The left is fond
of accusing President Donald Trump of dividing America, but in fact America was
already divided before his presidency – by the left’s obsessive promotion of the
inherently divisive “identity politics,” which erases our individuality and boxes
us all into categories based on gender and skin color, and then arranges those
categories according to a hierarchy of power and oppression.
Farrell Bloch, a
former Princeton economics professor and an expert witness in hundreds of
matters assessing discrimination, has written a book that couldn’t be more
timely and vital to our understanding of identity politics: Identity
and Prejudice, from the Canada-based Mantua Books.
In Identity
and Prejudice, Prof. Bloch offers a theory explaining why individuals are biased
against some race and ethnic groups but in favor of others. He addresses
diversity, intersectionality, white privilege, political correctness, and identity
politics, and applies his theory to contemporary issues including European and
American reaction to Muslim immigration, anti-Israel sentiment, and the
elections of Presidents Obama and Trump.
I asked Professor
Bloch a few questions about his book via email.
Mark
Tapson: To
what extent are identity, prejudice, and discrimination driving political
conflicts and decisions today, and have they always done so, or would you say they
are more prominent factors in the political scene now than in the past?
Farrell
Bloch: Identity politics,
which emphasizes ethnicities as either victims or preferred groups, is
pervasive today. Data that compare
demographic groups’ employment, income, and other social and economic measures
were not so widely available in the past. These statistics, reports of racist
comments and hate crimes, tabulations of the presence or absence of members of
race and ethnic groups in various venues, and discussions of related policy
issues such as immigration and affirmative action are now ubiquitous.
MT: You say that the most important contemporary
political divide may be the one between those who embrace the Elitist Paradigm
and those who reject it. You note that the election of Donald Trump, for
example, was likely an expression of antagonism toward it. What is the Elitist
Paradigm?
The Elitist
Paradigm has considerable explanatory power in assessing such phenomena as the
tripling of the black-white intermarriage rate in the past generation, European
law enforcement’s singular leniency toward Muslims, and even aspects of the
opioid crisis and recent changes in the American calendar. I view President
Trump’s election in part as a rebellion against the Paradigm, especially its
biased journalists and Hillary Clinton’s elitist condemnation of many Americans
as bigoted “deplorables.” Similarly, I
interpret President Obama’s election in part as mass white virtue signaling.
MT: In applying your theory to current events,
you address the issue of European acceptance and appeasement of Muslim mass migration.
You note that “in an uncommon reversal, the immigrants hold the strong and the
hosts the weak identity.” Can you elaborate on what you mean by that and how
you see it in action?
FB: Within any group there is of course
considerable variation in attitudes. That said, many Muslims have a strong
identity as exemplified by their activism and readiness to challenge perceived
ill treatment—which has extended even to Muslims murdering journalists for
publishing cartoons deemed offensive to Islam. In contrast, many Europeans,
especially political leaders, seem guilt-ridden with an ill-informed
interpretation of history and most eager to demonstrate their tolerance,
appreciation of diversity, and lack of Islamophobia. Both groups tend to agree
with the Elitist Paradigm’s negative view of Europe.
Perhaps the most
striking example of European appeasement is Muslim immigrants’ ability to
assault European women with impunity. European men do not defend their wives,
girlfriends, and daughters—often because the authorities are so protective of
Muslim immigrants. For example, in the northern English town of Rotherham,
Pakistani and Bangladeshi men abducted, beat, and forced into prostitution more
than a thousand English girls. For many years the town’s police and social
service agencies not only failed to defend these girls but also destroyed
relevant evidence of the abuse, apparently to avoid both publicizing negative
consequences of mass immigration and being tarred as racist.
MT: Another issue of identity and prejudice that
you explain – one which conservatives always wrestle with understanding – is,
why are many Jews so willing to embrace anti-Israel perspectives?
FB: The two obvious explanations for Jewish
ambivalence towards Israel along with some anti-Israel orientation are the lack
of strong Jewish identity among many individuals of Jewish ancestry and the
general triumph of the biased and insufficiently vetted pro-Palestinian narrative,
which is reinforced by the Elitist Paradigm.
