In which I 'splain the game of intersectional top trumps

 I was going to "whitesplain" Islamophobia, "mansplain" misogyny and "straightsplain" (is this a word yet?) gay rights. But, for all the entertainment value of this, I suspect it would be more of an indulgence than a contribution to our understanding as to why the terms - which are simple tools used in argument to close down a debate by excluding someone - are a problem. "As a white man you can't..." is a common rhetorical gambit in social media (and increasingly in real live debate) and assumes that, in the matter of 'feelz', you cannot begin to understand the "lived experience" of the identity group in question unless you're from that group.

As writer James Bloodworth observes, this obsession with "language-policing and virtue-signalling, rather than purpose" represents the transformation of 'the left' into a hobby rather than a movement for social and economic change. We are also seeing, despite all the fact checking and talk of evidence-based policy, a time when feelings, empathy and emotions (or more accurately statements of these things - "I'm upset", "that is offensive", "you can't understand how...") dominate, all wrapped up into the idea of "lived experience". Instead of collecting data about the impact of single parenthood, analysing it and developing policy responses, we are encouraged to listen to stories and statements of feelings, to bow to the "lived experience" of those people.

There is a limit to all this and Bloodworth spots it:

Lived experience is clearly important, but it is not everything — as most middle-class Lefties are apt to remember when they encounter a white British person who doesn’t like immigration because of the social effects it has had on their hometown.

Here we have a classic example of how the idea of identity politics becomes a game of top trumps rather than a valid tool for sociological analysis. The poor, old white bloke nursing a pint in Wetherspoons while complaining about how "they" have spoiled his town is describing his lived experience with the same amount of emotion and story as the Somali kid over the road. We might call that bloke 'racist', 'gammon' or 'boomer' but does it make sense to include a man barely scraping by on a crappy pension in the idea of "white privilege"?

We see repeated examples of these intersectional conflicts - the Asian mums complaining about their kids being given sex education that talks about homosexuality, young white girls in care being given less priority than their non-white abusers and the whole crazy Trans vs TERF thing. Everywhere we look we see that this idea of identity as the driver of politics and policy crashing into the reality - black rappers sing homophobic lyrics, Asian taxi drivers make racist jokes about Africans, gay women say gender fluidity denies their identity as lesbians.

Policy-makers, like marketers, love a good typology, something that puts people into conveniently labelled little boxes. This makes the job a lot easier - the marketer can target by ACORN codes and the policy-maker can design policies for the contents - gay, straight, white, black, northern, coastal, old, young - of all their little boxes. Each policy has internal coherence and reflects the 'lived experience' of the particular box's contents but completely ignores that people are in multiple boxes and the policies responding to Box A may be a problem for the people in Box B and especially challenging for someone who is in both of these boxes.

So we turn it into a game of top trumps meaning that we give (usually for specious virtue-signalling reasons) greater priority to some boxes. All this means that somewhere there's a loser and, as we're coming to realise, the loser is probably that bloke with the pint in Wetherspoons. And while he's pretty sanguine most of the time, he really doesn't consider himself privileged. Nor, when he looks at his perfectly ordinary working class family, does he consider them privileged. Yet our game of top trumps means that the black daughter of a Nigerian millionaire who went to Roedean and Oxford then took a great job with an elite publishing company and lives in an awesome Chelsea flat is less privileged than a white man earning ten pounds an hour driving a fork-lift in a warehouse and living in a Wakefield council house.

We give more attention to whether a rich female TV presenter is paid more or less than a rich male TV presenter than we do to vulnerable white girls getting groomed, abused and raped. Government spent loads of time and money on a national enquiry into the gender pay gap accompanied by TV shows, discussions and horror stories of how a woman in media is only paid £400,000 while some bloke gets £600,000. We even got a new law. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for a full enquiry into why councils, health authorities and the police ignored the grooming, rape and abuse of vulnerable white girls.

I'm not sure where we end up with this approach to policy other than with that game of top trumps, a game that is won by people placing themselves in the most advantageous boxes. The contest for attention, cries of prejudice and wrong-doing, will be won by the articulate middle class not by more tongue-tied folk like that bloke with the pint in Wetherspoons. The debate will be about the careers of successful, university-educated people rather than how Tyler with two GCSEs and a criminal record gets into a world that isn't dominated by insecure jobs, petty crime, cheap lager and weed. Every now and again, a journalist will stray into Tyler's world (or the closely related world of our friend in Wetherspoons) and those smart, university-educated folk will be shocked for a minute or two before returning to more important things like the gender pay gap, why the media are horrid to Meghan and letting men use ladies loos.

