Posts
Introduction
While there are court battles and several weeks remaining
until results are officially certified, it looks like Joe Biden is the
President-elect of the United States.
Elections are consistently promoted as the primary barometers of
political consciousness in America. With
a two-party system, there is no homogeneous position unifying either major
party. Each has factions from within and
without that shape their response toward and handling of major issues in
politics. The next few months will be crucial in assessing the direction of a
Biden presidency, and what it may mean ‘on the ground’ for millions of
Americans. The rhetoric of the campaign
must now give way to the reality of governing.
It is this transitional space, between rhetoric and practice, that the
Left should examine to gauge the ongoing ideological battles brewing in
American political institutions.
One of the primary selling points of Biden, and by extension
the democratic party, is the call toward unity.
I have previously covered how notions of bipartisanship and unity work
to depoliticize socio-economic relationships.
These appeals rest on a set of assumptions about what constitutes “societal
divisions”, how they are formed, and how we can properly “heal them.” While discussions of unity should tackle
fundamental political questions about the nature of society, who makes
up our communities, and how power is distributed, they are usually deployed as
matters of politics, simplified as a measurement of the personal attributes
of any given candidate.
This depoliticization is an intentional ideological maneuver
to both exclude questions about the socio-economic makeup of society and
re-frame those concerns as the source of the problem itself. The belief is that divisions are not based on
real antagonisms between groups; they are instead aesthetic or ungrounded
concerns that are only conjured up by divisive candidates. To unpack this idea, I will first examine how
Biden and the establishment wing of the Democratic party are representative of this
ideology. Second, I will provide the
theoretical context for our understanding of antagonisms and how they relate to
the political. Then, I will elucidate
the material realities of actually existing antagonisms in US society. Finally,
I will draw some conclusions about how elites will narrate upcoming political
battles, and how it will affect the Left.
Biden’s candidacy has always rested on drawing clear
distinctions between his personality and Donald Trump’s. In his victory speech, Biden declared “this
is the time to heal in America.” On the campaign trail, Biden frequently invoked the election as a battle for
“the soul of the nation.” His frequent criticism of Sanders, Warren, and the Left
generally, was that their rhetoric is too divisive. Do not interpret this as isolated to Joe
Biden. He is a largely empty vessel for
the wishes of traditional party elites.
Who has echoed his concerns most directly? Jim Clyburn, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Conor Lamb.
These are all influential members of the party- they are freely given
media access, are some of the largest Democratic fundraisers, and two of them
control the direction of the party’s strategy in Congress.
If we critically evaluate these statements, a set of
assumptions becomes clear. First,
healing is juxtaposed against division.
People clashing over economic and racial differences is not a symptom of
a wound, but a wound itself. The
articulation of these grievances from the standpoint of an economic, racial, or
partisan identity is considered a break from a harmonious and unified
normal. This is supplemented by a second
assumption: that the divisions are at best incidental and at worst illusory,
and only conjured up by politicians to divide the people. People that focus on articulating these
divisions are merely stoking anger and rage.
It closely resembles conservative theories of a colorblind racial
politics, wherein pointing out differences becomes both the source and
consequence of the problem. It’s a
circularity that demands a singular way out:
pretend the divisions aren’t real- heal them by not addressing them. But how do politicans go about addressing them?
Both of these assumptions lead us to a third, interrelated,
conclusion: that divisions are matters
of politics and not representative of anything political. Here we must recall the distinction between
the two ideas: while politics is
concerned with the day-to-day management of institutions, the political is
about the structure and nature of the institutions themselves. The focus on “healing America” is based on
the belief that divisions are not rooted in the institutions that govern and
organize society. Instead, divisions are manufactured by politicians in order
to trick us into…something? The
implication is never outlined with clarity.
It usually devolves into saying divisions are bad because they divide
us.
Are these characterizations of political life correct? Have we mostly eliminated divisions and truly
figured things out? To explore and
answer these ideas, we need to understand the ontological basis for politics,
and the concept of antagonisms.