Less obvious is
why some strongly identified Jews are anti-Israel. Several religious and
cultural factors mute Jewish support for Israel or induce sympathy for Israel’s
adversaries: religious Jews who interpret attacks on them as God’s punishment
for ethical lapses and therefore focus inward rather than against their
enemies; a longstanding Jewish concern for other peoples, epitomized by the
disproportionate number of Jews involved in the U.S. Civil Rights movement and
prominent Israeli first responders to natural disasters all over the world; a
tendency for Jews to apply Isaiah’s admonition to be a light unto the nations
by imposing strict standards on themselves along with open-mindednesses toward
their foes; longstanding tradition of argumentation that admits disparate and
contrary viewpoints for consideration; and disproportionate exposure to modern
secular education that emphasizes tolerance of other views, accepts
multicultural perspectives, and privileges even outlandish narratives over
objective truth. Overpublicized is a
very small number of Orthodox Jews who believe that the modern rebirth of the
state of Israel without the rebuilding of the ancient Temple was an
illegitimate affront to the divine plan. These Jews have provided invaluable
anti-Israel propaganda as evidence that seriously committed Jews do not favor
Israel.
Furthermore, a
common Jewish response to antisemitism has been to emphasize a universalism
that would erase ethnic distinctions—in contrast to particularism, one
dimension of which is a Jewish state. The Reform Jewish movement traditionally
downplayed Jewish peoplehood in favor of Jews being characterized as, say,
Germans “of the Mosaic persuasion.” In addition, many Jews have been reticent
in the face of any antisemitism, not merely that against Israel, in fear that
further discussion will only exacerbate preexisting problems and foster
additional hostility. Simple denial of anti-Jewish sentiment is another common
response. The Elitist Paradigm views Jews—at least those in the West—as
overprivileged whites who should not have the temerity to complain about
maltreatment.
Academic
psychology adds further insight. The ambivalence-amplification theory implies
that Jews will fit in better in the wider society by minimizing connection with
Israel. And psychiatrist Kenneth Levin has argued in The Oslo Syndrome
that Jews have much in common with abused children. Just as these children
blame their own behavior rather than that of their dysfunctional parents, some
Jews believe that with sufficient flexibility, self-effacement, and
concessions, Israel alone can resolve the conflict with its neighbors.
Of course some
cultural factors affect Jews and non-Jews alike. For example, contemporary interpretation
of language may induce some living in secure environments or with insufficient
acquaintance with history to perceive Hamas and Iranian genocidal threats
against Jews as mere hyperbole. And the tendency to avoid judgment induced by
multicultural and relativist perspectives leads some to characterize both
terrorism and defense against terrorism simply as part of a “cycle of
violence.”
MT: You write that identity politics is most
often, but not entirely, associated with Progressives; in what ways are
conservatives sometimes guilty of it? What can we do to push back against the
Left’s obsessive focus on identity politics?
FB: Virtually everyone to some extent
categorizes people and many overgeneralize. For example, some conservatives may
incorrectly believe that almost all Muslims support terrorism. I think the study
of mid-1960s America can teach us how individualism briefly triumphed over
identity politics and was then quickly defeated. After a century of segregation
and discrimination against African Americans, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s
exhortation to judge people by the content of their character rather than the
color of their skin was incorporated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
However, when politicians and activists realized that equality of opportunity
did not generate equality of results, they promoted intervention that favored
some groups over others. The mid-1960s featured a successful but only temporary
revolt against identity politics, a few short years sandwiched between legal
racism and a later penchant for categorization that was regarded as either
necessary to prevent the regeneration of that racism or to promote group
compensation for past ill treatment (in substantial measure favoring younger
people for the racism suffered by their elders). I look forward to historians
enlightening us as to why Dr. King’s dream succeeded but only for a very short
time. In that lesson as well as with further understanding of the individualist
orientation of America’s Founding Fathers we may learn how to supplant today’s
identity politics.
From FrontPage Mag, 12/16/19
