444. Two forms of identity politics

From a piece by James Meek, in the London Review of Books (15 august, page 9), I learn that there are two forms of identity politics.

There is an isolationist form, where people withdraw into an outsider, victimised role, of feeling excluded, discriminated against, ridiculed, looked down upon. That can arise from a background of belief, or identity, in feminism, LHBT, a past of slavery, religion, profession or lack of it, appearance, race, etc.

The second is the totalitarian form, where, overtly or tacitly, a ruling class claims to represent a dominant culture, with an exclusive right, or duty, to rule everyone else, with the claim of representing the ‘voice of the people’. The classic Republican definition, Meek tells us, of identity politics is ‘privileging one’s membership of a minority group over one’s responsibility to the nation as a whole’.


Meek shows that before Margaret Thatcher broke it up, in the UK the conservative party held such a stance of a natural position to rule the realm. And now, Meek argues, it is back, with Boris Johnson, impelled forward by Farage, in a sub-majority identity politics of Brexiteers that arrogates the power to impose a no-deal Brexit, even if it takes setting aside parliament.

Boris had to jump on that bandwagon for two reasons. First, to jump in the window of opportunity to realise his dream of becoming prime minister. Second, to prevent Farage from appropriating the electorate that demands Brexit now, without further delay.

One irony is that Brexit was demanded to regain control of national sovereignty, while now the move is contemplated to dodge parliamentary sovereignty.

Another irony is that in its glorification of the nation, this identity politics is isolationist on the global level. Or so it claims, for that is what Brexit voters wanted: a return to good old ‘little England’. In fact, however, Boris Johnson harbours a globalist ideology of unfettered international trade without the lamented restrictions imposed by the EU.

While isolationist identity politics demands special treatment, the totalitarian form does the opposite: it demands conformity, subordination to the cultural norms of the dominant ideology.

The British case reveals a fundamental threat to democracy, as does the present case of the US. Democracy requires compromise between opposing views. As told by Meek, this is unattractive to the corresponding electorate, who abhor having their ideology, with their perceived identity, diluted, and demotivating for the politicians and policy makers involved, because their ideals and goals need to be transmogrified in the compromise.

Unified, homogenised totalitarianism can parade itself as pure in its principles and unified goals. The electorate is showing a taste for such heroic, ‘can-do’ mentality, in contrast with the muddling of fragmented democracy, in its bumbling shuffle to and fro. This shows up in the lack of coherence in the opposition, in Britain as well as in the US. This yields a one-sided battle that democracy will lose.

Here is another paradox. Strong government, in imposing its will, in the UK and the US, goes together with a rightist, laissez faire view of surrendering government to markets.

All this is a nail in the coffin of society.