward.
These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.

According to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, for example, about 48 percent of Republicans believe there is “a lot of discrimination” against Christians in America and about 43 percent believe there is a lot of discrimination against whites.

I’d love to see more research on the relationship between white identity politics and simple racism. There’s clear overlap, but I suspect they’re not quite the same thing. Racism is about feeling others are inferior. White identitarianism is about feeling downtrodden and aggrieved yourself.
The Left built an anti-white grievance machine because it could not win the ideological argument with whites. It had to use demographic replacement strategy to advance leftism. The reason the Alt-Right exists at all is because conservatives like Mr. Brooks did not and do not lift a finger in opposition to multiculturalism and demographic replacement, but instead cheer it on.
But three things are clear: First, identity politics on the right is at least as corrosive as identity politics on the left, probably more so. If you reduce the complex array of identities that make up a human being into one crude ethno-political category, you’re going to do violence to yourself and everything around you.

Second, it is wrong to try to make a parallel between Black Lives Matter and White Lives Matter. To pretend that these tendencies are somehow comparable is to ignore American history and current realities.

Third, white identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Donald Trump is the maestro here. He established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio.
The mask falls from the progressive.
And this is where the dissolution of the G.O.P. comes in. Conservative universalists are coming to realize their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict. This faction is prior to and deeper than Trump.

When you have an intraparty fight about foreign or domestic issues, you think your rivals are wrong. When you have an intraparty fight on race, you think your rivals are disgusting. That’s what’s happening. Friendships are now ending across the right. People who supported Trump for partisan reasons now feel locked in to support him on race, and they are making themselves repellent.

It may someday be possible to reduce the influence of white identity politics, but probably not while Trump is in office. As long as he is in power the G.O.P. is a house viciously divided against itself, and cannot stand.
The way to reduce white identity politics is to reduce the power of the left and identity politics by reversing demographic trends. Support Trump on nothing except immigration, and tell him to become as extreme as possible on immigration, such that the country experiences net emigration. Then, Mr. Brooks, and only then, will you reduce the influence of white identity politics. Or you can advocate for removal of leftists from power, but that's probably against your principles.

1 comment:

  1. Brooks once again channels the platonic essence of chutzpah.

    ReplyDelete

Synthesis

Political

Potpourri

Blog Archive