Be Wary of Identity Politics (0.00 / 0)

After all, it's regional and religious cleavages that create the pluralistic governing structures in many European countries.  Do we really want to replicate that sort of divide in America?  Do we want the Christian Republican Party, or the Social Democrats of Pacific America?  I know many people complain about our two party system, but there are a lot of problems with such a cross-cutting of ideology and identity in European governing coalitions.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

---

by: circlesnshadows @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 14:42:59 PM CST

Be careful? (4.00 / 6)

Careful of what? These are vast demographic and electoral trends. In this case, I'm just reporting on them.

There is nothing to be "careful" about. It's happening, and not talking about it won't prevent it.

As a political party, you either appeal to large, rapidily growing groups, or you stay out of power. It's as simple as that.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 14:47:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

careful of the rightwing christian protofascist movement... (4.00 / 1)

that the republican party may become (or already is becoming) for a time.  Careful also about failing to pay attention to class - people like Obama  and me and Hillary Clinton and others who have access to social and political capital are not in the same boat as a lot of other people, and I'd personally rather forge a coalition with poor White Christians than not if it's possible to do fromm a social justice framework.  

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:05:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True (4.00 / 1)

And the best way to do this is from strength--knowing that you don't have to pander to them in a Jim Wallis "me too" kind of way.

MLK never pulled that kind of shit.  Neither should we.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:40:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i totally agree (4.00 / 2)

but i don't think there's anything wrong in starting to talk about christian socialism.  Christianity is a political ans social force in the U.S.

I'm not gonna do it, but it would be good if someone did.  Like MLK or Malcolm X.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:43:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't want to further it (0.00 / 0)

Republicans have bred and encouraged identity politics.  They've played up religious identification over ideological identification (i.e. What's the Matter With Kansas) and now we see the stroking of regional politics with Palin's "Real America" and the Southern/Great Plains base of the Republican Party.

Even though they're doing it, that doesn't mean WE should do it.  I'd rather work on growing the Democratic brand as an ideological inclusion.  Instead of voters chosing Democrats based on regional/ethnic identity with the pluralstic/non-racist party, I'd rather push minority voters to see the Democratic Party as their ideological brand.

The danger is obvious; Prop 8 passed on the strength of African-American voters that came out for Obama.  Just as was argued in Crashing the Gate on a party identity over ideology identity, we should push party identity over regional/religious/ethnic identity (in the political manifestation, of course).

Though I recognize you're only reporting the data Chris (as you normally do).  My point was for those interpreting the data.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

---

by: circlesnshadows @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:11:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so you want me to decide whether i'm a party member, or asian, or queer? (0.00 / 0)

It's more complicated than that.  You have to use different strategies in different contexts for the same overall end.  Different people respond differently to them - that's the essence of pluralism.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:45:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We're Talking About A Pluralist Identity--Totally Different (4.00 / 3)

Conservatism is the original identity politics.  But given how power likes to be invisible, few ever notice this. The earliest oppositional identity politics was, indeed, subject to all the narrowness you describe.  But it's been around for a good long time now, and in urban/liberal hotspots people really do tend to identify pluralistically, rather than essentiallistically.

People know that discrimination against one group is discrimination against all, partly because they're almost always members of more than one group, or else they have friends and family who are.  When I was a teenager in the 60s, I was an oddball--heck, a freak--for being a straight white male who identified with blacks, gays and women.  Nowadays, not so much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:54:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, but you're a Jew, aren't you?  You got some sort of outsider cachet for that, no?  Because really, the Jews are as suspect as those other freaks you mention (blacks, gays, women).  

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

---

by: Ms Bluezone @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:07:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Congressional Democratic voters versus Obama presidential voters (0.00 / 0)

I think you mean Democrats not Obama in this scentence

"In 2006, non-whites composed 23% of the electorate, and broke for Obama by a margin of 75%-24% "

I don't think Obama was running in 2006 and you mean to make a larger argument about a national election.

