Identity Politics

Opinion/Analysis: Revenge of the White Woman

Amid the inevitable outrage fest touched off by the election results, hardcore partisans on the left solidified around one particular angry narrative: If and when Democrats lose, it is because white women remain insufficiently woke. The Usual Suspects crafted this argument around exit polls of the Senate race in Texas, which revealed that white women broke for Republican incumbent Ted Cruz by a significant margin — 60 percent cast ballots for him rather than for Robert Francis O’Rourke (“Beto” to you), who received just 39 percent of their support. This 20-point margin in the Lone Star State was enough evidence for commentators to lob a variety of creative slurs at white women as a class, who make up about a third of all Americans. Feminists raced to label white women “footsoldiers of the patriarchy,” and left-wing pundits piled on. White female progressives didn’t feel the need to defend their own: “White women we are so gross it’s f***ing embarrassing and we need to f***ing stop,” one feminist warrior tweeted. Rolling Stone writer Jamil Smith lamented white women’s betrayal, wondering “when they will understand the damage that they do, and not just to themselves.” Others helpfully pointed out that white women who support conservatives can’t really be blamed — after all, in many parts of the country, helpless, backwards females are still in thrall to their misogynistic husbands, who force them to vote Republican. If this doesn’t sound like feminism, that’s because it isn’t. The Left’s newfound obsession with identity politics — which has given succor and some success to their progressive revolution in recent years — is in inherent tension with feminism’s longstanding belief that female agency is a fundamental good. Autonomous women are all well and good, it seems, until they autonomously turn out to support Ted Cruz. The Texas Senate race was just about the only competitive national race last night in which white women voted largely for the GOP, with the notable exception of Georgia’s gubernatorial contest, in which 75 percent of white women chose Republican Brian Kemp over Stacey Abrams. This inflammatory rhetoric, then, isn’t only unhelpful and un-feminist; it also happens to be wrong. In House races, white women split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, 49–49 percent. In swing-state Senate races in which GOP challengers unseated Democrats, the splits were fairly narrow: White women in North Dakota divided evenly between Kevin Cramer and Heidi Heitkamp; in Missouri, they broke for Josh Hawley over Claire McCaskill by only six points; and in Indiana, they preferred Mike Braun slightly to Joe Donnelly, 51–43 percent. Exit-poll data from Florida, meanwhile, reveal even further inaccuracies in the left-wing vendetta against white women. Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis bested Andrew Gillum among white women by just a four-point margin and also managed to win 40 percent of Hispanic women. Governor Rick Scott, challenging Democratic senator Bill Nelson, won white women by six points and likewise nabbed 40 percent of Hispanic women in the state. Democrats have conveniently ignored the latter part of these statistics; it’s safe to erase minority women, after all, when their voting habits don’t serve the narrative. This immediate pivot to scolding white women, based on the outcome of a mere two races, exemplifies the progressive tendency to justify every setback with a narrative about unavoidable racial bias and the blinding effect of white privilege. Our political divisions are complicated by race and sex, of course, but these factors don’t themselves explain, for example, why some women, white or otherwise, are conservative. The answer to that riddle — Hint: Women aren’t required by their chromosomes to form a monolithic progressive voting bloc — is one that Democrats appear uninterested in discovering, if they believe an answer other than “self-interested racism” exists at all. It’s a continuation of the blind spot progressives exhibited in the debate over Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Feminists insisted after his confirmation that “women will not forget,” that women “see a little more clearly how much we don’t matter to the people in charge,” that women’s rage “burns so brightly.” White women who refused to conform to the anti-Kavanaugh frenzy of the moment were alternately disregarded or labeled gender traitors. In its sudden embrace of identity politics, the hardcore Left needs Americans to believe that feminism and progressivism are intertwined, and thus that every woman is intrinsically wired to embrace left-wing orthodoxy. The success of their political movement increasingly depends on it. As a result, when the existence of conservative women is revealed — as it was on election night — they dismiss our views and our votes as being the result of ignorance, malice, or insufficient independence from the sway of the misogynistic patriarchy. In doing so, the Left undercuts the definitional core of feminism itself: Women can be trusted to think for themselves.

Well said, Alexandra!  Alexandra DeSanctis is the author of that spot-on op-ed, and absolutely nails it!  Please consider this your “Read of the Day.”  If you read only one article here at The Daily Buzz today, then READ THIS!!  …and then forward it on to all of your friends and family members..especially those who voted Democrat on Tuesday.  Excellent!!       🙂

 

