Why Do Conservatives Hate Identity Politics So Much?
Because it contradicts the core underlying philosophy on which the United States was founded. Identity Politics is, essentially, a rejection of the governance philosophy the Framers intended.
(The fact that the application of that philosophy, in the 1780’s, was flawed by today’s more enlightened understanding does not negate the philosophy underlying the application. )
The horse pulls the cart, after all. Even if the cart is poorly made.
Conservatives have always viewed the quest for equality as a zero-sum game.
Hm. We do not view equality as a “game”; we view it as a moral imperative.
But is that such an unfair interpretation of American history? From the United States’ infancy, white men have shaped, codified, and manipulated our laws to favor them.
It’s not totally unfair, by today’s interpretation. Today’s.
Who had voting rights in 1800? Well, voting rights were held by landowners over the age of 21, originally. Race wasn’t mentioned, and it is just as correct to say that the Framers were as prejudicial against anyone who didn’t own land than they were against race.
Now, obviously, the counter to that is that virtually all landowners were white male Protestants, and therefore there was defacto discrimination against nonwhites and women. Fair enough. But since the purpose of this part of your piece seems to be to make the case that the intention of the Framers was to discriminate against blacks and women, it is fair to point out that the evidence does not agree with you; a person could well agree with the “21 year old landowners only” statute whilst not having a mysogenist or racist bone in one’s body.
However, he doesn’t want those with privilege to constantly have to “check it.” It should be good enough, he contends, for the privileged to recognize existing power differentials, but only “to a degree.” And it is him, not those clamoring for greater recognition and power, who knows how great that degree should be.
Your view and Sullivan’s are a distinction without a difference, since “checking it” and “recognizing it” are, in practice, indistinguishable behaviors.
David Brooks is another conservative
First off, conservatives would disagree that either Sullivan or Brooks is “conservative”. But let’s not digress. (It just gets annoying when Brooks and his ilk are trotted out as the “conservative opinion holder” when so few of his views are actually conservative.)
Their demands to be heard are really just “a mass mobilization to gain power for the tribe.”
Yes, you just read that right: disadvantaged “tribes” protesting the clear inequities of the status quo are the ones who are power-hungry.
False dichotomy. Both Brooks and yourself can both be right on this one. And are.
It’s hard to hear honest critiques of a world that has disproportionately benefitted people like you.
Has it? Who is more privileged? The sixth child of an unemployed white West Virginia coal miner, or the child of Russell Wilson and Ciara?
Careful here. In order to be a believer in white privilege AND avoid hypocrisy, you MUST answer “the coal miner’s son”, as illiterate or as poverty-stricken as he may be. Why? Because if you answer either “Wilson’s”, or “Well Wilson’s, but it doesn’t matter, because he’s an exception” you lose; you’ve admitted that the true privilege in our society is based on economics, not race.
(You can then argue, if you wish, that it is EASIER for the white person to attain economic success than the non-white, and I would be inclined to agree with you to some extent, since economic success is based on education, and our minority-district public schools tend to be shitty; but the fact would remain that the true privilege in the US is based on $$$ not color of the skin. )