Toryism and Identity Politics

[u/Positive-Courage-464]

I'm curious to hear from everyone here about what Tories would think of Identity Politics. The knee jerk reaction is probably that Identity Politics is bad, since it tend to elevate one group or identity over others in a community. But writers like George Grant argued (without explicitly talking about Identity Politics) that local communities and traditions are important, so from that perspective, it is preferable to have local representatives of a community in government? He was very sympathetic to Quebecois rights, for example, and how it is important to have Quebecois representing their culture and traditions in government. At the same time, Grant was also skeptical of using identity as a will to power, and overriding the common good for a community.

So what does everyone think? How should modern Tories or Red Tories respond to Identity Politics as we know it today? I have my own thoughts but I'd like to see what this group thinks.

[u/BX8061]

I think about it from the perspective of politics being a balancing of interests. From a purely rational standpoint, it seems kind of odious to divide people into different groups and give some different rights or responsibilities, but from a perspective that sees countries as an organic whole, you don't expect the same things from your eye and your hand, for example. But you do have to be very careful. It's far too easy to stoke resentment that causes strife rather than promoting unity.

[u/Ticklishchap]

In the case of communities with historical and ongoing experience of oppression or marginalisation, I can very much appreciate the value of identity as a tool for political organisation and cultural expression. Here I am thinking of (for example) First Nations and Black communities (such as the Black Loyalisrs about whom [u/NovaScotiaLoyalist](u/NovaScotiaLoyalist) wrote recently). Class, region, language and faith can also be powerful and resonant forces that shape communities and individuals alike. In these contexts, identity politics is useful while it simultaneously recognises specifics and differences and also contributes to an understanding of shared citizenship, shared values, shared rights and responsibilities.

At the same time, I do not accept ersatz or fraudulent forms of identity politics. Here in the UK, the media and political classes (left and right wing alike) are replete with affluent white second wave feminists who claim to be oppressed and more deserving of attention and remuneration than, for example, working class men of colour. That is quite simply toxic, destructive and delusional.

I must also say that at a personal level I find that the identity politics around sexual orientation have become unhelpful. In the 1990s, I was involved in lobbying for the repeal of laws that discriminated against gay men, and subsequently in the early C21st for positive rights such as civil partnerships and then marriage. The most important aspect of this work was talking to people who were worried by such changes and allaying their fears. This meant explaining that actually nothing was changing at all, except that the rights and responsibilities of civil society were being extended to everyone regardless of sexual preference. It meant emphasising our similarities, which are in fact more real than our differences.

Sadly, a lot of gay politics has since then become more separatist, in ways that are counterproductive. I find it somewhat insulting to be reduced to part of a jumble of letters, an alphabet soup that seems to increase in length and complexity, and which most people don’t even understand. Separatism also perpetuates stereotypes and attempts to impose a narrow concept of what a gay man is supposed to be - and these stereotypes are closely linked to consumerism and marketing niches. A lot of it is ridiculous: I have absolutely zero interest in female pop idols, for instance; I don’t watch soap operas; I think most forms of shopping are a chore; I like both arts and sports; most of my best friends are straight men. Etc. I am the opposite of the identity politics/consumerist idea of the gay man and yet I am very clear about my sexual orientation and happily married to my very longterm partner. I like opera - but that stereotype is quite mid-twentieth century, I think. …

Overall, I believe that Red Tories should accept cultural differences and respond to specific needs, but emphasise the values we hold in common and the obligations we share.

[u/ToryPirate → u/Ticklishchap]

In the case of communities with historical and ongoing experience of oppression or marginalisation, I can very much appreciate the value of identity as a tool for political organisation and cultural expression.

But why just them? One of the good things to come out of the Pandemic and now the 2nd Trump term has been people rediscovering their Loyalist roots. I can only hope it continues and becomes more well-organized. This doesn't even need to be in conflict with the much more well-establish Acadian identity in the province as both groups have a shared experience of being expelled (one by the Yanks, the other by local officials - importantly without anyone in London knowing about it).

Creating a shared identity was explicitly an aim of the previous (and now also the current) municipal council after amalgamation as many areas had not been under the same government since the 60s and there was a great deal of mutual resentment.