French: There Is a Profound Difference Between Justice and Identity Politics

If you live long enough, you learn a simple, sad fact. Individual adversity does not necessarily build individual character. In other words, spend enough time in the real world and you’ll see people experience enormous challenges — like the loss of a spouse, the loss of a job, or severe illness — and quite simply collapse. They’ll disappear into the fog of depression. They’ll succumb to addiction. They’ll nurse a permanent sense of grievance that renders them incapable of maintaining functional human relationships. In other words, the old phrase, “That which doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger” is often a lie. A positive reaction to adversity isn’t inevitable. In fact, when we see people respond to adversity with courage and dignity, we applaud often because it’s extraordinary. We highlight and admire those who’ve come through the fire and emerged wiser and stronger because they offer insight and inspiration that’s often rare in American life. Similarly, group adversity does not necessarily build group virtue. Again, this should be painfully obvious. We’ve seen oppressed populations abroad respond to adversity and pain by doubling down on vengeance and violence. At home, it’s hardly the case that membership in a historically marginalized community builds special strength and virtue in every member of that community. Indeed, in a country as large and diverse as ours, not every member of a historically marginalized community has faced meaningful adversity, and not every member of a historically powerful community has enjoyed privilege. These truths should be self-evident, but they’re not. Consider this tweet from the Democratic party’s official account: ” Let’s elect Black Women, LGBT Women, Muslim Women, Disabled Women, Jewish Women, Latina Women, Millennial women, AAPI women…” Obviously inspired by the #MeToo movement, the #Resistance, and the Women’s March, this sentiment illustrates what’s wrong with identity politics. Is it really the case that membership in any of these groups renders a person more qualified for public office? Can we presume that more women in politics will mean a better government and better nation? Do we presume that the victimization of some women makes all women’s voices more valuable? Our progressive culture certainly doesn’t apply that logic to men — even though men face large-scale adversity as well. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. They’re more likely to be killed at work and at war. They have shorter lifespans. They are less likely to attend or graduate from college. They have much higher rates of suicide and illicit drug use. In other words, in multiple key areas of American life men as a group face greater adversity than women as a group. Yet to the extent our progressive culture ascribes a group identity to men, it’s all too often as toxic oppressors — not as humans facing their own unique challenges. Social movements go awry the instant they move from justice to identity politics. Movements like #MeToo are immensely valuable when they can lead to awareness and — crucially — accountability for the individuals who commit legal and moral wrongs. Reliably imposing individual justice on predators can have just as profound a positive cultural effect as permitting predators to victimize women with impunity can have negative effects. In other words, justice is a culture change — especially when justice has been systematically denied. Identity politics, however, exploits suffering for the sake of power. Ambitious politicians hitch their wagons to other people’s pain. It’s odd that Democrats would argue that a person’s life experience as a Jewish woman, a black woman, an LGBT woman, or a Millennial woman should drive them to the same conclusions about health-care policy, gun rights, abortion rights, foreign policy, economic policy, and tax rates. It’s odd how Democrats would argue that those shared views would render, say, a wealthy LGBT woman who’s never experienced sexual harassment as a more “authentic” standard-bearer for women than a conservative woman who’s an actual rape victim. It’s simple, really. Membership in a particular demographic group does not always produce suffering. Even when there is suffering, it does not always produce wisdom or virtue. Moreover, even when the response to suffering is virtuous, it does not produce ideological uniformity. Thus, it’s vitally important that we evaluate politicians as individuals. We don’t need more of any given demographic in American politics, we need better people in American politics — regardless of their group identity. Identity politics rejects all these realities. It’s built on a series of fundamental untruths — that membership in particular demographic groups equates with victimization, victimization produces wisdom, and this wisdom is progressive and uniform across each and every marginalized victim group. The result is toxic. Because it flies in the face of reality, identity politics can only be maintained through tribalism and bullying. Dissenters are punished. Diversity of thought is suppressed. The virtue of accountability is transformed in short order into the vice of group blame. As with every social movement in our hyper-politicized time, #MeToo is at a crossroads. It can retain its focus on justice and maintain its extraordinary potency. Or it can devolve into just another partisan movement that attempts to carve America into ideologically uniform interest groups. The problem in our culture isn’t “men.” It’s individual males. The political answer isn’t “women” (or, more precisely, “progressive women”). It’s individuals who seek justice. Any other approach risks sacrificing real cultural progress for the sake of short-term political gain.

And author David French is being far too kind.  Identity politics is the worst kind of politics.  Unfortunately, its what is used most by liberals and the Democratic party to pit one group against another.  David French is an attorney and Army Reserve officer (Major) who was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.

