David Brooks is an opinion columnist for The New York Times, and he is telling "leftists" that Trump has "stolen their game." That advisory, in fact, is the title to Brooks' October 30, 2025 column:
Clicking the link, just above, will take you to Brooks' column, paywalls permitting, of course.
In general, Brooks' point is that critiques of society popular with what he calls "a group of mostly left-wing activists," have now been appropriated by persons whom Brooks labels as "conservatives," and these formerly "left-wing" critiques of society are now being used to "destroy the left."
Here is a line from Brooks' column that struck me quite forcefully:
MAGA is identity politics for white people
Using the definition found in Wikipedia, "identity politics" is politics based on a person's so-called "identity" - that "identity" being equated to factors like "ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, political affiliation, caste, age, education, disability, opinion, intelligence, and social class." With that list, I am quoting from Wikipedia. Personally, think "economic status," or "wealth," should be added to that list, though maybe Wikipedia thinks that "social class" and "wealth" are essentially the same thing.
As you will perhaps note, Brooks employs "identity politics" himself, in distinguishing "the left" from the "conservatives," with whom Brooks is often thought to be associated, by reason of Brooks' views on various public policy and "political" matters.
I am urging my friends - and all those reading this blog posting, friendly or not - to avoid what Brooks is doing, and to stop using categories like those listed by Wikipedia as a way to distinguish the "good guys" from the "bad guys," or to distinguish "our side" from "their side," to phrase it a different way. I have argued against "polarization" before, and more than once, and defining someone by their "identity," however that term is defined, is to ensure that polarization will prevail, and that the real function of "politics" will be made more difficult, or even impossible.
We live, as I frequently note, in a "political world," and we are inevitably "in this together." "Identity politics," however defined - by whatever factors are used - really claims that we aren't in this together. Rather, our political positions and opinions are held to be defined by our "identity."
We are all different, and we all have different ideas about what might be a good thing for "the group" - all of us, collectively - to do. If politics is all about "identity," and if a person's "identity" is a defining statement about what they will believe, or are willing to do, then coming to some sort of compromise and agreement, given all our differences, is made immensely harder, and possibly impossible. How can "leftists" ever come to agreement with "MAGA"?
The recent and long-running shutdown of Congress exemplifies the problem. In the House of Representatives, at least at the moment I am writing out this blog posting, "party" seems to be the only characteristic that counts. "Party" is held to define the "identity" of all those elected from all over the nation - who were elected to represent the local constituents who put them in office. If "party" is really an accurate way to define the "identity" of the members of Congress, and if we are all really defined by our "identity," we are, automatically, precluded from coming to an agreement with those whose "identity" is different.
Efforts at "extirpation," not "engagement," eventuate when we see our politics as driven by "identity," and specifically including those occasions when a person's "identity" is thought to be the same as that person's political "party." I would like to suggest that we all ought to drop defining ourselves, and others, on the basis of a "party" affiliation, and ask our elected representatives to start representing us on the basis of "imagination" and "possibility."
What do all those "party" people - from both "sides" - think might be done?
The opportunities are plenary. Let's use our imaginations. Let's see if it might be possible to "make a deal."
In other words, to say it one more time, our "possibilities," which actually define the nature of reality, are totally defeated by the "identity politics" that says that one's "party" (or any other "identity" definer) is all that ultimately counts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!