Posted by
Andrews on Friday, August 29, 2008 2:14:21 PM
The Democrats have long been the party of identity politics, the theory that one's sex, race, sexual orientation, nation of origin, and so on are more important than individual political beliefs. It is a philosophy which effectively eliminates the individual in politics and replaces him with the group. We can see this in many Democrat policies, such a quotas for hiring and school admissions. It may not help any individual black or Hispanic that some other black is admitted to college, but since that black or Hispanic "represents" the group, he is to take it as a victory. Likewise, individual white men, regardless of their personal merits, are to be excluded from college as their group has been "over represented". It is not their individual guilt that keeps them out, but the collective guilt of their group.
Such a political philosophy is nothing but a recipe for perpetual strife. While the politicians and academics may be satisfied with seeing things in terms of groups, the truth is individuals still want to see success come to them, rather than their group. However, by tying all success or failure to the group, an individual can only win if his group wins. So he will fight tooth and nail to get as many advantages for his group so that some may eventually come to him.
For example, if college admissions are based on percentages in the population, only a set number number of blacks will be admitted to college. If any individual black wishes to get into college, it is best for him if his group is over represented, so he has to argue that his group, for whatever reason, deserves extra representation. In that way he has a better chance of admissions.
But it should be obvious why this leads to nothing but strife. If the black block manages to get extra representation it comes at the expense of some other group. And the members of those other groups will fight just as forcefully to keep their own representation and get more as well. So, as a result, this group identity ends up resulting in nothing but endless, bitter pressure group warfare.
And we can see this in a current event. When the Democrat party demanded super delegates declare their votes in advance of the convention, effectively forcing Hillary Clinton from the race, it was quite a blow to feminists. Seeing the race in group identity terms, the feminists were hurt by this choice. It was as if the party said to them "women, you can be president one day, but right now the blacks deserve it more than you, so please wait." It is that act, the party effectively placing the interest of blacks over that of women, that drove so many into the McCain block, or at least convinced them not to vote. It is also that reason which explains why Hillary's endorsement has not served to quiet the anti-Obama movement among Democrats.
Of course, the party, for the most part, was not really saying anything of the kind. They were not telling women to wait and let the blacks have their turn. The party was thinking only in terms of winning elections. Unlike the doctrine they have publicly promoted, seeing everything in terms of race, sex, class, and so on, seeing everyone as an exemplar of a group, the Democrats were acting as if they believed in individuals and thought Obama the individual a better candidate than the individual Hillary.
But you can't espouse a policy for decades and then suddenly abandon it without paying a price. And the price may be the presidency. Having taught their members to see everything as an expression of group identity, the party cannot now exempt themselves. If every employment action has to be reviewed for discrimination, every college admission ahs to meet elaborate criteria of race, sex, and nationality, then so does the party's choice of nominee.
Having so long bullied the private sector, the government, and everyone else they could, using charges of racism and sexism to push their agenda, it is just so very fitting that the Democrats may now lose their surefire presidential victory because they failed to take these same questions into account when forcing a decision in the primaries.