Skip to main content

Identity is taking over politics

Mark Lilla writes in the New Statesman (September 2017) that the "Left", i.e. the US Democratic Party, social justice and anti-facism movements, lost the US election due to being side-tracked by gender and race issues. Enough of the electorate weren't buying it and Trump won.

In hindsight attacking a large proportion of the electorate based on their gender and race is never a good idea, no matter which race or gender you are talking about. No, it's not acceptable to denigrate men or white people either. Trump of course did the same, by attacking foreigners, Mexicans, Muslims and women, but he got away with it due to media bias and partisan politics.

At home, Peter North, a prominent pro-Brexit blogger, tweeted about "self determination". This immediately raised the issue of what is "self", and lo and behold we are back to identity again. If we all feel European, then being governed by the EU is indeed self-determination, and let's not kid ourselves that the current horrendous state of British politics is in any way superior to the European model.

Mark Lilla is wrong to characterise just the Left as being obsessed with identity. It seems that politics these days is only about identity. Brexit and Trump were all about nationalistic ethnic identity. America first - British jobs for British people.

The Left seem particularly confused. On the one hand, they say that gender is a social construction and wouldn't life be easier if gender wasn't an issue. On the other hand, identity is something to be revered and respected, especially the underprivileged. The Left want to iron out the inequalities associated with identity, but the Right seem to regard inequality as inherently good as a mechanism to shape human behaviour.

Identity is a human construction, but it is all too often used to create division. It is a natural human instinct to want your own genes to thrive, and for your enemies, the "other", those whose genes are different to your own, to wither and die. Seen like that, identity is basic tribalism. It's a primitive human instinct that causes far more harm than good.

As witnessed by the EU referendum, people find economics difficult but identity easy. Many people voting in the EU referendum simply asked themselves whether they identified as British or European, even though we can be both. The EU is an institution that respects and upholds rights to identity, be it based on gender, race, religion or nationality, and has brought peace to Europe as a result. Vote Leave exploited people's confusion about identity very effectively, causing British people to effectively vote against their own interests.

It seems a shame that fundamental decisions on politics seem to boil down to such a primitive and unnecessary human instinct. The lesson is to recognise the importance of identity in shaping politics, and that political campaigns need to leverage identity in order to win over voters. The Right do this very effectively, and the Left need to catch up. Dazzling people with facts and figures doesn't work, as not everyone is wired that way. They need to tap into emotion, and even more fundamentally, identity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...

When will the UK trigger Article 50?

Article 50 (A50) represents the point of no return, where the UK formally announces that it is withdrawing from the EU. The real point of no return was of course the referendum result, but A50 represents the next milestone in the Brexit process. Those calling for an early A50 argue that there is no benefit to delaying, as this just adds uncertainty and delays the entire process and inevitable recovery. They (mainly Leavers) don't want the referendum result annulled. Those who want to delay A50 say that we need time to prepare (not least, set up a new department for Brexit), and entertain the notion of pre-negotiations, as well as buying time to set up trade deals elsewhere in the world. The EU is very clear that there can be no exit negotiations until Article 50 has been triggered, and it looks very unwilling to compromise. The markets have taken the Brexit vote relatively calmly, and so far it's been very smooth going. This is because nothing has actually happened yet, and wo...

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...