Bernie Sanders, bane of establishment left and patron saint of progressive causes, recently ran afoul of the new left normal when he - are you sitting down? - claimed that “we have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age” and, adding with stunning nonchalance that a “nondiscriminatory society…looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.”
There was a time when Bernie’s sentiments would evoke little more than a nod, if not a roll of the eyes owed to so naive an observation. After all, Martin Luther King Jr. said the same words over 60 years ago, and since then they’ve become the unofficial motto of American opportunity and racial equality.
But not since segregation has echoing MLK proved so risky; Bernie’s remarks earned immediate scorn. Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress was appalled: “At a time where folks feel under attack because of who they are, saying race or gender or sexual orientation or identity doesn’t matter is not off, it’s simply wrong.”
The controversy surrounding Sanders’ claim results from an uncharitable interpretation, but also from an ideological shift among the left. Sanders isn’t asserting the patently false claim that race, gender and sexual orientation don’t matter. It’s obvious that peoples’ race, gender and sexual orientation shape how they view themselves, how they view the world around them, and how they are viewed by others. Not everyone thinks about identity as much as everyone else, and contemplating identity usually depends on how many others are like you in a particular context. Follow me here: if you are one of only a few black people in a school, neighborhood or job, you’ll think a lot about being black; not all the time, but more often than otherwise. This happened to me; growing up as one of my neighborhood’s only black people caused me no shortage of contemplation: a girl’s rejection, a reluctant friend or a teacher’s rebuff - were many times interpreted through the prism of race, whether or not race actually applied. My point is that my difference in race caused me to contemplate being of a different race than those around me.
Sanders’ claim, that individuals are more than the sum total of their race, gender or sexual orientation, provoked controversy because it flies in the face of a new ideology, prevalent on the left, called identity politics. Identity politics defines people as the sum total of their racial or gender identities; it also entails that whatever race individuals are, whatever gender, is more significant than their ideas or abilities. But this isn’t the only way identity movements differ from civil rights movements of the past.
A shift in focus, from ability and ideas to identity: Bernie didn’t say that race, gender and sexual orientation don’t matter, only that they don’t matter most. For identity politics, abilities and ideas do not transcend matters of race, gender and sexual orientation; rather, abilities and ideas are subordinate to matters of identity. For many proponents of identity politics, individuals are little more than the sum total of their racial or gender identities.
The ends justify the means: The new civil rights movement encourages coercion to achieve goals. Proponents employ social media mobs, doxxing (sharing the private information of opponents), public humiliation and threats to livelihood. Their wrath isn’t confined to opponents; for instance, even fellow progressives who dare question aims and methods are subject to waking nightmares. The means identity politics promotes, amounts to a sad spectacle more akin to Mao’s Cultural Revolution than the peaceful - and effective - protests of MLK.
It’s all or nothing: Identity politics treats issues relating to identity as matters life or death and portrays opponents as monsters, rather than, as Mark Lilla says, “fellow citizens with different views.”
Identity movements have their origins in a noble cause - the civil rights movement of the past. However, such movements have focused too heavily on the significance of race, gender and sexual orientation in everyday life. The emphasis results in the absurd tendency of the movements’ leadership to assert claims that would sound racist coming from anyone else. What should be clear but isn’t, is that the only people we should expect to judge candidates on account of their race are racists. Bernie, as well as MLK, was right: in a nondiscriminatory society, voters select candidates on the strength of their ideas and abilities, not their race, gender or sexual orientation.