---

by: adlais @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 14:58:47 PM CST

They demonized us all and reaped the rewards (4.00 / 8)

In politics, the Republicans first came after the leftists, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the leftists vote for the Democrats (88% - 10%).

And then they came after the trade unionists, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the trade unionists vote for the Democrats (61% - 38%).

And then they came after the Jews, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the Jews vote for the Democrats (78% - 21%).

And then they came after the Catholics, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the Catholics vote for the Democrats (54% - 45%).

And then they came after the African-Americans, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the African-Americans vote for the Democrats (95% - 4%).

And then they came after the elitists, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the elitists vote for the Democrats (58% - 42%).

And then they came after the women, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the women vote for the Democrats (56% - 43%).

And then they came after the poor, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the poor vote for the Democrats (73% - 25%).

And then they came after the Latinos, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the Latinos vote for the Democrats (66% - 32%).

And then they came after the gays and lesbians, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the gays and lesbians vote for the Democrats (70% - 27%).

And then they came after the urbanites, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the urbanites vote for the Democrats (63% - 35%).

And then they came after the Asians, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the Asians vote for the Democrats (61% - 35%).

And then they came after the atheists, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the atheists vote for the Democrats (75% - 23%).

And then they came after the Native Americans, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the Native Americans vote for the Democrats (89% - 10%).

And then they came after the indolent youth, and the Democrats spoke up, and so the indolent youth vote for the Democrats (65% - 32%).

And then they came after me, and the Democrats spoke up, and so I vote for the Democrats too.

And by that time there was no one left to vote for the Republicans.

Fine print:  Most numbers from the 2008 exit polls for President.   Some stretched definitions: Leftists = liberal; poor = <$15,000, elitists = post-graduate educated, atheists = no religion ('none'), and Native Americans data are results from Shannon County, South Dakota, which is entirely within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and has the highest percentage Native American of any county in the nation.  (Not all tribes show this level of Democratic support, of course; and it goes without saying that Latino or Asian ethnicities are also diverse, multicultural categories as well.)

---

by: dreaminonempty @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:11:56 PM CST

I'm not sure "they" did (0.00 / 0)

Congressional Democrats tended to be awful quiet about speaking up for the leftists, the elitists, the poor, the gays and lesbians, the native Americans, the youth and especially the atheists.

No, we spoke up and delivered a big fuck-you to the Republicans, though through a flawed vehicle.

And now, for our next trick, we take over the party from those who didn't speak up.

Man, the Republicans won't know what hit them.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 16:42:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this is so cool (4.00 / 1)

The best thing about it is that the Republican party has no choice but to adapt or die - they're already losing national elections, and all the trends you talk about will continue to make them lose by greater and greater margins. This is the consequence of their increasing self-definition as the party of straight white Christians, and their explicit exclusion of other groups (or even the people that live near those other groups!).

Given these circumstances, what is the most irrational thing they could possibly do? Double down on their cultural identity politics.

Palin in 2012!!!

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:13:22 PM CST

The GOP has depended (0.00 / 0)

on racial xenophobia and the culture war to keep their coalition together for decades, and should these demographic trends continue (as they appear to be doing, and there is no reason to think they won't continue) they will soon lose both moorings.

Like you suggest, they will probably keep turning up the gain on both to try and squeeze out some successes.  It will probably work for a few years yet in their bases of power (the south and prairie west), but the cost will be in midwifing a new army of Timothy McVey style "patriots".

---

by: Ugluks Flea @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:35:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How are you defining non-Christians? (0.00 / 0)

Does it include Catholics, or is this some measure of non-believers?  I know you've written about this before, but...

---

by: supag32 @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:13:54 PM CST

Anyone who doesn't self-identify as Christian (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:37:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's A Fluke AND A Harbinger (4.00 / 1)

In this context, Obama's victory should not be seen as a historical fluke created by the confluence of disastrous Republican governing, a 2004 Illinois Senate field that collapsed around him, and a great speech at the Democratic convention four years ago. It is, instead, a harbinger of America's future.