Antagonisms and Politics
Theories critiquing depoliticization are post-foundational-
they do not believe that there is a natural or inevitable essence to how
society is organized. The phrase often used is the foundation of society is
“contingent.” Society is not organized
and managed based on a natural, objective, fundamental truth. It is negotiated, sometimes violently,
between people. The Reality of political
order is that it is founded on a void (a space that has no natural or
inevitable essence). This is the first crucial point of departure for
post-political theory. The political is
the ground of this void; it is the place where contingent factors (the
economic, cultural, hierarchical operations of power) should and do determine
the structure and ordering of society.
This idea is on display in our understanding of history- even linear
interpretations of history recognize that the foundational order of any
society is contestable and changes over time.
This is also the basis for our understanding of the political; it
is the absent ground or void on which society is structured.
Post-political theorists juxtapose this with how public
discourse articulates our understanding of what is political; everything seems
political. Identarian grievances,
personal branding, twitter feeds, videos of consumers treating laborers like
shit, etc- they are all elevated as hyper-scrutinized and
hyper-politicized. Why, despite this
cultural and political environment, do post-political theorists contend that
these are not examples of the political?
This leads to the second point of departure. While the political is the void or absence of
space that is the foundation for societal organization, politics is the
attempt to ground something onto this void; it is the mapping of specific
relationships of power in an attempt to conceal this void. Where the political is the space on
which the foundation of society is radically open, absent, and therefore amenable
to change, politics is the attempt to cover over this absence and assert
that there is an essence of rules/norms/human nature that governs the potential
for change. I have frequently used the
characterization of politics as the “day to day management of human
affairs.” This day-to-day management plays
the ideological role of naturalizing, eternalizing, and historicizing the
structure of society.
This should not be received as a radical proposition- if
anything, it is our denial of this Reality that is radical. Social and political stability are considered
fundamental functions of government. In
order to maintain stability from generation-to-generation, the conditions of society
must be socially reproduced. We need to
teach future generations the rules, norms, and guiding behaviors we take for
granted (again, ‘taking for granted’ here means that we believe these are
foundational and not entirely socially constructed and contingent. It is similar to the definition of ideology
as “common sense” used by Gramsci). That
is the purpose of ideology as it naturalizes, historicizes, and eternalizes
this set of assumptions. The crucial role
of the Left is to reveal that these are not founding principles of our world-
they are attempts to cover a radically open and absent space and present it as
pre-determined and closed. When I repeat
that the rhetoric of post politics is an ideological maneuver, it is this
concept I refer to. Politics has a
specific role to play- its entire purpose is to cover up or “suture” this
radically open and empty space. It is
meant to foreclose the possibility of fundamental change, and instead
naturalize a technocratic, capitalist conception of democracy and politics.
With this distinction more clearly articulated, we can now
ask ourselves about the reality of these antagonisms or divisions so often
rhetorically invoked as a problem by politicians. Are antagonisms material, or rhetorically
conjured up to stoke further divisions?
What role do antagonisms play in the political vs. politics?
At a most basic theoretical level, antagonisms in society
are inevitable. The dictionary defines antagonism as “an active hostility or opposition, as between unfriendly or conflicting
groups”, “an opposing force, principle, or tendency”, or “a relationship
between two species of organisms in which the individuals of each species
adversely affect the other, as in competition.”
I will save the distinctions between different theoretical strands of
post politics for a different post. Here the important point is that a society
free of antagonism is largely impossible.
Individuals and groups will have different wants, needs, and
desires. These will often conflict with
one another. While theorists may
disagree on the source or content of these antagonisms, the existence and
inevitability of these antagonisms are not in question. If antagonisms did not exist, what would be
the need of government? We would live in
a naturally harmonious order, one with permanent stability and no change. Of course, that is not the world we live in,
and we have no examples in human history of such an order.
In our specific historical and economic period, this is no
longer considered a hidden fact.
Capitalism rests on the belief that individuals and groups are competing
with one another for access to limited resources, be they economic,
environmental, political, cultural, etc.
It is not a conspiracy, but the open rhetoric of how our socio-political
structures are designed. We observe this
consistently at an interpersonal level. Individuals
in a job market know that they are competing with other laborers for limited
access to employment. Companies know
that they are competing with one another for customers in a market
setting. And, of course, politicians
play a zero-sum game for control over institutions of power. There is no feasible way to organize society
around these principles without creating antagonistic tendencies and
counter-tendencies.