French: It’s Not Wrong to Be White

I can’t recall the first time I heard the phrase “white male” hissed as if it were some form of particularly vile insult. I know it happened in law school, where it was used as a short-hand way of saying that I should be silent, that my views were not welcome. Over time, I learned that, to a certain set of people, there was something positively wrong with being white. “We” were the great privileged oppressors of history. And “we” were the great privileged oppressors of the present. Our law schools are, in many ways, incubators for the identity politics that dominate the social-justice Left. For those soaked in progressive identity politics, skin color was a stand-in for virtue. It was impossible for a black person to be racist; it was impossible for a white person not to be. Any in-depth discussion of history had to acknowledge past injustice. It was tough even to talk about, say, Omaha Beach without in the next breath acknowledging the systematic segregation in the World War II-era U.S. Army. Since my law-school days, the problem has only gotten worse. Now the true cultural and historical demons are white — gasp! — “cisgender” males, and any white cisgender woman who doesn’t appropriately check her privilege. The ticket to white acceptability in progressive politics is a form of self-loathing: a constant attitude of repentance not just for the sins of the past but also for the benefits of the present, which are presumably enjoyed only or mainly because of the plunder and exploitation of “brown bodies.” Oddly enough, this self-loathing doesn’t diminish the power of the white progressive. The movement is still chock-full of rich white men and women. Indeed, they mainly lead the American Left. They simply purport to hate and mock “white males” with the same intensity as their black friends. But while there’s no price paid by Harvard Law students who “check their privilege,” or by Silicon Valley execs who enthusiastically embrace the latest trends in identity politics — they and their families will do just fine — the rest of White America is not so fortunate. We’re left with the odd reality in which white kids who live in trailer parks are “privileged,” while the sons and daughters of wealthy black doctors are “oppressed” — in which the legitimate concerns of white working-class and middle-class Americans are dismissed as misguided at best (after all, they’re privileged) and racist at worst. Here’s the problem: Progressives don’t like to admit this, but identity politics work as the mirror image of white supremacy — compressing the extraordinary rich and complex histories of nations, continents, and cultures into one characteristic: skin color. For the white supremacist, white people are natural-born victors. For the identity-politics leftist, white people are natural-born predators. But actual history belies the stereotypes. To take just one hot-button example, the history of slavery since the Colonial Era is not just a history of Europeans and white Americans enslaving Africans. It’s of Africans enslaving Africans, of Africans enslaving Europeans, and of Arabs enslaving Africans (and that’s just a partial summary). Yes, brown people enslaved white people by the millions: Should Americans of North African or Turkish descent check their privilege and believe their wealth was built on plunder? When identity politics rule, racism and polarization thrive. It is no coincidence that we are seeing a resurgence in outright white nationalism — embodied in the so-called alt-right — at the same time that America’s leftist cultural elite are decisively rejecting Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream that Americans be judged by the “content of their character” and not the color of their skin. When one side decides that skin color is a virtue, then — as sure as the sun rises in the east — the other side will eagerly agree. I’ve seen friends and neighbors tempted by this same mindless reductionism. You hear it whenever someone says, “When do we get a white history month?” Or: “Where is the National Association for the Advancement of White People?” Or: “Why isn’t there affirmative action for white people in the NBA?” But lumping the history of England with the history of, say, Ukraine and calling that “white history” is absurd — just as absurd as linking the ancient history of Ethiopia with the modern history of Liberia and calling that “black history.” The answer to misguided identity politics isn’t more misguided identity politics. Indeed, race obsession obscures the far more important discussion of culture. If you think, for example, that there’s a single monolithic “black” culture, talk to a recent Nigerian immigrant who’s experiencing his own culture clash — even while surrounded by black Americans. If there is one “white” culture, why are there such enduring and profound differences between Germans and Greeks? There is nothing wrong with being white. There is nothing right with being white. And there is something bizarre about being proud of past accomplishments (or repentant of past failures) based merely on sharing a skin tone with unrelated prior generations. It is far more enriching — and humbling — to learn of our own individual histories. When you learn more about the past, you realize how much we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but also how just a single lifetime of decadence and irresponsibility can sweep away the work of generations. I prefer not to speak in terms of pride, but of gratitude. How can I be “proud” that my relatives came over on the Mayflower and stood with Washington at Valley Forge? I had nothing to do with those achievements and would be hard-pressed to demonstrate the same courage. Instead, I’m grateful — deeply grateful. And I’m grateful also for the history of my nation and culture — a nation that through great effort and enormous sacrifice cultivated and preserved principles of individual liberty and human freedom that have benefited billions of human souls. We’ve always had a race problem in this country, but to deny our progress on this front is to deny reality. That progress, however, is not inevitable, and this political generation — in its mindless rage and commitment to identity politics — threatens to undo the work of generations before. When one side screams that white is wrong, another side will scream that white is right, and the concept of an actual “racial conversation” — much less the notion of “racial healing” — will be little more than a sad joke. I don’t see the problem as primarily political. Instead, our nation is undoing its progress on race issues more in the academy, on social media, and in Hollywood than it is in the halls of power. Politicians are responding to culture, not driving culture, and we’re driving our nation apart piece by piece, from Facebook to 4chan. The day when a critical mass of our nation can’t truly say — and mean — “all lives matter” is the day we’re truly lost. — David French is an attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major) who was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq

Powerful stuff! While David kinda white-washed (pun intended) the racial division in this country currently being perpetrated by our liberal elite from Obama on down these last 7+ years, we appreciate him wanting to try and have an honest discussion about race; something that the liberal elite, and the dominantly liberal mainstream media do not want to do. Why? Because it undermines their agenda; that whites are always racist, and blacks can never be racist. And, that’s just for starters. Anyway, we highly recommend the book: “Racism Schmacism: How Liberals Use the “R” Word to Push the Obama Agenda” by James Edwards. You can get it in paperback at Amazon for around $15 or so It’s a must read for anyone interested in having a truly honest discussion about race. If I were a high school, or college, professor teaching a course on race, it’d be a mandatory read.