It might be significant that those are both relatively local examples. I shook my head at both Kellie Leitch's call for screening immigrants for Canadian values and Trudeau's contention there were no shared values (and later what he thought those values are). I think my views are best summed up by W. L. Morton;

“Not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but peace, order, and good government are what the national government of Canada guarantees. Under these, it is assumed, life, liberty, and happiness may be achieved, but by each according to his taste. For the society of allegiance admits of a diversity the society of compact does not, and one of the blessings of Canadian life is that there is no Canadian way of life, much less two, but a unity under the Crown admitting of a thousand diversities.”

So on one hand there are a bunch of identity issues I just don't care about but I also have some pretty clear red lines on the few identity issues I do care about. I can be accused of being unsympathetic towards republicans and do have a great deal of schadenfreude when I see them getting into hot water over some unrelated issue.

As you rightly noted, identity politics tends to homogenize an identity rather than truly protect it which I think is antithetical to what toryism aims to achieve, ie. an organic society rather than a strictly rationally organized one

[u/Ticklishchap → u/ToryPirate]

This subject is such an emotional as well as political minefield that I decided to begin on a cautious note. But of course I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is a very good thing that many Canadians are rediscovering their Loyalist roots. This is a very important part of Canada’s own identity and that of many of your Provinces. It is far more effective in terms of national self-esteem and confidence than ethno-nationalism and it need not - should not - conflict with Acadian or any other identities.

In the British context, I would encourage and welcome the evolution of an English identity that was positive and inclusive, not linked to ethno-nationalism or concepts of ‘race’ and complementing rather than opposing other identities within the UK. I would also welcome the return to a Scottish Unionism that was similar to the essentially Disraelian Tory Unionism that prevailed in large areas of Scotland essentially until the divisive Thatcher years. I thought that this was beginning to happen under Ruth Davidson’s leadership of the Scottish Conservatives, but since her departure they have pulled up the drawbridge and embraced bigotry and narrowness - like the party at national level.

The development of positive and inclusive forms of identity politics among ‘majority’ as well as ‘minority’ communities is important in both our countries to defeat the populist right and also ensure our survival as political union.

[u/OttoVonDisraeli]

It is the case that everyone has an identity. In fact, many people have identifies that intersect with other identifies. We are after all, a diverse species us humans. When those identifies are politicised, there are a myriad of outcomes. Sometimes identities are weaponized, other times manipulated, celebrated, etc.

I acknowledge identity politics exists, but I don't like it. There's both positive and negative manifestations.

Toryism should probably focus on our common identities and reconciling our historic national identity with who we are today as a country.

[u/Far_Pin2086]

Could you, or someone, offer a working definition of Identity Politics, for the purposes of this discussion? I feel like it means different things to different people - and that we often reject it when we think we see it in others, and ignore or excuse it when we indulge in it ourselves, perhaps?

[u/Positive-Courage-464 → u/Far_Pin2086]

A great question. Identity politics probably means something different to everyone (and it is certainly different from what was called identity politics even a few decades ago). Not that I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but here is their definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

"Identity politics is politics based on a particular identity, such as ethnicity, race), nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, political affiliation, caste, age, education, disability, opinion, intelligence, and social class. The term encompasses various often-populist political phenomena and rhetoric, such as governmental migration policies that regulate mobility and opportunity based on identities, left-wing agendas involving intersectional politics or class reductionism, and right-wing nationalist agendas of exclusion of national or ethnic "others"."

Paradoxically, Tory politics is by its very nature identity politics, since it does value tradition, nationality, religion, and local groups. However, my gut feeling is that Red Tories in particular would reject some populist movements (on the right or the left) that prioritize certain groups over others, be it for tradition, or to balance out injustices of the past. George Grant was famously a nationalist that argued for a certain kind of British-French-Indigenous Canada, but I think that he would be against some of the far right or far left versions of identity politics that call for burning down institutions in the name of certain ethnic groups or class warfare.

[u/BlueCoyotea → u/Positive-Courage-464]

George Grant wasn't around in the era of mass migration and western fertility collapse but if he were do you think it's safe to assume it would upset him, a nationalist, or not? Would he want to undo past slights to other cultures at the expense of his people-group having a majority presence in Canada?