The Washington Post‘s “identity politics” writer put out a piece this week (7/9/19) devoted to what Robert Johnson, the ultra-rich founder of Black Entertainment Television, thinks about the Democratic primary race. The piece leads off:
Few demographic groups are more faithful to the Democratic Party than black Americans. But one of the first black billionaires is suggesting that the party has moved so far to the left, it risks alienating them.
Reporter Eugene Scott acknowledges—and quotes people who affirm—that Johnson’s political views are completely out of step with most African-American voters, but apparently that’s not enough to convince Scott or his editors to change the framing (or existence) of the piece, which clearly illustrates a fundamental problem with the way the Post understands “identity politics.”
Citing “one of the first black billionaires,” a Washington Post column (7/9/19) suggests the Democratic Party “has moved so far to the left” that “it risks alienating” black voters.
Yes, Robert Johnson is black. Robert Johnson is also extremely wealthy; according to Forbes, he’s no longer a billionaire, but his wealth still puts him in a demographic that has entirely different economic views and interests than the vast majority of the African-American population.
For instance, he says he thinks the economy is “doing great,” and that he gives “the president a lot of credit for moving the economy in a positive direction that’s benefiting a large amount of Americans.” Meanwhile, polling shows that 90 percent of African-American voters think that economic conditions have not changed or have gotten worse, and that 85 percent of black people believe that “low wages that are not enough to sustain a family” are a “major problem,” with more respondents identifying it as the single-most pressing problem facing black communities than any other issue.
But it gets worse. In fact, Johnson himself doesn’t claim to speak for all black Americans—it’s the Post that reads his words that way. In the CNBC interview (7/9/19) the Post column is based on, Johnson makes it clear both that he is a “centrist” and that he’s speaking for himself: “The party in my opinion, for me personally, has moved too far left.” A few lines later in the interview, he talks about the Democratic candidates’ programs as “not resonating with the majority of the American people”—note the lack of a particular race attributed to those people. At no point does he reference the political opinions of African Americans as a group.
Though the Post includes the first quote above, it takes as its premise that Johnson is speaking for his race, soliciting responses to this premise that point out his outlier status in the African-American community. For instance, Adrianne Shropshire, the executive director of Black PAC, tells the paper:
Frankly, the policy positions of the current Democratic field of candidates are aligned with the issues and priorities of those [black] voters. So while Mr. Johnson may share the interests of millionaires and billionaires, he’s out of step with black voters.
Shropshire is exactly on point. Johnson’s identity is multifold, like everyone’s. He is both black and ultra-rich (among other things). But his views on political candidates clearly align more with the latter identity than the former. So in an “identity politics” column, why does the Post talk only about whether and how much he represents the black demographic, not the wealthy demographic? And, if the Post wants to talk about the black demographic, why frame its article around an outlier multi-millionaire, rather than the majority of the African-American electorate?
When the Black Futures Lab released its 2019 Black Census, based on the largest survey of black people in the United States since Reconstruction, do you know how many stories the Post ran on it? Zero—just like most major corporate outlets. Scott’s column is one of the only places in the Post that aims to center the views and interests of traditionally marginalized groups; it’s a shame to see that even there, the voices of the wealthy few can be so unthinkingly substituted for those of the struggling multitude.
Messages can be sent to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Featured image: Screenshot from CNBC interview (7/9/19) with Robert Johnson.
Identity politics is about immutable characteristics. “Multi millionaire” isn’t an immutable characteristic.
In Wikipedia’s below definition of ‘identity politics’, the aspect of ‘immutable’ / permanence doesn’t appear, and many of its examples are fluid/dynamic, they even mention ‘social class’ as one of their examples below.
“The term identity politics in common usage refers to a tendency of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics, or promote their particular interests without regard for interests of a larger political group.”
“Examples include identity politics based on age, religion, social class, culture, disability, education, ethnicity, language, sex, gender identity, occupation, race, sexual orientation, urban and rural habitation, and veteran status.”
Also to Eddie’s point, There really aren’t many immutable characteristics either. Just look at the concept of whiteness. It’s changed several times throughout the years. Gender is even more a fluid concept than race. As I see it, it would be harder to make a multi-millionaire working class, than it would be to make more or fewer people a different race.
Here are some quotes you should use WAPO:
F. Scott Fitzgerald: ” The rich are different than you or me.”
Hemingway: ” Yes, they have more money.”
Here’s a quote you can use, WAPO. : )
You FAIR folks are on a roll! OH YEAH!!!
Hear nothing see nothing and care about nothing because some will protest
About anything for any reason
This article seems to take the concept of “identity politics” as legitimate, which is debatable from the outset. Anyway, under any reasonable definition, “identity politics” is an alternative to “class politics” as a framework. Therefore, as the first commenter noted, this article is rather confused in conflating “identity politics” and “class politics”. The Wikipedia entry some cite in reply is basically nonsense. A better resource is Sharon Smith, “The Politics of Identity” (ISR, Issue 57, January–February 2008). As people like Walter Benn Michaels, Adolph Reed Jr., Sharon Smith, and others have been arguing for more than a decade, there is a necessity to choose either identity politics or class politics–they are mutually exclusive analytical frameworks. The anti-rich perspective is usually best described not as identity politics, but populism, by demonizing an “other”. This is straight out of Laclau/Mouffe.
“On one side, a class-based socialism wedded to the ‘communist hypothesis’ (Zizek); on the other, a less sectional left focused on popular identity rather than class interest (Laclau).” Anton Jäger, “On the Front Lines of the Populism Wars” (Jacobin, 6/8/18). Hollar seems to be a partisan here, promoting an ideology masquerading as a critique of ideology.
The publisher’s blurb for Domenico Losurdo’s book “Class Struggle: A Political and Philosophical History” (2016) says, “class struggle is often misunderstood as exclusively the struggle of the poor against the rich, of the humble against the powerful. It is an interpretation that is dear to populism, one that supposes a binary logic that closes its eyes to complexity and inclines towards the celebration of poverty as a place of moral excellence.” Hollar’s article seems to engage in this populist moral valorization of victimhood status (in this case, poverty).