Last week’s New York Times Sunday Review included a piece by Columbia Professor Mark Lilla titled, The End of Identity Liberalism. Therein he argued that a “fixation” on diversity has “distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.”
He harkened back sentimentally to a union convention in the ‘90s where he and others sang the national anthem and then listened to FDR’s famous 1941 Four Freedoms speech. Roosevelt’s stirring voice evoked memories of the righteous foundations of modern American liberalism.
Lilla partially attributes what he acknowledges as the “repugnant” outcome of the presidential election to so-called identity liberals being “narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life.”
Lilla’s argument sounds so very reasonable. Even among supposedly progressive New York Times readers the collective response was, “Can I hear an amen!” That collective is comprised almost entirely of white folks — well-meaning liberal whites folks, of course. Across the political spectrum there seems a significant consensus that identity liberalism is problematic.
I beg to disagree.
I don’t think America’s greatest problem is the transgender, gay, black, Latino, Muslim and women folk who are narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their small bubble.
Identity liberalism is the much-needed, long-awaited second phase of justice in America, and its vilification is an unfortunate capitulation to white privilege and the mythology of post-racism.
The first phase of justice was, as Lilla claimed, partially aroused by Roosevelt, then nourished by women and men of conscience in the ’60s and ’70s. The civil rights movement, the emergence of women’s rights through assertive feminism, and remarkable advances in gay rights were absolutely necessary, but sadly insufficient.
Attaining legal rights was an advance, to be sure, but full acceptance from a still racist, sexist and homophobic society is sorely lacking. Identity liberalism is the powerful expression of, “Now that you’ve partially recognized our rights, recognize us!”
Lilla is right that the election turned on this issue, but not in the way he suggests. The election of Trump was not about stagnant wages or national security. It was the eruption of long-simmering resentment over civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights and other dimensions of social justice. A large swath of white America resents the continued pursuit of this second phase of justice, and the election turned on this resentment.
One of the most dangerous consequences of the campaign and Trump’s triumph has been the unleashing of racist, misogynist, Islamophobic and homophobic attacks, both physical and verbal. The number of such incidents has increased more than 400 percent in recent weeks. While liberal critics of identity politics mean no harm, their repudiation invites a more subtle and insidious backlash. Even in comments from supposed liberals in the New York Times, palpable resentment of political correctness is apparent.
Recognizing the specific grievances of people who have been historically marginalized does not diminish the unifying force of liberalism. Identity liberalism is not based on divisiveness or competition. It is based in empathy, solidarity, compassion and sensitivity. When we recognize and support Black Lives Matter or speak out for transgender dignity, we’re not dividing America. We’re speaking simple, empathic truth to toxic power.
Safe spaces and trigger warnings are not political correctness. They are expressions of kindness and understanding. A forceful, unified liberalism should fully embrace those who remain on the margins, not blame them for distorting liberalism’s message.
We have fallen prey to the unsupportable idea that the real feelings and experiences of others are ours to dismiss if we wish. When people of marginalized identities express a grievance or vulnerability, it is not for the comfortable, white, straight male majority to judge whether their grievances or vulnerabilities are legitimate.
Suggesting that we should end identity liberalism is an unfortunate expression of privilege.
Steve Nelson lives in Sharon and New York City, where he is the head of the Calhoun School, a private school. He can be reached at steve.nelson@calhoun.org.