Stop voting based on identity

Kylie Cheung (@kyliecheung on Twtter) put it well: “To be clear, Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign relied on “identity politics”—specifically, the rage and insecurities of white men. In fact, he relied on “identity politics” substantially more than Clinton’s campaign, which offered in-depth economic proposals for affordable and accessible health care, housing, and job growth that would benefit wide swaths of the population. The reason we call Trump’s utilization of identity politics a “unifying message,” while addressing existential human rights issues like criminal justice reform, mass incarceration, immigration rights, and reproductive rights is considered “identity politics” is simple: White men remain regarded and respected as the default, standard identity in the United States—often, even by progressive leaders like Bernie Sanders.”

Another way to be clear: While it’s really common to see people criticize people who vote for a candidate for being Black, a woman, or whatever other minority a candidate might be, just for being that identity:

1. It’s not that common. Usually there’s a more substantial reason to suspect another white man won’t have everyone else’s interests at heart, at least not when there are white men’s interests at stake. But I’ve said this a lot. Cheung makes the point that goes very ignored but is infuriating upon realization:

2. Everyone who “Isn’t ready to vote for a woman” is voting for a man just because he’s a man. Everyone who “isn’t comfortable yet” voting for someone who isn’t white is just voting for the white person.

So here’s a thought. While anytime a person who isn’t a white man runs, her/their voter base is assumed to just be voting based on identity, let’s make the more reasonable assumption, and lets make it out loud. A _lot_ of Americans need to learn to start voting on policy instead of just voting for someone because he’s white and a man.

Upworthy, shouldn’t racial microaggressions involve…race?

I haven’t visited Upworthy in awhile. I think I had it blocked on the old laptop. Or it just fell out of favor. Either way, I came across this article since someone shared it on FB. For those who don’t feel like reading it: It explains what microaggressions are, and then says the following three things fall into the category of microaggressions:

  1. Rules against hats and hoods
  2. Policing language
  3. Punishing students for sleeping in class

The thing that most immediately sticks out to me is in claiming these are racial microaggressions, race isn’t really mentioned. It mentions the culture of the white middle class, but it doesn’t say anything about what features of race are in play. For 1, I suppose it’s obvious enough. In the US at least, certain cultures affiliated with certain races have a greater affinity for hats and hoods.

The other two are not nearly so obvious. White kids swear a lot. Upworthy says “If the student was raised in an environment where swearing wasn’t viewed as a transgression, it can be difficult for them to find a way to communicate emotionally and intellectually in the classroom.” What racial environment is this? Perhaps I am mistaken here, but to my knowledge, there isn’t a race with a significantly greater tendency to swear and be unaware that swearing is frowned upon by some people.

The third made me pause and wonder if perhaps this article was written by a racist trying to discredit anti-racism. The proposed solution (let tired kids nap) is sane, though, so perhaps not. Again the question is left open: What’s the role of race here? There’s certainly a role class plays. Teachers who have spent their lives in the middle class might not understand not being able to get a night’s sleep. Is there an additional racial component I’m not aware of? (And why didn’t Upworthy bother to mention it?)

The solutions to all three of these are at least alright. People getting upset over hats and “fuck” are just being uselessly rigid in their thinking. There’s no argument for rules against either that don’t come down to the aesthetic preference of a certain group. (Perhaps there is some room for race. Is the intersection of middle/upper class and any non-white race more okay with hats and swearing?) And if a student indeed needs sleep, taking a nap is more useful than fading in and out through class.

This of course isn’t to say there aren’t real racial problems. Some of them do fit in the category of microaggressions. But these aren’t them. On the weighty end, police shootings disproportionately killing black people isn’t reducible to some other, non-racial thing. And the racial thing involved is a problem with the structure of society. (And some bad people.) On the less weighty end, skin products often coming overwhelmingly in shades of white with limited options for darker skin tones is again, not reducible to anything else. It’s just structurally embedded racially preferential behavior. These things, however, appear to reduce to other things. Mostly class and access to resources (which, again, class). One could make a case for 1. For 2 and 3, once you take away the class differences, you end up with saying the racially embodied culture is responsible. For 2, fine, I guess. White people on the whole might be behind there. (I’d be curious to see data.) For 3, if you abstract material resource access and find a problem within the racial domain, then you’re saying it’s a problem with the culture that the kids don’t get enough sleep. That’s exactly the nonsense the racist right peddles.

Tying corporatism to social justice is bad

Booker engaged in some anti-poor voting earlier this year (he voted against the right to import medicine from Canada, where it’s cheaper. He used a clearly bad faith defense about safety, despite the clear lack of dead Canadians, though the ties to the American pharmaceutical companies are easy enough to see), but Benjamin Studebaker posted a nice post about that and a similar trend of focusing on discrimination to the exclusion of exploitation.

The issue may be even more pernicious, though. The “left neoliberals” have tied corporatism and racial/sexual justice together. So when mega-corporations are screwing the working class while waving a social justice flag, people may well see the two in a sort of union. Which leads to people like Trump being able to attack people of different religions, races, etc. and that gaining him political points.

(I will note that I think there’s some room on the discrimination is/isn’t a problem axis inasmuch as that discrimination is fixed by fixing exploitation is a distinct belief from that discrimination is dandy so long as class exploitation is fixed.)