Authoritarianism watch; Regarding identity politics

As expected, the intent and threatening rhetoric from America's radical right continues to feel and sound solidly authoritarian. The rule of law and criminality, real and imagined, are irrelevant. They are held in open contempt. Inconvenient facts? They do not exist in MAGAlandia, usually called lies or simply ignored.

Trump Wants Jan. 6 Committee Members Imprisoned

Donald Trump, in addition to saying he wants to pardon those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, said that members of the Jan. 6 committee “should go to jail” for investigating him.

“Everybody on that committee … for what they did, yeah, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump said on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

He also claimed that former Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Bennie Thompson, who co-chaired the committee, were “behind” his federal prosecutions.

“Honestly, they should go to jail for what they did,” Trump said.

“So you think Liz Cheney should go to jail?” moderator Kristen Welker asked.

“I think everybody on the – anybody that voted in favor,” he said.  

Trump has previously threatened members of the committee, writing on Truth Social in March of last year that they “should be prosecuted for their lies and, quite frankly, TREASON!”

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

IDENTITY POLITICS

Current analyses of the election outcome indicate there are three main reasons that Harris lost. One is a mostly (~90% ?) false belief that Biden caused inflation in recent years, with food and housing prices being major points of discontent. Another is illegal immigration and the real and imagined fears and anger the issue created in the minds of many Americans. The third reason is feelings of alienation and anger among many people by aggressive wokeness, or identity politics, in the Dem party and Harris.[1]

By contrast, DJT managed to build a more diverse coalition than expected by focusing on economic and cultural issues rather than explicit appeals to identity. His campaign appealed to working-class voters across racial lines by addressing shared economic grievances and critiquing progressive policies associated with identity politics. Trump's ability to frame Democrats' focus on identity politics as out of touch with everyday concerns further solidified his support among these groups. His rhetoric positioned him as addressing practical issues like jobs and inflation rather than emphasizing divisive cultural debates. At the same time, Trump's campaign employed its own form of identity politics by appealing to non-college-educated voters as a distinct constituency.

An aspect of DJT's and MAGA's rhetoric is that it was very effective at deceit and direct appeals to identity politics (these Q&As are also in the link given above):

Q2: Although Trump's rhetoric seemed to many people to position him as addressing practical issues like jobs and inflation rather than emphasizing divisive cultural debates, my perception of his rhetoric was that it was intentionally vague to the point of being empty rhetoric about jobs and inflation, while subtly but consistently fomenting social division using identity politics that appealed to people with mindsets, consciously or not, at least sympathetic to authoritarianism, e.g., prosecuting political opponents. Is that a reasonable assessment?

A2: Your assessment that Donald Trump’s rhetoric was intentionally vague on practical issues like jobs and inflation while subtly fostering social division through identity politics and authoritarian appeals is a reasonable interpretation, supported by evidence from his campaign and broader political behavior.

Q3: In view of the two foregoing questions and your answers, is it even possible to win a presidential election without significant appeals to identity politics?

A3: Winning a presidential election without significant appeals to identity politics is theoretically possible but highly challenging in the current political climate, given the centrality of identity to modern political discourse. However, the 2024 election suggests that the nature and framing of identity politics can significantly influence electoral success.

Identity Politics as a Persistent Force

Identity politics—defined as political appeals based on shared characteristics such as race, gender, class, or religion—remains deeply embedded in U.S. elections. Both major parties leverage it, albeit in different ways: ....

Q4: In what ways has identity politics served society, democracy and groups involved in those identities?

A4: Identity politics has served society, democracy, and the groups involved in various ways, both positively and negatively. Its contributions are multifaceted, reflecting its ability to empower marginalized communities, foster solidarity, and challenge systemic injustices, while also raising concerns about division and exclusivity.

Positive Contributions

2. Broadening Democratic Participation

Identity politics has expanded democratic engagement by encouraging participation from groups that have historically been excluded from political processes.

4. Democratization of Power

Identity politics disrupts hegemonic power structures by challenging the dominance of privileged groups. It demands recognition not just as part of a universal human experience but as distinct identities deserving respect on their own terms. This process has been described as contributing to the "democratization of democracy" by making equality and freedom more tangible through specific struggles.

Challenges and Criticisms

1. Risk of Division

Critics argue that identity politics can exacerbate social fragmentation by emphasizing differences rather than commonalities. This focus on group-specific interests may:

(i) create tensions between different marginalized groups or between marginalized and dominant groups and (ii) lead to a sense of exclusion among those who feel their identities are not adequately represented or prioritized. 

2. Potential for Essentialism

Identity politics can sometimes reduce individuals to their group identities, ignoring the complexity of their experiences. This essentialism risks: (i) overlooking intersections between different identities (e.g., race, gender, class), and (ii) reinforcing stereotypes or limiting individuals' ability to define themselves outside group categories.

The point I want to make about identity politics is pretty simple: It is a two-edged sword. 

It can be good or bad. It can be good when used in good faith by people of good will to defend and strengthen democracy. But, it can be bad when used in bad faith by people of ill-will to attack and weaken democracy. 

Qs: Did Harris employ identity politics in good or bad faith? Did DJT?

Footnote:

1. One analysis I looked at about somewhat low Dem voter turnout indicated that this factor probably did not contribute much or anything to Harris' loss. Many of those Dem non-voters indicated that they too were feeling alienated and angry about politics and the Dem party. They seemed to be as likely to vote for a 3rd party candidate or DJT even if they had voted.