I've always agreed with your thesis, Chris.  But it's not either/or.  This was bound to happen somehow, but it was a fluke that it happened this way.

Nothing special in that. All history is unlikely in the extreme.  "Truth is stranger than fiction."  Yadda-yadda-yadda.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:35:57 PM CST

Yes, demographics is destiny (4.00 / 1)

And it explains why white Christians who feel disturbed by people "not like them" challenging their political and economic privileges are increasingly drawn toward more authoritarian governance. These people are afraid of a possible future that does not look exactly like the past. And as Sara Robinson writes, this tendency toward an authoritarian POV that resists change helps explain the incompetence of the Bush administration and conservative government in general:

They inevitably come to view change itself as a mortal enemy - the prime antagonist that threatens the order and stability of the highly-structured system the followers have entrusted their futures to. And, unfortunately, when you start looking at change as your existential foe, you put serious limits around your ability to envision, prepare for, and adapt to it.

Over time, progress slows to a crawl, which creates dangers of its own. Through lack of exercise, authoritarian societies become stiff and inflexible, gradually losing the personal and cultural resilience required to survive and adapt to anything but the smallest changes.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:43:59 PM CST

really? (4.00 / 1)

it's not because of union busting and the dismantling of any other social institutions including the government that would speak to poor, working class, and middle class people about their bread and butter issues, their psychological emotional and spiritual needs, etc?

Damn there are a lot of Weber fans here :)  

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:47:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Don't Think It's An Either/Or Situation Here (4.00 / 1)

And Sara's not coming from Weber so much as from Altemeyer (rightwing authoritarianism) and Sidanius and Pratto (social dominance orientation).

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:01:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i'm still on weber vs. marx (0.00 / 0)

like to keep things simple when i'm not trying to complicate them.  There's an excessive focus on the "spirit" here (or psychological mode) and not much on material or social factors.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:03:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But what motivated the "dismantling"? (0.00 / 0)

Is it driven by ideology or identity? I think that Chris is observing the relationship of current political dynamics to a demographic change. These dynamics are going to manifest themselves in a number of ways. Not just voting, which is his data set here. If white Christian fear of demographic change drives their allegiance to conservative government, it's going to be hard for a government built on a pluralist coalition to try to develop compromises based on ideology.  

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:19:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what motivated it? (0.00 / 0)

pro rich and pro market forces that in an electoral democracy had to find a way to mobilize people to support an agenda damaging to most of the people.  so this includes taking over the media (hegemony), using churches, attacking opposing institutions like  unions.

I mean, if you look at the data for the prop 8 exit poll, you'll see that protestant/evangelical/born again support it by 80% or so while most white christians are not really insane.  It's a mistake to mobilize without thinking about class and other factors if you want a democratic progressive agenda and at the same time to demonize the majority religion and race in a country.  Why not just articulate good ideas that appeal to people and construct institutions that organize them around those ideas and values?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:36:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe because of my lifetime in the South (4.00 / 1)

I find the tendency toward authoritarianism and conservative government more culturally driven than economically driven. You are right that the MI complex found a way to "mobilize" this tendency, but that's just what good marketing is all about. And of course it would be a tactical disaster to mobilize efforts for progressive policies by demonizing the majority religion and race in our country. But I think what Chris is addressing is more a strategic issue rather than tactical. In the series of articles he's posted about this, I haven't seen any evidence of how exactly he would propose carrying out any kind of mobilization based on this strategic reality.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 17:16:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

this is a really interesting perspective and i learned a lot from it.  i think that tactics can only operate wtihin the context of a broader strategy.  And if your strategy is to mobilize people on the basis of cultural / racial difference (which is basically the same thing), you're going to get one type of coalition and a range of types of politics and economics, but you're circumscribing your options to a particular set.  I don't really see why trying to construct a coalition around racial minoritiness and nonChristianness is superior, to say, constructing a coalition around womenness and poorness.  Or all four.  But rooted in economic populism (I'm a marxist of color).

