Powell: Organizing By Identity Groups Risks Stereotyping And Caricaturing People

From media partner Chris Powell:

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)

Why are some people Democrats and others Republicans?

Personal identities have always had something to do with it. Some people inherit party affiliations from parents. Many Democrats come from the working and government classes. Many Republicans come from the propertied and professional classes.

Ethnicity often has had something to do with it as well.

Many Irish immigrants to Connecticut became Democrats because Republicans were in charge when the Irish arrived and were often hostile to newcomers. The next wave of immigrants, the Italians, found themselves in a rivalry with the Irish and so many became Republicans.

Upon their liberation after the Civil War, Blacks became Republicans because Democrats were aligned with the former slave states. Blacks began migrating to the Democrats in the 1960s when Republicans took them for granted and Democratic leaders became more aggressive about civil rights and racial equality.

Political culture is involved as well. The anti-Vietnam War movement originated as a largely youthful rebellion in the Democratic Party during a Democratic presidency and within a few years the party had become not just anti-Vietnam but also the party of sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll, and perpetual protest. President Richard Nixon exploited the resulting fear of civil disorder and had the Republican Party pose as the representative of the “silent majority,” the cultural establishment.

Nowadays the cultural establishment is Democratic and politically correct in the extreme, supporting open borders and transgenderism in sports and thereby boosting President Trump, who delights in denouncing all things “woke.”

Political correctness is based to a great extent on identity politics, the assignment of the electorate to interest groups based not on public policy but on mere personal characteristics. Democrats see identity politics as a recruiting tool, though it may alienate as many people as it attracts.

Identity politics was the object of an appeal made this week by the vice chairwoman of Connecticut’s Democratic State Central Committee, Vanita Bhalla, who urged people to join one of the state party’s “caucuses.”

“Our caucuses,” Bhalla wrote, “are where Democrats come together around shared experiences, organize, and make sure our party reflects the full diversity of Connecticut. They help shape policy conversations, strengthen relationships across communities, and bring new voices into our work at every level. Joining a caucus is a great way to meet like-minded people.”

But the 10 Democratic caucuses Bhalla identified actually proclaim insularity and conformity, implying that members of each group think the same and want something for themselves as a special interest rather than something benefiting the public generally. The special interests the Democrats imagine cultivating with caucuses actually may be hard to figure out.

As policy matters, the LGBTQ+ Caucus may want state government to support the claim of transgender people to a right to participate in sports contrary to their biological sex, and to support sex-change surgery for minors. The Women’s Caucus, at least a caucus of Democratic women, may want state law to endorse late-term abortion. The Black and Hispanic caucuses may want more state financial aid to the municipalities where most Blacks and Hispanics live.

But what do the Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Caucus, the Disability Caucus, the Immigrant Voters Caucus, the Muslim Caucus, the Small Towns Caucus, and the Veterans Caucus want in public policy that differs from what most other people, or at least most other Democrats, want for everyone?

Do these caucuses ever go beyond the personal identity interest and approach the national or state interest — the public interest? Indeed, as these caucuses suggest, is it really possible to approach the public interest only after people are sorted into identity groups? If caucuses are  necessary — and local Democratic town committees insufficient as forums — why not organize them according to policy issues instead?

Organizing people by identity groups risks stereotyping and caricaturing people — the opposite of the “diversity” the caucuses are supposed to reflect. But then “diversity” isn’t really the objective. Getting votes is, whatever the cost.