These antagonisms are the forces that shape the void of
empty essence of the political.
The Political has no natural or inevitable foundation, so these
antagonistic forces wage a battle over who defines this
space. Of course, the dominant ideology
has a distinct objective: to paper over
these empty space by asserting it as already foreclosed.
Returning to the political rhetoric of “healing divisions”,
something embraced by both US political parties to some degree but largely at
the forefront of the ideological message of liberals, we can use this
understanding of antagonisms and the political to determine a) whether or not
these messages are forms of depoliticization and b) what type of political
order, though presented as the natural essence of the political, do these
ideological mechanism seek to perpetuate.
Perhaps the rhetoric is true, and these divisions are not part of the
structural makeup of society, but artificial differences conjured up by
politicians for their own personal gain.
I will cover three broad areas of stratification in US
society that point to the Reality of antagonisms conceived of as groups with
conflicting interests and needs:
economic, racial, and geographic.
None of these should be seen in isolation. Each one acts upon the others, and rhetoric
surrounding each shifts depending on context and need. My belief is that the existence of this stratification is on-face proof of antagonistic social relationships in which one group benefits over another, often at the expense of another. Looking at these lines of divisions, coupled with the political economy of capitalism, show that each group broadly depends on successfully competing with others.
Economic Divisions
Economic inequality holds a prominent place in American
political consciousness over the last 20 years, especially with the Great
Recession of 2008 and now the Pandemic Recession of 2020. According to a PEW
research report from January of 2020 (before the spring shutdowns eviscerated
the US economy), economic inequality has continued to worsen. This trend has been consistent through
periods of GOP and Democratic party control of government.
Households considered low income have seen their share of
income stay stagnant for 48 years, while middle income share has declined 17
percent over the same period. Of course,
the share of upper income households has increased by nearly 20 percent. The most rapid income gains have happened
among the top 5% of households, with “no sign of reversing.” These are measurements of income, but
measurements of wealth hold no encouraging signs. The median wealth of US families is no higher
now than two decades ago:
That is a picture of total median wealth, but it does not
tell us whether or not distinct groups of people are benefiting compared to
others. Unfortunately, the measure of
wealth inequality is more stark than that of income inequality:
The period from 1983 to 2001 was
relatively prosperous for families in all income tiers, but one of rising
inequality. The median wealth of middle-income families increased from $102,000
in 1983 to $144,600 in 2001, a gain of 42%. The net worth of lower-income
families increased from $12,300 in 1983 to $20,600 in 2001, up 67%. Even so,
the gains for both lower- and middle-income families were outdistanced by upper-income
families, whose median wealth increased by 85% over the same period, from
$344,100 in 1983 to $636,000 in 2001. (Figures are expressed in 2018 dollars.)
Even if you believe that a wealth increase from $12,000 to $20,000 dollars represents a remarkable achievement, it’s paltry compared to upper-income families whose median wealth increased by 85%! It’s self-apparent that some people are prospering greatly in the US economy, while others are seeing no meaningful gains. The pandemic has only worsened the situation.
When organized by age/generation, there are even deeper
inequalities unexplored by the above data. Partly due to recessions in 2000,
2008, and 2020, millennials (people born 1981-1996) have experienced stagnationrelative to older and younger generations:
This is far from an exhaustive reading of the
data, but it shows that there is extreme economic stratification in society,
and that some groups are benefiting from our institutional makeup much more
than others. It also shows just how
different the worlds Americans inhabit are. Looking through the long-term
trends, we see entire generations whose position in society is stagnating or
deteriorating, and is assuredly deteriorating relative to the gains of other groups.
Racial Divisions
The US is not exclusively divided along classist lines. Race is an undeniable part of US history and
modern experience, and data shows there is extreme inequality and
stratification between and within races.
Economics and race also intersect and push upon one another. According to a report by the Federal ReserveBank of Cleveland,
“In 2016, the average wealth of households with a head identifying as black was
$140,000, while the corresponding level for white-headed households was
$901,000, nearly 6.5 times greater.”
