Table of Contents
The American national identity which rose out of the wake of the Civil War must be re-established, despite its attacks from both the left and the right. On the left lies the democrats, whom sit even further left today than ever. They are focused on pointing out the United States’ innate history which incorporates the mingling of people from different indigenous backgrounds and a tradition of welcoming in those who are in need of refuge.
On the right you have the Republicans, who are very concerned with the originating structure of the United States—rooted in the white, native English-speaking, Protestant Christian traditions of the early reformers who framed the United States constitution. In its current attempt to boost political participation and American nationalism, identity politics actually utilizes tribalism to create divisions among people and oversimplifies political decision making, which discourages individual freedom of thought and diminishes inter-cultural connectedness. In an effort to save American nationalism, future generations must focus on how an ever-expanding group of people can overcome identity barriers to achieve recognition of their American dignity.
Argument 1
Identity Politics (specifically tribalism) is used to increase political participation
In the modern media, identity politics is most commonly used to discuss relevant issues such as the criminal justice system’s unequal treatment according to race, the protection of gay people from discrimination, the gender wage gap, and the evolution of transgender rights (just to name a few). However, identity politics is at play outside of the realms of traditional social-economic equality. The other side of identity politics at play in our political system is white identity. Despite its history of being the norm race in America, many people fail to acknowledge that issues pertaining to white identity also exist.
127 our experts are availableright now
In a study analyzing the 2016 presidential election conducted by political scientists from Stanford University, the ‘status threat’ attributed to high-status Americans (i.e., white Christian men) is theorized to be a primary factor contributing to Trump’s win. The study concluded that reminders of the changing racial demographics (specifically the fact that the number of non-white citizens would outnumber whites in the U.S. by 2042) caused the “high-status Americans” to become troubled by the declining influence and control of their in-group. (Major, 2018).
Since the election, the prevailing narrative justifying the outcome of the election has been that the white working class citizens went to the polls in order to avoid being ‘left behind economically.’ This status threat is an obvious example of the identity politics that was at play. By painting an ‘us versus them’ picture, the identity of the white male working to make an honest living, was used to ensure those whom could relate would do whatever they could to mitigate the group status threat.
The development of white identity over the years has proven that tribalism continues to play a major role in United States’ elections. Trump’s use of dog whistles to provide imagery of the time when white people were in power and when political correctness was not yet invented, helped influence many rural white people into aligning with his platform as a whole. In an attempt to win over this demographic, the white identity was at the forefront of his mantra. Knowing that this demographic was still the majority in America, Trump was able to ensure that these voters stood up for what he considered the ‘American identity.’
Argument 2
Identity Politics creates division among people (SIT and Collective ID)
Regardless of politics, collective identity at its roots establishes that cross-cultural perspectives are defined by the extent to which people define themselves, with particular focus on how people relate to others. Whether one uses social, economic, or ethnic factors to define their identity, all people are given the opportunity to distinguish their identity based on interpersonal relationships and collective identities (Brewer, 1996).
These unique conditions of one’s self allude to the unique levels of inclusiveness. Because of this, collective identity makes people shift from “I thinking” to “We thinking” (Kinder, 1989). In an age where identity is at the forefronts of every political agenda, it is obvious that collective identity is at the center of political division in the United States.
Collective identity in America today has established what many would call a two-sided debate. One side is looking to keep the country aligned to the traditional status quo that the majority of straight, white, Christian men can relate to. The other side is focused on fighting for acceptance into the status quo; African Americans, LGBTQ people, Muslim Americans, and women are examples of the groups whom are seeking inclusion. The latter groups are therefore targeted by left-leaning politicians such as Hilary Clinton who make it their priority to win the minority demographics (Achen, 2016). On the other side, Donald Trump’s campaign used the traditional majority’s opinions to appeal to voters in rural ‘bible belt’ communities whom have been plagued by globalization and see immigration as a vessel for inflating the voice of their opposition.
UC Berkeley Sociologist Arlie R. Hochschild described the opposing forces with an analogy of people who are standing in line up a hill. The prize for everyone waiting in line is the American dream. He explains how over the past decade or so, the line as a whole has not moved much due to income stagnation and globalization. In addition, due to programs like affirmative action and other new anti-discrimination policies, those waiting in line have not only not been able to move up but have been cut in line by racial minorities on the basis of their skin color (Hocschild, 2018).
Moreover, big government fiscal decisions such as Obamacare and tax reform are now also associated with collective identities. With politicians now placing these controversial matters at the foreground of public’s concern, the issues will continue to drive white majorities to become bitter to African American, Muslim, Latino, LGBTQ, and other minority people.
Those supporting the minority rights have their own reasons for supporting the liberal side of the debate though. Transgender people are of one of the newest identities that the left has begun fighting for, and the division that has stemmed from this category of people is similar but different to the division caused by other minority movements.
