Your read jibes with my own when I've studied that community (and washed afterwards). I'll give what passes for a "left" in this country a lot of flak on a lot of things, but a fundamental unwillingness to work with people who disagree with them on some things but are willing to find common ground on others is not one of them. Often to their, and our, detriment.
>fundamental unwillingness to work with people who disagree
Identity politics is even worse than this. From what I can see, among people not totally ideologically driven, this discredits the left very much, and liberal values will be caught in the backlash.
I mean, yes, I would definitely say that that identity politics/bloc voting is problematic, from the perspective of "how do we best run a government?". It is also in many cases understandable, especially in the face of extant threats to a given polity. (In such a case, however, it is important to stress that "identity politics" is not the problem--the threat and disenfranchisement that led to the formation of an identity bloc is. Even for Trump voters, who I'll touch on momentarily.)
But from a social/messaging perspective, I think that it is less that identity politics discredits the left and more that white people (and it's mostly white people who have an axe to grind about identity politics) feel threatened by identity politics and thus by the left. The reactionary clumping of the Trumpist bloc of whites (as evidenced both by voting patterns and the frankly shameless xenophobic pandering by Trump and his surrogates in the campaign) is no less "identity politics", and is arguably more aggressive than the identity-focused blocs that have formed prior (it's a lot less aggressive to say "we should be able to get married" than it is to say "you should not be able to get married", get me?). But that's not castigated as "identity politics". I would submit that that's because white people don't think white is an identity, but the default.
Identity politics are fine, so goes the thinking, when it's your identity. In a society overwhelmingly dominated by white interests, fairness is gonna feel like you're losing. (This is the genesis of the notion of "privilege" in the first place, as I understand it.)
- The difference between discredited and threatening is academic, since both lead to the same mindset and course of action
- A large swing towards Trump was noticeable amongst minority voters, the poor, and whites without a degree[0], groups who would be expected to be harmed by competition from illegal immigration
- A large swing towards Hillary was observable in the rich, retirees, and whites with college degrees, groups which are generally believed to be well-to-do
- If fairness feels like losing, and losing feels like losing, then how can we tell which is which?
- If white people implicitly pursue identity politics even when they try not to, will making them aware of this lead to them laying aside identity, or actively pursuing it?
- If race-blindness/"I don't see colour" is a myth, is it a useful myth for the purposes of causing people to get along?
- Is it possible for any action taken against a group that is winning to be unfair? If yes, when might this occur? If no, are you really sure that winning justifies literally any action against you?
Note that I'm not American, so I'm looking at this with an outsider's perspective.
> A large swing towards Trump was noticeable amongst minority voters, the poor, and whites without a degree ... A large swing towards Hillary was observable in the rich, retirees, and whites with college degrees
There's a pretty big argument in the data communities that I follow about whether this was a "swing towards Clinton/Trump" or a (minor) normalization away from the Obama state. I don't think there's enough data to say either way. There are also a lot of rhetorical/conflating factors with regard to stuff like illegal immigration that make drawing conclusions out of this, in a vacuum, probably pretty questionable.
> If fairness feels like losing, and losing feels like losing, then how can we tell which is which?
Tough, but fair, question. I think it requires divorcing oneself from one's own position and trying, at least, to be objective about it. I was born with pretty much every genetic-lottery benefit there is in the United States: straight, white, male, reasonably affluent (though not rich) family. I am able to bite back the instinctive urge to be defensive about "what I've got" (and it is instinctive, and it does come up reflexively) to realize that, hey, not only do I have it pretty great, but a lot of it wasn't because of anything I did either way to make it happen. So maybe I should pay it forward.
If I can do it, I believe others should do likewise.
> If white people implicitly pursue identity politics even when they try not to
Mu? I think most people pursue identity politics. It's what outward pressures pushed you in what direction that ultimately defines what that identity is. I don't particularly worry about the concerns of white straight males, despite being one, because there are no serious threats to any of those qualities that I identify with.
I don't think making identity politics a topic of discussion will swing people who are strongly affected by the pull of it in either direction. I don't think people who are voting along identity lines care about whether or not they are.
> If race-blindness/"I don't see colour" is a myth, is it a useful myth for the purposes of causing people to get along?
This is a good question. My intuitive answer is no, if only because it provides a good excuse through which systemic, race-focused effects can be marginalized. "I don't see race, so it's not a problem that cops disproportionately shoot black people." Not saying this is a logical chain of reasoning in quotes, but rather that I've seen it, and "I don't see race" being used to buttress the moral credentials of the claim.
> Is it possible for any action taken against a group that is winning to be unfair? If yes, when might this occur?
Sure. I think lynching the 1% is a damned sight too far, and if that were a serious concern I'd definitely be on the yeah-let's-not-do-this side of the ledger. On the other hand, I don't think asking them to pay more for the benefits they reap from living in the country they share with everybody else, and disproportionately benefit from, is unfair.
