It was an American politician that once said, "all politics is local". Indeed, in American today, the saying can be modified to " all politics is racial", and for the world's melting pot, this is disappointing.
Politicians, since before the time of Ceaser have traded in the art of dividing and ruling the population of the governed. A game of us versus them always ensures easy popularity, particularly when the us represents a large and pliable electorate. In many nations around the world, this has often led to a rule by the majority tribe, or the majority religion, or a rule by oligarch who can in turn make their workers vote their fear of loosing their jobs.
For generations, us versus them, kept the flame of slavery going in America, and in turn, the flame of segregation. Politicians were able to tap into the sense of insecurity and fear of the majority and deprive the minority of status as full citizens. Ultimately, the nation was shamed into a tepid reversal, but soon, it appears politicians will find a way to game even that reversal.
Dick Nixon, the disgraced 37th President elevated the "southern strategy", inflaming the latent fear of southern whites against the "threat of the negro and colored people", capitalizing on this most base human emotion for electoral gain. To Mr. Nixon, power itself is the purpose of election. Overtly or covertly, the Democratic party has not helped matter, with its own minority strategy. Democrats routinely fan the flames of fears among various minority groups, from the war on women, to the war on blacks, and every other group out there. Indeed, this is not to claim that the Party of Nixon has not done everything in its powers to disenfranchise minorities or peddle policies aimed at dividing the electorate. It has, and continues to, but the nation needs leaders who can unite it in a common purpose, leaders who are willing to eschew identity politics and instead focus on issues.
Issues can be framed along the lines of identity as well. Indeed, many political observers will argue that issues can only be so framed, since there are always going to be commentators who will argue that every issue, each issue will speak more to certain groups than to others. But that is a lazy man's approach to a complex topic. Issues can be framed beyond identity.
Let's consider poverty. While it is true that a disproportionate number of minorities are plagued by poverty, and while it is also true that much of the legacy poverty is steeped in history. It is also true that a larger number of the majority suffer poverty, and that the ills of poverty, and the threats from poverty are born by all of society. Rather than focus on the fact that 40% of African Americans live in poverty, we can simply emphasis that 45 million Americans live in poverty (without reference to the fact that only 5 million African Americans do). And rather than make a poverty alleviation policy about the 45 million in poverty, we can make that policy about all Americans, including wealthy business owners who must have consumers who can afford their goods and services in order to maintain their wealth. There are ways to do this, and it starts from the top.
For example, the case for increase in minimum wage can be framed as both a case for living wage for workers, as well as a case for less welfare check from the government. A policy that rewards corporations who pay decent wages to their employees with less per head tax, might be a win-win-win for the corporation, their workers and the government who can also get more income tax or make less welfare payment to the workers.
Identity politics is quite tempting for politicians, even more so, when the opposition's primary argument is steeped in identity policies. Yet, identity politics only engender divides among the people and usually lead to battles and fissures in the polity - a danger signal to any nation.
Iraq had an opportunity to heal after the overthrow of Saddam, yet American leaders who know no better help sow the water the seed of identity politics with its de-baathification program. More than a decade after the original successful invasion, and several governments later, Iraq is still knee deep in near anarchy, a nation divided along religious and ethnic lines. A deep fissure that can be overcome with less emphasis on identity and more focus on the common good. As America races to help the Iraqi government master it arts of national governance, it too must take steps to elevate its own politics beyond the pale of identity-divisions.
In many parts of the world today, from China to Chile, and from United Kingdon to Uganda, identity politics rains, and in its wake, the embers of destabilization flares. No one wins, no one can win, when the game is about us against them. The world need leaders who will emphasis that we are all in it together.
Politicians, since before the time of Ceaser have traded in the art of dividing and ruling the population of the governed. A game of us versus them always ensures easy popularity, particularly when the us represents a large and pliable electorate. In many nations around the world, this has often led to a rule by the majority tribe, or the majority religion, or a rule by oligarch who can in turn make their workers vote their fear of loosing their jobs.
For generations, us versus them, kept the flame of slavery going in America, and in turn, the flame of segregation. Politicians were able to tap into the sense of insecurity and fear of the majority and deprive the minority of status as full citizens. Ultimately, the nation was shamed into a tepid reversal, but soon, it appears politicians will find a way to game even that reversal.
Dick Nixon, the disgraced 37th President elevated the "southern strategy", inflaming the latent fear of southern whites against the "threat of the negro and colored people", capitalizing on this most base human emotion for electoral gain. To Mr. Nixon, power itself is the purpose of election. Overtly or covertly, the Democratic party has not helped matter, with its own minority strategy. Democrats routinely fan the flames of fears among various minority groups, from the war on women, to the war on blacks, and every other group out there. Indeed, this is not to claim that the Party of Nixon has not done everything in its powers to disenfranchise minorities or peddle policies aimed at dividing the electorate. It has, and continues to, but the nation needs leaders who can unite it in a common purpose, leaders who are willing to eschew identity politics and instead focus on issues.
Issues can be framed along the lines of identity as well. Indeed, many political observers will argue that issues can only be so framed, since there are always going to be commentators who will argue that every issue, each issue will speak more to certain groups than to others. But that is a lazy man's approach to a complex topic. Issues can be framed beyond identity.
Let's consider poverty. While it is true that a disproportionate number of minorities are plagued by poverty, and while it is also true that much of the legacy poverty is steeped in history. It is also true that a larger number of the majority suffer poverty, and that the ills of poverty, and the threats from poverty are born by all of society. Rather than focus on the fact that 40% of African Americans live in poverty, we can simply emphasis that 45 million Americans live in poverty (without reference to the fact that only 5 million African Americans do). And rather than make a poverty alleviation policy about the 45 million in poverty, we can make that policy about all Americans, including wealthy business owners who must have consumers who can afford their goods and services in order to maintain their wealth. There are ways to do this, and it starts from the top.
For example, the case for increase in minimum wage can be framed as both a case for living wage for workers, as well as a case for less welfare check from the government. A policy that rewards corporations who pay decent wages to their employees with less per head tax, might be a win-win-win for the corporation, their workers and the government who can also get more income tax or make less welfare payment to the workers.
Identity politics is quite tempting for politicians, even more so, when the opposition's primary argument is steeped in identity policies. Yet, identity politics only engender divides among the people and usually lead to battles and fissures in the polity - a danger signal to any nation.
Iraq had an opportunity to heal after the overthrow of Saddam, yet American leaders who know no better help sow the water the seed of identity politics with its de-baathification program. More than a decade after the original successful invasion, and several governments later, Iraq is still knee deep in near anarchy, a nation divided along religious and ethnic lines. A deep fissure that can be overcome with less emphasis on identity and more focus on the common good. As America races to help the Iraqi government master it arts of national governance, it too must take steps to elevate its own politics beyond the pale of identity-divisions.
In many parts of the world today, from China to Chile, and from United Kingdon to Uganda, identity politics rains, and in its wake, the embers of destabilization flares. No one wins, no one can win, when the game is about us against them. The world need leaders who will emphasis that we are all in it together.
Comments
Post a Comment