Francis Fukuyama & the Perils of Identity
Peter Benson critiques a liberal but nationalistic brand of identity politics.
What some will insist that, in a No God universe, is the best of all possible worlds: moderation, negotiation and compromise. In other words, democracy and the rule of law.
Here in fact even the moral objectivists can accept a belief that through elections they and their own political ideals can be voted in or out. They truly do believe that being on the left or the right wing of the political spectrum is more rational. And they hope that through elections they can persuade the voters to see things as they do. But if another party wins they become the “loyal opposition” and prepare for the next election cycle.
At least in your kid’s civics textbook. In reality, of course, given the existence of political economy, wealth and power will almost always prevail. Either in the form of crony capitalism in the West, or, in nations like Russia and China, state capitalism. Here it all comes down to just how cynical any particular individual has become given the existence of one or another rendition of the “deep state”. I have mine, you may have yours.
But my main suggestion here always revolves around dasein. That there is no ideal political system but only a complex intertwining of right makes might, might make right and moderation, negotiation and compromise. And that any particular individual’s frame of mind is derived more from his or her actual experiences in life than from sitting down, thinking it all through [like Plato thinking up the Republic] and coming up [philosophically] with the most rational political system of all.
One man’s opinion of course. Me, I’m as critical of identity politics as I need to be. From my frame of mind, “I” is shaped and molded as as existential fabrication, ceaselessly refabricated as new circumstances demand. And, let’s face it, to the extent that the reactionaries among us insist of sustaining their own political stereotypes and prejudices about skin color and gender and sexual preference and ethnicity and all the other ways in which they divide up the world between “one of us” and “one of them”, those they go after are likely to seek out each other if only to sustain what they are able to given safety in numbers. That’s often the thing that critics of identity politics refuse to acknowledge — the extent to which their own biases help to create it in the first place.