As for what folks are like  in the South - well cultural essentialism can have "truth" to it especially since the act of believing it makes it real in a sense.  But authoritarianism doesn't just have to be combated - it has to be changed, or else things will never get any better.  I might not be the right person to do it (e.g. I couldn't move to India and organize peasants) because of the social distance between me and them, but there are people who can be written off and people who can't in a broader sense.  There are people who will support Sarah Palin and people who won't.  And i think  this applies to women, Christians, racial minorities, and everyone else.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 18:14:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If this holds, to call this a cultural and political revolution would (0.00 / 0)

be an understatement.

The Politics of Bruno S.

---

by: Descrates @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 15:50:55 PM CST

stats (4.00 / 2)

  1. Roughly 60% of all Democratic voters are now non-white and / or non-Christian (per exit polls).
  2. Democrats hold a 3-1 margin among non-whites and / or non-Christians (per exit polls)
  3. Non-whites and / or non-Christians now compose 39% of the electorate, their highest total ever (per exit polls)
  4. Over 60% of the country under the age of 43 is non-white and / or non-Christian (Source). Many commenters will justifiably ogle the huge, pro-Obama youth vote this year, but really the non-white and / or non-Christian vote are deeply intertwined.
  5. Over 100% of the population growth in America comes from non-whites and / non-Christians. That is, the white Christian population in America is actually slowly declining, even though the population of the country is still increasing on right pace with average world population growth. (Source)

#1 means that 40% of Democratic voters are White and/or Christian.
#3 means that 61% of the electorate is White and/or Christian.
#4 means that 40% of the Country under the age of 43 is either White and/or Christian.

Pluralism as an ideological end is great provided it goes with others; as a practice it's beyond great and probably the only way we have to make movement organizing work that's not viciously authoritarian/fascistic.  I also think analytically there's a kernel of truth to what you're saying, but you're presenting a specific TYPE of pluralism here (like I started to get into above but hadn't fully fleshed out).  Your'e using only race and religion - you're not looking at gender, sexuality, class, and many other variables.  And this has implications for the kind of political agenda you're going to get.  Strong implications.  It also ignores the subtleties - why do different subsets of non Whites and/or non Christians vote in different ways or support different agendas?

Further, I think there's a grave danger of conflating rightwing evangelical nutball Protestants with "Christian."  Martin Luther King was a Christian.  But he was also pretty pragmatic.  And an economic populist.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:02:05 PM CST

sorry i got those and/ors wrong (0.00 / 0)

that should read "are White Christians" not "are White and/or Christians"

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:05:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Identity vs Ideology (0.00 / 0)

America is not a center-right nation. It is now a culturally pluralistic nation

Your analysis really doesn't shed any light on the center-right, center-left debate.  If anything, you demonstrated how the election had little to do with conventional left/right ideology.

As you then point out, it gets confusing.  Modern conservatism depends on identity politics for votes and, really, it always has.  The difference today is the conservative coalition is now an under-50% minority.

California prop 8 shows we still have a ways to go before we can call ourselves center-left.  On the other hand, this also demonstrates we were never center-right before this point, either.  Most people just want the system to work and don't care a lick how that is achieved.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:07:03 PM CST

pluralism (0.00 / 0)

Sorry but I agree with dr. anonymous here.

People are making an assumption here.  Just because a person is different-color, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.-does'nt necessarily mean that they are more enlightened.  They could, in fact, be more conservative in economic and fiscal matters than "whites."

If Obama did do worse among working-class people it may be because he came off as more conservative than, say, Edwards or even Clinton.    

---

by: jim s @ Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 16:10:48 PM CST