Inequality.org, a site dedicated to tracking statistics and
news on inequality, sheds further light on this situation:
According to our Racial Wealth
Divide report, the median Black family, with just over $3,500, owns just 2
percent of the wealth of the nearly $147,000 the median White family owns. The
median Latino family, with just over $6,500, owns just 4 percent of the wealth
of the median White family. Put differently, the median White family has 41
times more wealth than the median Black family and 22 times more wealth than the
median Latino family.
Many will point to changes in societal norms and laws such
as The Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act, but a closer look shows these
gaps have persisted through different social and political periods, regardless
of measures being passed for formal equality.
From the same report:
“it may be surprising how little
the racial wealth gap has changed over the past half century, even after the
passage of civil rights legislation. In fact, the 2016 wealth gap is roughly
the same as it was in 1962, two years before the passage of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, according to data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF).”
This helps provide further context for all of the economic
data presented above. For each of those
lines of wealth and income ordered by generation or income bracket, there are
further divisions based on race. This is
to say nothing of the disproportionate use of police violence against minority
communities, the overrepresentation of minorities in the criminal justice
system, and the myriad of cultural tropes that reinforce stereotypes about
black and brown criminality.
The inequality shown in this data only
worsens in times of crisis. The Great
Recession eliminated nearly 50% of wealth held by Black and Latino households
practically overnight, while white households lost just over 25%. To be clear,
this is not to say that white families didn’t suffer- plenty of white people lost their wealth and income-but it does show that there
is another fault line in society along racial lines.
Of course, these divisions all act upon and help reinforce
one another. Even looking within racial
groups, we see that the economy is structured to benefit some members of those
communities much more than others. For example, just as the top 10 percent of white people own 75 percent of white wealth,
the top 10 percent of black households hold 75 percent of black wealth. Minority communities are more diverse than
media pundits would have us belief, with their own internal different
ideologies and forms of stratification.
Geographic Divisions: The Urban/Rural Divide
Economics and race are undeniably important points of
division in the US, and they further play into a third: the urban/rural
divide. Even a cursory glance at the US
electoral map shows a distinct division in the ideologies and electoral
preferences between urban and rural communities.
A recent study by political scientists at Washington
University in St Louis indicates that geography is a primary metric to divide voters. It is not just that people self-select where
they live, with conservatives in the countryside and liberals in the cities,
but the geographic location itself has an influence on political
viewpoints. I will not attempt to
diagnose the causes in this post, but the division is apparent: “How close
people live to a major metropolitan area, defined as cities of at least 100,000,
and their town’s population density play a significant role in shaping their
political beliefs and partisan affiliation.”
This is more than just a political division- it is also
cultural:
“There also is a lot of resentment
on the part of rural residents toward urban communities. There is a common
perception that cities receive more than their fair share of resources and look
down on rural communities. The media helps enforce these beliefs with news
coverage that predominantly focuses on big cities and the interests of
urbanites.”
There is much truth to this, as any sports fan from the
middle of the country can attest: media coverage primarily concerns itself with
the needs and actions occurring in cities, and ‘east coast bias’ is real.
The urban/rural divide also intersects with economic
divisions. There has been a noticeable“hollowing out” of rural communities, as population growth booms in cities and
suburbs while just over half of rural counties have seen population
decreases. And those left behind in
these rural counties are suffering economically:
But looking at the share of
counties where at least a fifth of the population is poor – a measure known as
concentrated poverty – rural areas are at the top. About three-in-ten rural
counties (31%) have concentrated poverty, compared with 19% of cities and 15%
of suburbs. The number of counties with concentrated poverty grew for all three
county types since 2000.
All three of these areas prove that we do, in fact, live in
a divided society. The inequality of outcome and opportunity shown in each of
these areas, combined with a capitalist economy that requires each individual to compete for "limited" access to resources, inevitably generates antagonistic relationships. Some groups are benefiting from our
socio-economic structures, while others are suffering. Many of the decisions to help one group can
cause material changes that damage another.
These are the dynamics that perpetuate and exacerbate societal
antagonisms.
It would also be fair to characterize these
divisions as extreme both quantitatively and qualitatively (they are matters of
life and death for many). I do not
believe that these are even points that a politician, Republican or Democrat,
would deny. I am interested in
the ideological use of the rhetoric of divisions and unity, specifically
whether or not it contributes to the depoliticization of the economy. What divisions are important to politicians
and why? What does it mean to “stoke
divisions” and, more importantly, what does it mean to “heal them”? The answers to these questions reveal a
specific ideological commitment on the part of the Democratic party, one that
will not only fail to heal divisions, but only exacerbate them over time.
