Identity Politics

The technical definition for Identity Politics is the “tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics”. In other words, groups are calling for different treatment based on race, religion, sex and other characteristics. There is a fear that basing politics on protecting a narrow group rather than a broader political movement can be dangerous.

Identity politics originally emerged because certain groups that have historically been ignored demanded that their rights be protected. This is best represented by civil, women’s, and gay rights. The main goal was to safeguard these rights in order to make society more fair, tolerant, and equal.

Issues can arise when one takes identity politics too far. Certain individuals believe that focusing so much on specific groups’ rights and interest can threaten others. For example, if one opposes affirmative action, they may be labeled as a racist. This tenet is based on the belief that political correctness has gone too far. One of the ways to combat this rational is by resisting the urge to see politics as a zero-sum game. Supporting women’s interest doesn’t mean that men’s rights will be limited. This method makes identity politics constructive and inclusive rather than divisive.

However, many groups, such as the Justice Democrats, believe that identity politics is harmful to our political system. They acknowledge that it is important to listen to different people’s experiences, views, and have them contribute to political discussions. It is important to be conscious and appreciative of identity but those elements can not supersede debates of issues. Justice Democrats were originally criticized by media outlets when their initial candidates were 52% women.

Media outlets argued that they were playing identity politics. However, the justice democrats retorted by emphasizing that checking off racial or gender boxes is futile unless their candidates represent the WHOLE community. Rather, justice democrats believe that candidates should be picked based on policy and having a proven track record of helping their communities. Picking a politician from a specific identity who has relationships with special interest groups does not make it acceptable to perpetuate a system that promotes conflicts of interests.

Overall, it is better to have someone not part of a particular identity who is going to help other communities rather than a person of a specific identity who doesn’t help the community. Diversity should come naturally because the chosen representatives should have been fighting the hardest in their communities. Simply, picking people based on policy is honest, while identity politics can be exclusionary.