Amid the massive flop of the Democratic Party and former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s election loss, social justice liberals are fretting over the dying campaign of “intersectionality” in America and what it might mean for their party politics.
“At twenty I was a queer-closeted, fledgling and frightened feminist,” The Mary Sue’s Sarah Remy wrote of her post-election meltdown. “In my forties I am out, a champion of queer youth, an author of diverse and #ownvoices stories, and a publisher of LGBTQIA fiction. I am an intersectional feminist… My son suffers anxiety so severe on some days he finds it a struggle to go to school, and who on the night of the election slept restlessly and woke me up often to worry out loud over what a Trump presidency might mean.”
Remy describes herself as an intersectional feminist because she shares the identity of more than one category of people often championed as “victim” by social justice liberals. She is queer, which means she may or may not share the sexual preferences or gender identity of a woman; yet, she currently possesses functioning female genitalia, making her of the victim F gender class. That already places her in at least two “victim” categories.
For the typical queer trans-racial intersectional feminist like Remy, a Republican presidency could ultimately represent the epic failure of intersectional identity politics as we know it. And the Left is willing to do whatever it can to stop that from happening.
See, the Left depends on intersectional politics in order to survive. It will typically pitch intersectionality as some kind of bonding factor between identity groups promoting social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and class, which all share similar sentiments of “oppression” and “disadvantage.” Once all of these groups have created a tight overlapping culture of wallowing self-victimization, they can place their aggregated weight on winning a specific political goal.
The success of this unifying phenomenon relies heavily, ironically, on social division. Here’s why: without the stark division of humans into social groups solely based on demographic factors such as color and sexuality, identity politics would not exist. Without identity politics, intersectional politics would not be necessary; and without intersectional politics, the Left’s unifying tactic thus far fails.
Liberals are already starting to realize that, as Elliott Hamilton points out, which is why many of them are rejecting identity politics altogether. Using the victim narrative and promoting social division can only work in their favor for so long… until it works against them.
“Clearly, many Democrats understand that their current approach failed them not only in federal elections, but also in state elections,” Hamilton writes. “With the Republicans controlling 33 governorships and 32 state legislatures, Republicans have not had this much control across the country for almost a century. The Democrats realize that in order to make the case that they care about all Americans and not a select few groups, identity politics have to either be grossly minimized in its electoral strategy or eliminated for good.”
It is not a coincidence that in college campuses like the University of California, where a growing representation of thousands of student groups exist focused on identity politics alone and intersectionality is the prime focus between them, the ugly partisan division is more glaring than ever. Social justice groups have become so focused on promoting their victimhood that they forget their most important mission: to stop alienating themselves. The principled thing for liberals to would be to abandon identity politics in the name of unity and their ever-promised equality.
Follow Pardes Seleh on Twitter.