We all know what left-wing identity politics looks like. It’s someone saying, “I’m black, and that’s the only thing that’s important about me!” Or someone else saying, “I’m a woman, and therefore I’m oppressed!” Historically marginalized groups whining about how they’ve been historically marginalized, and how that marginalization bleeds into the present. Boo-freaking-hoo. Also, they’re all postmodern neo-Marxists on top of it. This doesn’t actually mean anything, but that doesn’t stop it from being the highest condemnation of left-wing identity politics that most people can think of.
Stalin’s best-kept secret was all the hidden pogroms for those who used the wrong gender pronoun
What’s interesting is the less-considered right-ring identity politics. And I don’t mean the, “I’m a straight, white male, and I’m being replaced by a black, dyslexic trans-woman!” kind of identity politics, though that certainly plays into it. I mean more the, “AH! That Muslim is going to blow up my twin towers!” or, “AH! That immigrant is going to rape my entire extended family!” or, “AH! That Mexican is going to bring the drugs into my delicate community!” Whereas left-wing identity politics is about the identity of the self, right-wing identity politics focuses on the identity of the Other.
Now, this isn’t some romantic idealization of the Other as some exotic utopian fantasy (which is very much a thing, and has its own problems as an ideology), but one driven by fear. Machiavelli is credited with prioritizing fear over love as a method of governance, and while he is commonly interpreted to mean fear of the ruler, that fear can be directed outward to great political effect. If the populace is afraid, it is far more likely to accept authoritarian control. There’s no need to worry about the bogeyman, daddy’s got you. Just do as daddy says, and things will be okay.
Whatever kind of Daddy you’re into
A big problem with identity politics, left and right, is that no group is homogeneous, and so categorizing any group will always be disingenuous. The problem with right-wing identity politics in particular is that the reality and statistics are often skewed because fear is the ultimate goal, and if reality doesn’t back up that someone who looks different is inherently a threat, by Jove we’ll make them a threat.
The politics of fear never lets up, which is why right-wing identity politics is so dangerous. Imagine if the white nationalists get their wish, and all the blacks, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, gays, whatever, leave America. We’ll even say peacefully to avoid any overt Nazi parallels. Since the politics of fear was never based on reality in the first place, the underlying goal being emotional manipulation in order to maintain dominance, new out-groups would need to be created. All of a sudden people might start remembering that the Irish and Italians weren’t considered white, once upon a time, and then it’s time for them to go. And so on.
Do you really think ‘hate’ has a retirement plan?
Diversity is a thing forever now. The world is global. This is not something that can be undone. Sorry? But also, at the same time, I’m not sorry. What this means is that pluralism must be included as a given in any on-going political conversation. Fear of the Other reeks of obsolescence and hangs on only in the propaganda of despotism. There’s no such thing as the bogeyman. It’s time to grow up.
Blog for Chumps 
And the solution is?
You can’t fix human nature, you can only cope with it. The most dangerous people are the ones who think they’re above it all, because they have no self awareness and thus can’t be restrained by conscience. The most treacherous enemy is the one who hasn’t the decency to tell you he hates you. Never trust anyone who virtue signals too much.
But enemy is as enemy does. If someone punches you in the face, he’s your enemy. That’s moral clarity.
Whose “human nature”? Rousseau’s? Hobbes’s? The problem with “human nature” as a concept is that it tends towards the already preconceived biases of the person describing it, whether they’re an individualist like Hobbes or a bit more collectivist like Rousseau. There’s certainly evidence for both, but there is nothing really concrete enough to use it as any kind of compelling argument. However, even human tendencies like tribalism aren’t black and white. Stephen Asma, an ethicist in favour of tribal ethics, argues that even though we might prefer the in-group, that does not necessitate animosity toward the out-group. We can love and prefer our family, but that doesn’t mean we need to hate and fear our neighbour. We just might care a little less about them; our default is, at worst, ambivalence. He does cite some experiments to back up his arguments as well.
Our “enemies” are also products of their own environment. Those who commit violence on an interpersonal level were more often than not raised in an environment where violence was used to assert control and dominance, and these were drilled into their heads as “virtues”. Those who were not, don’t. That’s social, not biological. Even on a grander scale, terrorist organizations can point to reasonable grievances that they then use as justification for their extreme acts, seeing themselves as virtuous. The problem with seeing things in that black and white, “tribal human nature”, is that our tribes are arbitrary. We’re born or adopted into a group, and then we see the world through that lens. Except now, enough data about the world exists that allows us to see the nuance and circumstance behind those actions to the point where the black and white “moral clarity” is no longer tenable. The person punching you in the face has a reason. Figuring out what that reason is and dealing with it means you’re less likely to get punched in the face later. Seeing that person as an enemy and ignoring their reasons, it doesn’t matter how you deal with them, someone else is going to punch you in the face because those reasons still exist in the world.
If you’re interested in learning more, I’d recommend Virtuous Violence by Alan Fiske and Tage Shakti Rai, and What Terrorists Want by Louise Richardson.
[…] wing ideology is often based in fear. It’s afraid because the bogeyman is coming for us, and so we have to make sure to keep the bogeyman away. The best bogeymen are the […]