The unbearable deafness of the liberal left and the death of identity politics

Some years back I was sitting at a dinner party with some rather erudite people, most of them from the so-called ‘progressive’ end of the political spectrum. The conversation turned enthusiastically to ‘critical race theory’ and ‘intersectionality’. I was caught a bit off-guard. I had heard these terms used previously (they both stemmed from late 20th century political academia), but I wasn’t sure exactly what they meant. It became evident that my fellow guests were excited about these concepts entering the political mainstream, where a grand future awaited them as they moved from thought experiments and essays to government policy.

I didn't say much at this gathering, not wishing to display my ignorance. I read a little about the subject later. My reaction was simple. Does anyone really think that people, ordinary people, give a shit about this stuff? I mean the average voter who is, above all, concerned about jobs and prices? You’ve got to be kidding me. 

Now that the cries and lamentations of the US election losers have started to die down, and a million ‘why-Harris-lost’ analyses have been done, with the blame apportioned to everyone and everything, the actual post-election survey data has started to come in. One of these surveys, from a public opinion initiative called Blueprint, exposed a startling piece of information. 25 possible reasons for voting pro-Trump were presented to people who had voted for him, and those surveyed were asked to rank them in order of the degree to which they influenced their vote.

First was inflation. No surprise there. Second was immigration. Again, no surprise. But the third most influential matter was this -  “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class”. Simply put, the matter of identity politics was toxic enough to have been rated third out of 25 in the pro-Trumpers’ calculus of importance.

Podcaster Sam Harris, who has long been vocal about the irrationality of identity politics (at least that which is espoused by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party) smokes with rage in his latest podcast, called The Reckoning. Harris is a political centrist, and very far from right wing. In fact, he turns his considerable ordnance against Trumpism in the second half of the podcast. But it is the first half that is a burning polemic against identity politics - this recent addition to liberal/left thinking that has left people like him (and me) heartbroken and angry at what has happened to a political church we once called home. 

At one point he launches into this cutting rant: 

“But the truth is, every shibboleth that came out of the far left in recent years contains within it the same recipe for the destruction of Democratic politics. Each is like an evil hologram. Take the term “Latinx.” Who was that for? Only 3 percent of Latinos are in favour of this silly rebranding of their ethnicity. Again, Trump did better among Latinos than any Republican in memory. Do you think it was because there wasn't enough identity politics rammed down their throats from the left? Do you think they just need to see some more white people admonished for the sin of cultural appropriation? You think another lecture about sensitive Halloween costumes might do the trick? Much of Democratic politics has become a bad SNL sketch.“

It is not only the blatant stupidity of trying to reinvent common words (the truly eye-watering ‘womxn’ comes to mind), but it is the attempt to make biology subservient to woke politics that drives Harris crazy, as described in this biting comment:

“Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity.”

Add this to other excesses, such as demands to ‘defund the police’ or the actual firing of multiple teachers and professors in the UK and US who would not toe the line on progressive gender doublespeak or who did not show enough sensitivity to some special interest group or other, and you have a recipe for driving away voters in their millions. Politics is nothing if not the art and science of winning votes, but it seems that wasn’t a priority for proponents of these positions. Even the Black Lives Matter movement (which was supported by the Democratic Party) has had little effect - a significant number of Black voters turned their backs on Kamala and crossed the line to Trump. 13% voted GOP in 2020, 20% in 2024.

Of course, in a democracy a political aspirant may espouse any position that their conscience suggests. But, if you are utterly deaf to the needs and sensitivities of a huge swathe of people in the middle, you will not be winning any elections soon.  And you cannot argue that it was merely a fringe group on the left that pushed identity politics. It was not – a quick look at Harris’ previous positions shows that clearly. The GOP loved it – towards the end of the campaign one out of three GOP TV ads hammered on the issue of trans rights. The left edge of blue liberalism had offered the GOP a gift, which was gleefully accepted.

Lest we underestimate how deeply identity politics had entered Democratic government policy, consider that in 2020 Joe Biden’s website outlined plans for these 19 groups - tribal nations, women, people with disabilities, Black Americans, military families, union members, rural Americans, older Americans, the LBGTQ+ community, veterans, the Catholic community, students/young Americans, immigrants, the AAPI (Asian American Pacific Islander) community, the Indian American community, the Jewish community, the Muslim American community, the Latino community and the Arab American community. It goes without saying who is not on this list (white working class men, for instance), and who might feel aggrieved at being excluded. 

This is not to say that minority groups and other shared-identity groups do not have justified grievances. Any group feeling maligned or excluded wants redress, wants a platform, wants special consideration or understanding. The US has many anti-discrimination laws on its books already. They are written to protect both larger and smaller groups, to balance the needs of the vulnerable minority against the tyranny of the majority. They are not perfect and will continue to be fine-tuned, I’m sure, but not in the way promoters of identity politics and intersectionality shrilly demand from institutional or governmental policymakers .

The hatchet-faced sanctimony and the harsh Old Testament judgement indiscriminately lobbed at the average voter (particularly those who are white and male) – calling them bigoted or racist or misogynist for the tiniest of real or imagined infractions (even those with benign intent) - have had exactly the opposite effect of what was intended; people have simply turned from their accusers and looked for a political home elsewhere.

This madness has driven perfectly average and decent citizens into the arms of a party led by one of the most vile and abhorrent people in American political history. But at least identity politics (tone deaf, out-of-touch, elitist and irrational) will be chased off the main stage and into the shadowed wings where it belongs.

As an afterthought, identity politics is still firmly embedded in the ANC’s South Africa. It is the fuel on which the country runs. Sadly, it is not going away soon.

Steven Boykey Sidley is a professor of practice at JBS, University of Johannesburg. His new book It’s Mine: How the Crypto Industry is Redefining Ownership is published by Maverick451 in SA and Legend Times Group in UK/EU, available now. Copy edited by Bryony Mortimer.