"Healing" Divisions
Every politician plays a two-sided game wherein they
acknowledge that divisions are “real” while at the same time emphasizing that
stoking or exacerbating those divisions is a negative. In many contexts, this stance is
non-controversial. Political leaders
like Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, or Schumer focus on racial divisions as
a matter of bad-faith or political maneuvering.
While the divisions are real, and even displayed accurately at times,
it’s a bad faith move because there is little desire or incentive to fix
them. In this way, politicians are often
correct in calling out one another for exacerbating conflict. Were these calls occurring in some sort of
political vacuum, they would make sense and stand up to scrutiny. But they are not occurring in a political
vacuum. They depend on a certain reading
of what divisions are (problem), where they come from (cause), and how to fix them (solution).
Once central assumption is that the rhetoric creates the
division, and not the other way around. The
problem is not the existence of divisions, but articulating them in political
discourse. The counternarrative here is
the (now regurgitated) belief that there are no red states or blue states (only
the United States!). My hope is that the
information in the sections above on economic, racial, and geographic divides
is sufficient to show that many Americans do inhabit what are functionally
completely separate worlds. The
predominant diagnosis of the cause shifts the issue from the Political to
politics. The problem is not found in
institutions, but politicians. A simple
logical exercise can expose this fallacy:
were Trump to never have existed, and if no GOP or Democratic politician
were to acknowledge or stoke divisions, would they go away? Of course not, but it is a useful form of
deflection.
What is this depoliticizing move deflecting? First, it deflects the identification of actually
existing antagonisms as a problem. If
these divisions are largely rhetorical, and only problematic when stoked by
politicians, then we cannot assume society is stratified in any material
way that must be addressed politically.
There is no Real antagonism that makes up society. There are not structures that
exacerbate economic, racial, and geographic inequality; there are not
conflicting and mutually exclusive interests that cause some groups to benefit
more than others. Instead, it’s a
problem of pointing out differences itself.
It’s important to remember that there is truth in the claim that
politicians like Trump use these divisions when politically convenient- they
are invoked in bad faith, with no intention of addressing them. Unfortunately, the depoliticization of these
antagonisms means that the liberal counternarrative is also performed in bad
faith.
This brings us to the second inextricably linked deflection
performed by depoliticization: it obfuscates the causes of the problem. Even if we do believe the divisions are real
problems, the causes are never isolated as institutional. Every time a figure like Trump is isolated as a source of divisiveness, it presupposes an acceptable, non-divided background. It is as if policies that are products of agreement are somehow incapable of exacerbating inequalities. For this consensus to be effective in
‘healing our nation’, does it not have to presuppose that there are no
antagonistic forces at work? One cannot
acknowledge that there are diametrically opposed positions that are rooted in
inescapable, material differences. To do so would eviscerate any call to unity
because it would reaffirm that there is division both in outcome (inequality
explained to us as a result of meritocracy) and in desire (the interests
of some groups rest on the exploitation of other groups).
Appeals to unity and bipartisan gestures cannot heal divides
without addressing these antagonisms. Unfortunately, depoliticization
insidiously characterizes any public discourse on these conflicting material
interests as a cynical attempt to foment unrest-it is ideological because its purpose is to maintain the "normal" backdrop of unified institutions. While this may be applicable in some context
for bad-faith actors like Trump, Biden, Pelosi, McConnell, etc, it makes far
less sense when appeals to these antagonisms are articulated as Political
issues- the competition between these groups for power and influence in society- in an attempt to create material equality between these groups (or at least
accurately articulate the stakes of the situation). Politicians become hesitant to, for example,
name corporations or the wealthy as sources of division, even though the material
reality of our economic structure is that these groups have an incentive to
push and support policies that move income and wealth upward. It is a close parallel to the conservative
response to affirmative action: that the
problem is not systemic racism, but the articulation of race as a marker of
difference that is the problem.
