Guest Editorial: Greg Parker, “We must reject identity politics”

Publisher’s Note: According to the Oxford Living Dictionary, “Identity politics” is a political approach and analysis based on people prioritizing the concerns most relevant to their particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, cultural or other identity, and forming exclusive political alliances with others of this group. The Golden Hammer refers to such a political approach as “racism.”

Gregory Parker, Guest Editorialist and deep thinker.

Greg Parker, Guest Editorialist

“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.” ~ Thomas Sowell

There are an abundance of significant issues threatening America today. None is more destructive to freedom than identity politics.

Individual feelings and a lack of restraint are all inputs of this self-indulgent issue. Identity politics is enormously destructive because it is entirely artificial and built on the premise of presenting one’s individual desires or feelings over the freedoms of others no matter the cost. Identity politics is rooted in postmodernism, which is a relativistic system of observation and reflection that denies absolutes and objectivity. This denial of absolutes and objectivity is replaced with one’s limited subjective self-awareness and is grounded on a self-serving concept, which is filled with egalitarian undertones and seeks socialistic ends. Such self-serving egalitarian motivation alone perverts the democratic process and erodes the very individual freedom the movement promises to foster.

Those pushing this activism of self-identification, use emotion to create a false argument for equality, while outrightly negating any accurate facts that do not support their narrative. Furthermore, it is not at all uncommon for advocates of identity politics literally to ignore facts and basic science, in their quest for equality. Such advocates proclaim the science and facts of the issue do not matter or are irrelevant, racist and oppressive, because those facts impede the so-called greater good of self-identification and equality.

This ignoring of facts and basic science can be seen, as only 43 percent of sociologists in a recent survey accept the fact of biological differences between males and females. Leading one to conclude that it does not matter how much factual or biological evidence of differences between men and women exist, such disparities between the sexes will continue to be falsely attributed to discrimination. This ignoring of absolutes, objectivity, and facts I contend is on the order of anti-intellectualism.

“Intellectual honesty demands that we accept facts that we would sometimes like to wish away. Hard truths are truths nonetheless…” ~ Jim Nelson Black

These anti-intellectual advocates feel they have the right to be offended by, protest against, and comment on everything that does not support their ideas, by dragging down any opposing views through personal attacks and violent confrontation, not through reasonable debate. Moreover, these same anti-intellectual advocates worship entertainment over education and self-identity over self-sacrifice.

Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times, argues that the anti-intellectual elitism is not an elitism of wisdom, education, experience or knowledge; it is the elitism of anger. Who can be the angriest most self-righteous advocates?  This regressive elitism has formed a hierarchy among supporters, a pecking order or competition, with the prize going to the most offended or the most absurd. Too often, it is the elite among the anti-intellectuals, together with the extreme culture of anti-rationalism, where critical thinking is the enemy. Keller also explains that the herd mentality takes over, and the anti-intellectual advocates can become an irate lynch mob when anyone either challenges one of the mob beliefs outside the mob’s self-limiting set of values.

This lack of critical thinking and clear move toward self-importance makes anti-intellectual advocacy myopic and remarkably singular in scope. This singular myopic advocacy, in the beginning, keeps it from clashing with other advocacy groups that seek to be the dominant angry, self-righteous victim.

Nevertheless, the long-term struggle of these advocacy groups to be the dominant victim creates conflict and cannibalism between other groups and movements. This conflict is unmistakably evident as global warming advocates have now identified obesity as a cause of climate change. This is leading the global warming advocates to “fat shame” or clash with those advocating for “fat” acceptance.

Additionally, some feminists feel the push for transgender acceptance comes at the expense of everything the feminist crusade has fought, given they do not see transgender women as real women.  In yet another clash, two Canadian women were kicked out of a women’s homeless shelter to make room for a man claiming to be a transgender woman.

Also, these cannibalistic conflicts between identity groups produce advocacy that delegitimizes the scope and activism of one another. The singularity of the identity groups’ advocacy does not allow for a holistic visualization outside their preconditioned identity or ideas. For example, the delusional push to declare oneself as non-binary or gender-neutral creates a significant flaw in the very core of feminism. This glaring flaw is that one cannot have feminism or gender inequality, if gender is nonexistent or is fluid. A woman can simply identify as a man and lay waste to the very argument of sexism or gender pay inequality.

In conclusion, identity politics is built on the foundation of socialism and subjective reality, leading down the road to servitude.

If you take anything from this article, take away these points: 1) one’s subjective version of reality is not equivalent to objective truth, 2) the flawed construct of equal outcomes for all can and will never be achieved, nor will it ever be won, given that everyone is different and unequal. To consider otherwise elevates feelings, discounts facts, and is a meaningless struggle, of which there is no happy and or equal conclusion.

Comments

comments

You must be logged in to post a comment Login