I’m delighted that my most recent article on white identity politics, Trump, and the GOP drew responses from Jonah Goldberg (whose fine initial piece prompted me to write) and the equally prolific and incisive Avik Roy.
Even better news is that I certainly agree with the core assertions exemplified by the titles of their pieces “The Folly of White Identity Politics” and “Up from White Identity Politics.” Avik is absolutely right when (echoing Jonah’s own position) he said that if the GOP embraced white identity politics as a core strategy it would be both a moral and political error. But I think Avik misreads my piece fairly fundamentally in several respects.
First, I don’t make the case “that white identity politics is justified”. In fact, the entire point of my article, starting from the headline, is to separate “white identity politics”—which has both the moral and practical problems that Avik outlines nicely, with the advocacy around legitimate interests and concerns the GOP’s white voters—what I call “justice-seeking”. The left is very much eager to heap those two disparate categories together so that it can bash the right with its usual cudgel of racism, but there are only a very small number of Trump voters who are writing about (((Jonah Goldberg))) and creating Pepe the Frog memes. Most of them simply want justice, fairness, a level playing field, and respect for America’s historic culture and its traditions. The GOP has failed to deliver that. Instead the GOP, and to a lesser extent the conservative media, is, when push comes to shove, all-too-willing to play by the left’s racist double standards.
Avik does not make the case why it is acceptable for the GOP to not mention racist attacks on whites when they would certainly do so for racist attacks on other groups. (If for no other reason than that the liberal media would demand it). To the extent there is even anything implicit in my argument, I would argue that the GOP should certainly not defend the interests of people who actually vote Republican less energetically than they defend groups who do not.
Nor doe Avik make any argument for why the GOP should not energetically oppose the entire system of racial preferences that are not just unjust in a moral sense (which they are) but certainly particularly unjust to the GOP’s predominantly white voter base. Again, there’s a difference between opposing such things rhetorically, and being willing to wade into battle against them where you are willing to spent serious political capital to achieve victory. The GOP has shown no willingness to do so. I agree with Avik that the GOP shouldn’t focus its efforts on defending white communities. But they should stop making white communities the only ones they won’t defend.
In advocating that the GOP not abandon the legitimate interests of its white voters, the GOP does not cede any moral high ground. There maybe a lot of genuinely high-minded opposition to engaging in identity politics, but there’s plenty of “conservatism of convenience” there as well.
With respect to Jonah, I think he’s right that we don’t really disagree with all that much. And indeed, in reading his responses between the interrelationship between nationalism and patriotism, the importance of classical liberalism at the heart of conservatism and other issues I found myself nodding my head. But I would emphasize the following: If our purity extends so far that we refuse to defend the legitimate interests of our own voters in fear that in any way we could somehow suffer the taint of identity politics, then I think that is a bridge too far. In politics, people care about group identity, much as we might wish otherwise. While the GOP shouldn’t become the mirror image of the left’s malevolent racial conceptions, but nor should we be forced to fight the left with both hands tied behind our back. As William F. Buckley famously said, “Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”
Jonah writes that “Conservatism is about more than classical liberalism, but a conservatism that doesn’t conserve classical liberalism isn’t worth conserving” I agree with that 100% and Trump’s seeming disinterest in classical liberalism is one of the core reasons I can’t conjure up much enthusiasm for his candidacy. But I equally believe that no movement that calls itself conservative can simply sit there when the GOP’s white voters are targeted for racial violence,falsely smeared for racism, and discriminated against on everything from employment to university admissions solely because of the color of their skin. In the face of the lies and distortions of groups like Black Lives Matter, both justice and practical politics demands that the GOP offer a robust rebuttal to left’s perverse racial politics.
After Trump: Equal Justice, White Identity Politics, and the Battle for the GOP’s Future