Finally, we come to the third deflection performed by
depoliticization, found at the level of solutions. If antagonisms are not materially imbedded,
nor caused by the makeup of our institutions and laws, then the solutions
derived from these two assumptions will also be deeply flawed. And what is the solution? To set aside our differences and work for the
common good. In his recent 60 minutes interview, President Obama invoked this very idea at the level of problem,
cause, and solution (emphasis mine):
Barack Obama: That may be the one
thing that Donald Trump and I agree on, is that he doesn't agree with me on
anything. I don't see him as the cause for our divisions and the problems with
our government. I think he's an accelerant, but they preceded him. and sadly
are gonna likely outlast him.
Scott Pelley: You write in the book
that Republicans had a battle plan to, quote, "Refuse to work with me,
regardless of the circumstances, the issue, or the consequences for the
country." Now, the same might be said of Democrats in a Republican
administration. I wonder if today you think that Democrats and Republicans are
no longer capable of compromise.
Barack Obama: First of all, I don't
think this is just a plague on both their houses here. So, the Democrats
opposed George Bush on a whole buncha stuff. But Ted Kennedy worked with George
Bush to pass a prescription drug plan for seniors. Nancy Pelosi, who adamantly
opposed the war in Iraq, time and again voted, even when her base was angry
about it, to make sure that our troops were funded once the decision to send in
troops to Iraq went in.
Here there is a moment of insight, where Obama acknowledges
that Trump is likely a symptom and not a cause.
Progress? Not likely. He goes on by suggesting that the reason it
was a problem was because it prevented bipartisan efforts. I find it telling that his two examples are a
largely failed corporate giveaway to drug companies through Medicare, and
funding continued military occupations in foreign lands. This is a stark example of how depoliticization
works to frame our expectations. There
is no discussion of the merits of bipartisanship, no critical reflection on the
fruits of these past examples of “unity.”
The policies are presumed to be good because the are products of
bipartisan cooperation. The crucial
question at hand- do these policies alleviate or exacerbate stratification of
US society- is considered irrelevant!
A recent op-ed in The Washington Post decrees that the only
way to unify the country is for Biden to work with a GOP Senate. Again, the assumption is that unifying
America requires Republicans and Democrats to come together to solve
problems. Devoid from this is any
discussion of what those policies are, and how they would change the material incentives
that drive the economic, racial, and geographic inequalities in the United
States. It is the manifestation of
depoliticization’s bid to deflect attention away from the Political and toward
politics.
None of the evaluation of laws rests on measurements of
whether they helped or hurt people, or what people they helped or hurt. I doubt that Iraqis take much comfort in
knowing that Congress ‘bridged their divides’ to continue the occupation of
Iraq. It’s a fundamentally depoliticized understanding of solutions. It does not ask questions about the makeup of
society, the source of divisions, and whether or not our institutions create
material incentives for the continuation of those antagonisms.
The Consequences of Depoliticization for the Left
These appeals, by framing this bipartisanship as more important the content of the laws themselves, lurch our political system toward the right. They are also not limited to inter-party
conflict. Pelosi’s recent handling of divisiveness in her own party exposes the same flawed premise. The appeal to unity for her means that the
Left must be reined in. In an interview with the New York Times,
Conor Lamb, a moderate from Pennsylvania, had the same diagnosis. His belief
was that appeals to racial and environmental justice are too divisive. He even acknowledges the existence of
material antagonisms by saying that fracking is unpopular because it would hurt
people financially! Of course, his solution is to avoid articulating or calling
for solutions to these antagonisms.
Instead of investigating whether the prevalence of fracking or institutional
racism are also sources of divisiveness, he naturalizes the status quo
state of policies as somehow absent anything divisive. A recent Jacobin article has a great rundown of other Democrats making
these claims:
The first postelection attack came
from Virginia congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer who
narrowly flipped her traditionally red district in 2018 and won reelection by
two percentage points. During a private, several-hour-long Democratic caucus
call, Spanberger, a stringent opponent of the party’s left wing, angrily denounced
calls to defund the police, the core demand to emerge from the Black Lives
Matter movement, reportedly declaring that “no one should say ‘defund the
police’ ever again.” Socialism was also on her list of banned topics: “We need
to not ever use the word socialist or socialism ever again.”
