All arguments are
turned back as further evidence that the speaker is bound by the determining
influence…. This is little more than a sophisticated form of...ad
hominem...there can be no logical
conclusion about the cause of our
opinion inferred from the fact that 63 percent of an arbitrarily drawn class
structure of which we are said to be a part have similar opinions.
-- Herbert Schlossberg, Idols
for Destruction, p. 156 (emphasis in original)
... you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why
he is wrong. The modern method is to
assume without discussion that he is
wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only true issue) by busily
explaining how he became so silly.
-- C. S. Lewis, “Bulverism”; God in the Dock, p. 273 (emphasis in original)
How many articles have we seen these past few weeks trying
to explain why so many people voted for Trump? On both sides of the
progressive/conservative divide, it seems people are latching onto the same conclusion:
white, rural, evangelical voters are sick of being looked down upon and
ignored, and elected someone who will support their interests instead of the
liberal elites’. Some people defend them for doing so, and others condemn them.
But is it true that all Trump voters had this self-interested motive? I think
both those who didn’t and those who did can tell us something about political
discourse, specifically what's called “identity politics.”
Firstly, as the two quotes above explain, it is an error to
assume that membership in a social class, or self-interest in preserving that
class, is the sole reason for someone's decisions. Many who voted for Trump
were not excited about him; hence the expression of “holding your nose” while
voting. There were grave concerns about the moral direction of the country,
including such things as religious freedom and abortion; hence all the hoopla
about Supreme Court justices. And many recognized that Trump is by no means a
moral paragon, but chose him as the “lesser of two evils” because they regarded
Clinton as worse. Not worse for them personally, but simply a more despicable
person in general. Plus, not everyone who voted for Trump was white, rural, or
evangelical. What were their reasons? Certainly not the ones assumed by so many
commentators.
This brings out one problem with “identity politics”: the
assumption that everyone in the same social class thinks the same way, or
should. Pro-life women are ignored and silenced. Black conservatives, like Ben
Carson and Clarence Thomas, are attacked as “race traitors”. The people in
Lewis's essay on “Bulverism” shut down their opponents with “You say that
because you are a man” or “because you are a bourgeois,” etc. This idea reduces
human beings to a collection of labels, or machines that can only act as they
are programmed by their environment. Yes, our race, gender, and class might
influence our decisions, but that doesn't mean we are controlled by them. Part
of being human is the ability to make decisions based on “things unseen,” on
ideals and transcendent truths. We can think about more than meeting needs or
grabbing for power. To deny that ability for any person or group of people is insulting.
On the other hand, the consensus of journalism is not
completely wrong. A lot of people did vote for Trump based on identity
politics, specifically white, rural, and/or evangelical identity. Here is a
fascinating article that points to over-emphasis on identity and diversity as
one cause of the liberal loss. Here is a good summary (I think) of how this
idea has impacted the church. In this article by the same author, he explores
the nature of ressentiment, a French
word sociologists use to mean something more than simply resentment. This is
the familiar notion of making victimhood the core of one’s identity, of seeing
everything in terms of oppressors and oppressed, with one’s chosen group in the
latter category. Weirdly enough, almost every group in the present American
culture sees itself this way. Feminists decry rape culture. Black Lives Matter
claims the authorities think they don't. Evangelicals see persecution
everywhere. As the author says, that's not to say that there is no oppression
in these areas, or that they're all at the same level. The problem is the
attitude, “when the community thrives on its sense of being injured. The group
rallies around its identity in being wronged.” This creates an atmosphere of
enmity and fear.
Fear, as we all know, is the path to the Dark Side. And yet,
all sides in this election appealed to it. There's been a lot of mockery
focused on the millennials who need safe spaces and trauma counseling to deal
with Trump’s victory, or the people who take to their blogs and social media to
express their fears. But can Trump voters honestly say that they weren't just
as scared of a Clinton victory? Before the election, hundreds of articles and
blog posts declared in apocalyptic terms that Hillary in the White House would
mean the end of Christian America. Another hundred or so claimed that Trump's
election would ruin the reputation of the American church. Who's afraid of the
Big Bad President? Looks like everyone. This post takes Christians to task for caring more
about their own fears and desires than others’, and this one highlights the continuing effects of
fear on families across the country. Identity politics pits our fears against
each other; as well as our angers, our hates, and our sufferings.
What do we do with all of this?
I don't have all the answers. Neither do the articles linked
above, though they have a few good ideas. I would suggest two starting points:
First, don't reduce people to their labels. People are complicated. We have
many reasons for the things we do, some legitimate and some not. We have our
differences, but we are all alike in dignity. Grant that dignity to those who
disagree with you. Hear their concerns and search for common ground. Second,
don't be ruled by fear. History is complicated, too. One election may have
far-reaching consequences, but so may your choice of hope, courage, and
kindness. Let that be your identity.