.....

Older white men are wrong

OK it's Twitter which is not in the slightest bit representative of the real world (as my wife puts it about political twitter - at best it's one in ten, probably less, and not even a representative tenth either) but the manner in which debate is conducted long ceased to have much connection with the actual ideas, arguments or opinions that are presented. It's all about who (or what) you are...

I wrote a slightly polemical piece about veganism in response to the cavalcade of pro-vegan pieces in the media prompted by the barking mad ideas of the EAT-Lancet Commission. As ever, I'm happy with some kick back, with people pointing out flaws in my argument or presenting alternative evidence, research or opinion. But this is what I got:

The most interesting aspect to the vegetarian/vegan debate is the utter outrage by older white men towards a lifestyle that focuses on improving health and trying to reduce the suffering of animals.

The thing with this is that it shifts the argument away from what I wrote (vegan diets are unhealthy, don't really help the planet and animals will still die) and, instead, tells me I'm just an old white man motivated by some sort of spiteful anger at younger cooler folk who don't eat meat. What matters is my identity - older white man - not the content of my argument.

I guess (although I try not to get too tangled up in postmodernism) that this is a sort of "everything is about motive" argument - I would say that, I'm an older white bloke. We see the same with other debates - Diane Abbott suggesting it's racist to tell her she's wrong (albeit on this occasion she probably wasn't) or saying to researchers at free market think tanks that, in effect, they wouldn't write in support of those free markets if shadowy rich people weren't pulling their strings.

The "old white man"statement is most commonly used as a dismissal - 'look at this idiot, typical of gammons' - rather than in any way reflecting the argument. After all old white blokes come in a variety of forms and a multitude of opinions - Jeremy Corbyn is an older white bloke as is Michel Barnier and, of course, the billionaire funding the EAT-Lancet nonsense is another older white man. I'm not going to get into silly stuff about how gammon or "old white man" is racist (it probably is but it doesn't really matter) but the term is used with the aim of excluding a significant chunk of our population from being allowed to have an opinion. Old white man are wrong so we can be rude to them, dismiss them and make fun of them. And in doing so sideline any views of arguments they may hold that you don't like.

.....

Why the bullying mob of today's politics makes me pleased I'm retiring next year

Many readers will know I'm retiring from the council - from politics - in May next year. There are lots of reasons for this (the main one being my wife saying, when asked what she was doing today, "what part of retired don't you understand?"). But another reason is that, while politics has always been unpleasant - check out Gillray's cartoons if you think this a new thing - we are now in an age where the culture of the bully is triumphant. Most importantly, the target of the bullies is now the personal and private not the public and political. It's noteworthy that the very first response of the Labour Party to the Conservatives selecting Shaun Bailey, a working-class black Londoner, as their candidate for Mayor of London is to construct a personal attack - not about policies but a trawl through Twitter to find something, anything, that puts Bailey in a bad light. We can be sure that somewhere in Labour HQ (or City Hall) there's somebody tasked with digging dirt about Bailey - not just daft things he might have said but a trawl through the sewers looking for people who'll have some hard to dismiss story.

Looking over the pond at the recent US Senate hearings for Brett Kavanaugh we see the end game of this bullying culture. A process supposed to examine professional suitability, qualification and experience hijacked by a process of politically-driven character assassination. An assassination sweetly wrapped up in a candy coating of women's rights, "me too" and concerns about historic sexual abuse. It may be that I am a cynic but, while I understand why three decades ago, many accusations of sexual assault wouldn't get the serious response from the police they get today, I can't understand why the allegation was presented to a newspaper and a democratic member of congress not to an authority able to investigate, arrest and make charges?

It may be that all the accusations here are true (and please can we stop with the entirely faith-based "I believe the woman" nonsense) but it still reminds us that all of us - and especially politicians on the right - will be subject to this sort of bullying examination. I note the justifications from hangers on to the bullying mobs braying for blood - "structural oppression", "listening to victims", "privilege". Some of it - "privileged white men roaring themselves puce" - is almost poetic. But none of it hides the jarring reality that this is not about justice, indeed it is quite the opposite - justice is set aside because of who the target is (rich, right-wing, male). The very identity of the target is enough to justify ignoring the normal rules of decency and law - they are right wing therefore they are, in the eyes of the righteous mob, sinners to be destroyed - "In every restaurant, shop, office, corridor and street" as The Guardian's Caitlin Moran Tweeted echoing John McDonnell's call to violence:

He told the Unite the Resistance rally that elected Conservative MPs should be targeted because they are “social criminals”.