Other Democratic Party politicians
soon joined the barrage, including West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, who
decried socialism and “the so-called left,” and House Democratic caucus chair
Hakeem Jeffries, who insisted, “the socialism message wasn’t helpful.” More
recently, South Carolina congressman and House majority whip Jim Clyburn,
widely viewed as having saved Joe Biden’s seemingly dead-in-the-water primary
campaign, invoked the late congressman John Lewis to warn that, much like the
slogan “burn baby burn” during the Civil Rights Movement, “defund the police is
killing our party and we’ve got to stop it.”
Another area where the mobilization of unity rhetoric serves as a vehicle for continued rightward corporatist expansion is the discourse of diversity of representation. Think of how hard the GOP attempted to put non-white faces on television during the RNC as proof that they value diversity. The presence of a different social identity becomes proof-positive of a multicultural and diverse set of values. Whether or not the political objectives of the GOP contribute to diversity is never analyzed. The Democrats also do this, notable in the increased rhetoric surrounding the cabinet or the makeup of the Biden administration or Biden transition team. A CNN headline notes that nearly half of Biden’s transition team are made up of people of color. That is presented as a win for diversity! So much inclusion!
There is
no mention of whether or not these individuals uphold ideological values and
policy commitments that will improve the material conditions of people of
color in the United States. Just this summer, democratic leadership took a dramatic photo of themselves kneeling in kente cloths as an act of solidarity. Now that same leadership, including the highest ranking black democratic member of the House, blames Black Lives Matter slogans for their own loss, and demands that they should no longer be a part of the party's political discourse. Diversity is depoliticized as a matter of what the people in charge
look like, not what they stand for. If they are non-white and Republican, it’s
almost like a sort of double diversity:
bonus unity for everyone!
Is it coincidental that both of these sets of solutions
require the Democratic party to lurch rightward? No, it is not- that is the entire purpose of these appeals.
They are ideological appeals meant to detract from any understanding of
society as rooted in structural antagonisms, any understanding of these
antagonisms as materially motivated, and any understanding of “healing
divisions” requiring a critical re-evaluation of these antagonisms. Ideology is
the mechanism that reproduces capitalism and engrains its logic into our minds
as ‘common sense.’ In essence, the compromise called for through unity is an
attempt to naturalize, historicize, and eternalize the ideological commitments
of capitalism. By making the issue one
of politics, these larger questions are never on the table. By isolating divisions a rhetorical devices,
it naturalizes economic decisions as inevitable and distinct from these
Political questions.
Conclusion
It is imperative that we understand that ideology operates
through both what it articulates and what it excludes from articulation. The “bipartisan” policies are never evaluated
as possible structural contributions to societal antagonisms. There is never a question of whether the
policies create material incentives for some groups to work or benefit over
others. All of these are naturalized
assumptions as divisions are isolated from their material roots and
presented as a matter of the rhetorical choices of politicians. And, since the metric for success is not the
effect of policy, but whether or not it’s achieved through some kind of
consensus, the space connecting the structure of society to the manifestation
of extreme polarization and divisions is never analyzed. A bipartisan financial deregulation may be
heralded as a compromising move to “heal the soul of the nation” while its
material consequence is further economic division and stratification. A Latina appointed to run US deportations can
be touted as a step forward for diversity.
This obfuscation is the purpose of ideology.
The Left must relentlessly push against the supposedly neutral framing used by liberals and the right to characterize Leftist politics as an out-of-touch attempt to divide and constrain Americans. These frames naturalize the status quo as non-divisive while foreclosing any criticism rooted in a material understanding of divisions. The solution is not to reconcile, or demand that liberals "treat the Left fairly," and we have 40 years of proof that lurching rightward to unify with liberals and the right offers no material relief to suffering populations.
It is time to begin articulating these material divisions as the true source of suffering in the US. Only then can the Left use actual inequality as a metric for judging the efficacy of political positions and policy proposals. This crucial shift must go beyond a lightened phase of "consciousness-raising"- no doubt still important and relevant- and begin to inhabit an offensive space that renames the enemy. Asking for accommodation is a fruitless quest until the values elites and the electorate use to identify the problem, isolate its causes, and propose meaningful solutions shift from the arena of politics into the Political itself as an antagonistic space of disagreement.