Many transgender people claim to want to live in a world where they do not have to constantly consider the aspect of their person. In an effort to win this right, many people are therefore fighting against those who wish to silence the transgender community. Charlotte Alter’s essay in Time Magazine last month titled “Transgender Men See Sexism from both sides” demonstrates firstly that sexism is more visible to transgender men whom have undergone transition and consequently how transgender men can help non-LGBTQ people understand gender identity and gender biases.
With all twelve men interviewed for the study reporting that they were treated with more authority post-transition (both professionally and socially), it is evident that the feminine identity is considered inferior in many cases. Although the situation is unique (where a minority identity actually gains respect for embracing the quality that makes them different), the division among out-groups is heightened as the political debate regarding controversial bathroom laws continues to be fought for by the left and against from the right.
Argument 3
Identity Politics oversimplifies decision making and diminishes intercultural connectedness
No one should argue against the fact that the United States has seen improvements due to its embrace of diversity. The people of America have obviously come from diverse backgrounds and America has continued to benefit from diverse thinking. However, this is not to say that our country needs to build its national identity centered on diversity. Instead, American creedal national identity must be applicable in its pursuits to identify with its constituents.
The American identity must offer to uphold real ideals such as human equality, constitutionalism, and rule of law (Fukuyama, 2018). With principles like these at the forefront of national identity, Americans are able to respect their country for its own dignity, knowing that those who seek citizenship but do not respect these ideals, will have citizenship withheld.
With identity politics controlling American’s attention today, the ideals of American identity are blurred. Those on the right argue that immigration is hazardous to the success of America with plans to send immigrants back to their homeland upon discovery. Those on the left apply their democratic stance to fight for immigration on the basis of human respect. However, both of these ways of thinking are unsound. The left and the right continue to see policy decisions from their closest in-group’s point of view, which contributes to oversimplified decision making on behalf of the constituents (Sears, 1989).
In order to avoid diminishing intercultural connectedness, the more worthwhile debate should be on how to properly assimilate known immigrants into the United States’ creedal national identity. With a focus on national identity rather than micro-collective identities, the United States can benefit from well-assimilated immigrants. If assimilation is not the goal, immigrants will continue to be a financial burden and potential security concern to the state.
Argument 4
Implications of the above arguments 1-3
In particular, the left side has a major decision to make. They can continue doubling down on their minority-focused mantra by calling for identity groups such as professional women, Latino people, LGBTQ community, and African Americans to mobilize as their own in-groups in an effort to win elections. Yet, if they’re looking to win the next major election, the Democratic party should attempt to win back members of the white working class. These white working class constituents were once a crucial demographic of the left side from Rooselevelt’s New Deal to restore prosperity through Lyndon B. Johnson’s mission to eliminate poverty (Schaffner, 2016).
When Clinton focused her attention on how a national interest in world issues would allow democracy to prevail, she was at her best in relating to Americans as a whole. However, when she focused her domestic concerns on diversity by expressly calling out to women, LGBTQ people, African Americans, and Latino immigrants, she left those who do not identify with these groups feeling excluded.
In her best attempt to be strategic, she allowed identity politics to get in the way. “If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them,” wrote Mark Lilla, a left-leaning historian and author of New York Times piece titled “The End of Identity Liberalism.” Lilla argues that the democrat’s identity politics rhetoric has shunned white middle class Americans, whom might have been responsive and open-minded to the party’s ideas for economic prosperity. If intercultural connectedness is their goal, the Democratic Party must understand that Hilary Clinton’s approach to inclusion was better suited for someone preaching exclusion.
Decision making is bound to be oversimplified when white people are forced to think of an election from a racial point of view (Fukuyama, 2018). According to research presented by Janelle Wong in her book “Immigrants, Evangelicals and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change,” eighty percent of white evangelical Christians supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election despite the increasing diversity of the evangelical community (Wong, 2018). It is the racial fears and status threat anxieties that will remain the focus of their political stance as long as identity is the focus of American politics.
The United States has historically been far more welcoming of diversity than the majority of countries worldwide. However, American identity is a way of life created out of a set of beliefs outlined in the United States constitution. With its grips on minority and majority groups alike, identity politics has divided American constituents on the basis of ethnicity, origin, gender, sexuality, and other micro-identity factors.
For a country that believes in breaking bread and establishing common interests, we must become invisible to identify for the sake of national prosperity. In the 2020 elections, the outcome will be decided by the American people, not the micro-identities which have been invented over time. To avoid the culture of diminished intercultural connectedness, politicians must do their best to persuade voters to vote as color-blind people. If the Democratic and Republican parties continue to push on identity issues, American nationalism will go by the wayside, and individual freedom of thinking will be lost.