Mr McDonnell added: “I want to be in a situation where no Tory MP, no Tory or MP, no Coalition minister can travel anywhere in the country or show their face anywhere in public without being challenged by direct action.”

I wish my colleagues looking to fight elections against this sort of mob all the very best against people who propose strikes and violence if the public vote the wrong way and who believe that vile personal attacks are the way to conduct political debate. I look in awe as women like Kate Andrews rise above bigoted, unpleasant personal attacks and I wonder how long it will be before one of these baying mobs gets their way as some young right-wing politician kills themself. The unremitting negativity of the language, the personal attacks, the refusal to debate other than in terms of insult, the waving of identity rights as a way to close down debate - a putrid stew of nastiness designed to make it impossible for people to set out a case for conservatism.

If we want good people to go into politics, we've got to stop this grisly pantomime because right now all it leaves is triumphalist bullies waving the heads of defeated opponents on sticks. I know there's always been a gladiatorial element in politics but it was, most of the time, conducted on the basis of ideas, policies and debate not on shouting down, banning or closing off that debate while attacking the opponent on the basis of something they said after five pints when they were seventeen. Nobody survives that sort of attack and politics is made the worse for it, where once there was a sense that we served the folk who elect us there is now just a bear pit watched by that blood-speckled mob high on the pornography of violence.

And away from that pit there's another world, one of ordinary people bemused by the sheer unpleasantness of it all. For some it is simply reframed as another branch of the entertainment business but for many its why they think so little of politics and politicians - "they're all the same", "crooks", "only in it for themselves", "not interested in us". I've heard these comments all my life, my wife gets angry when people say them in my presence, and I know they don't apply to most politicians, especially local politicians, but the spectacle of character assassination, name-calling and personal attack, egged on by that mob, makes it easy to see why people say these things.

So, with apologies for the slightly ranting nature of this, I think you'll understand why I'm pleased I leave politics in a few months time. And to those conservatives still active or wanting to get involved - especially in national politics - stand up for what you believe, speak clearly, ignore the bullies and don't let the mob win.

....

It ain't broke, it just needs some love and attention: the case for more conservatism

I have heard it stated — and I confess with some surprise — as an article of Conservative opinion that paternal Government — that is to say, the use of the machinery of Government for the benefit of the people — is a thing in itself detestable and wicked. I am unable to subscribe to that doctrine, either politically or historically. I do not believe it to have been a doctrine of the Conservative party at any time. On the contrary, if you look back, even to the earlier years of the present century, you will find the opposite state of things; you will find the Conservative party struggling to confer benefits — perhaps ignorantly and unwisely, but still sincerely — through the instrumentality of the State, and resisted by a severe doctrinaire resistance from the professors of Liberal opinions. (Lord Salisbury, Speech to the United Club 15 July, 1891)

The central orthodoxy in European politics is that, while global markets can and do deliver improved lives for everyone, this only happens because of the benign guidance of non-market authorities, which most of the time means government. You can, I guess, call this the 'mixed economy' although this definition would be very different from the one I was taught in 'A' Level economics back in the 1970s. There is a dominant view that markets fail either by not providing for everyone or else through the money not 'trickling down' to the ordinary person (presumably because footballers keep their millions in a huge vault that they fill with golden bling).

Since this economic debate was conducted at the margins - on the basis of degrees of government or central bank interference in markets - the need for distinction in politics sought out other less economic and more social aspects of life. The only challenges to the economic orthodoxy came from the discredited Marxist left and a sort of grumpy old man tendency muttering how it was better when we actually made stuff. As a result the left/right distinction became more about what's now called 'identity' politics - in short the centre-right may have adopted centre-left economics but they're still racist, sexist pigs.

This was the reason for the decontamination that David Cameron commenced (prompted, in case we forget, by the 'nasty party' jibe from our current prime minister). Huskies and hoodies were hugged, ties were loosened, sleeves were rolled-up and Tories started talking about feelings. And it sort of worked as the party's leadership became less wooden, more urbane (and urban) and less obviously inspired by the golf club bore. The result of this was that the 'nasty party' attack could only attack marginal differences in tax rates, welfare policies and government fiscal strategy. In 2015, regardless of noises off, the Labour Party simply offered the same as the Tories but with a nicer paint job.

All of this is something of a roundabout way of saying that the issue with identity politics is that, as several people have observed, it created the strategy used by what's entertainingly and weirdly called the 'alt-right'. Spend five minutes with an open mind looking at 'alt-right' and 'neo-reactionary' comments and you'll see that it is based on grievance. It doesn't really matter whether the 'white working class' (I actually saw this made into the acronym WWC in a sociology journal) is justified in its grievances, they exist and are driving a political shift in politics. The noises say to the centre-right and centre-left - "look, you listen to black grievance, Muslim grievance, gay grievance, trans grievances - to a thousand different cries of pain about discrimination - when do white grievances get a hearing?"

The owners of identify politics - let's call them the 'cultural left' - respond to this voice with 'racist', 'xenophobe', 'mysogynist' (often with some justification) and accuse that voice of creating these feelings. And then stamp on anyone who suggests we might take a pause and look at whether what we're doing in social policy isn't bringing a lot of people with us or, indeed, making much sense. The centre-right, terrified by the return of nasty party allegations, rushes to line up behind the orthodoxy of identity politics with its 'protected characteristics' and strategies for 'inclusion' based on that Fabian mythology of group adherence.

This is the sort of myth-making that tells a black boy from Bradford's Buttershaw estate that he has more in common with a black youth in a Missouri suburb than with the white lads from the same estate. That somehow a false politics of demography matters more than a real economics of place. These myths mean that the white lads (not all of them, any more than it's all the black lads) look around for somewhere that gives them an identity, a group to join, a gang. Crypto-fascism - the "alt-right" provides just such an identity.

So long as this myth of identity - defined by manifest characteristics rather than the person - remains, we will see politics as a contest between identities, as a sort of equalities top trumps. Yet when we turn to the people who claim they study society, what we get is little different from the grievance-mongering that typifies more populist discourse. For sure it's mixed in with the left's favourite words - neoliberalism, capitalism, hegemony and so forth - but the thrust of modern sociology is entirely predicated on the idea of the group as society's building block. The students of society are no longer servants of human knowledge but campaigners promoting that same Fabian myth of identity - the progressive idea that we are defined by the groups we belong to, that we have little or no agency and that advertising, businesses and the media shape who we are.

The 'alt-right', the Trump campaign, UKIP, Marine Le Pen - these people aren't (as they claim) kicking out at identity politics but trying to sign the right up to that progressive myth of the group being more important than the person. And, in Fascism (proper Fascism not the left's preferred cartoon of Fascism), these people have a model - "everything within the state, nothing without the state" cried Benito Mussolini as he nationalised and protected industry, brought trade unions into government and championed the idea of a triumphant Italy. The central principles of Fascism - action not ideology and the corporate state - depend on the idea of society as a collection of groups not as a happy coincidence of individual interests.

If we want to combat this insidious repetition of early twentieth century progressive politics then we need more conservatives and more emphasis on the core ideas of conservatism in our examination of society. The idea of personal responsibility, the importance of family and community, and a belief in real voluntary action are the characteristics that define a response to crypto-fascism and the myth of progressivism. Sadly much official response to the racism and white supremicism of the 'alt-right' is to double down on multicultarism, to call for restrictions on speech or to try and get all those nasty voices safely banged up in jail. And this just won't work - just look at how doing this to Geert Wilders in Holland is fuelling his politics.

One criticism (especially from those who want the centre-right to be aggressive, interventionist or radical) of conservatism is that it's too accommodating, too malleable - 'Butkellism' they sneeringly called it, managed decline. But right now what's needed is to get the eggs to market unbroken rather than to get the eggs there quickly. Believing that sad little reactionaries with an internet connection represent an existential threat may inject a profound urgency to politics - especially if your progressive utopia seems shaky as a result - but a mature politics would see that the world isn't really threatened by a few folk with unpleasant ideas and snazzy flags. And the only mature politics on offer right now (at least in the form that meets the needs of the time) is conservatism meaning that, here in Britain, the Conservative Party needs to stick right with that idea, to keep it front of mind and not get sidetracked into protectionism, intervention and micromanaging the economy.

Voices from left and right try to tell us that the old model is dead - neoliberalism, globalisation, call it what you will. This argument is made without justification or much evidence and wider heads need to point out that this terrible policy platform has delivered rising wealth, increasing incomes and a billion fewer people in absolute poverty. The bus is in good order - what's needed is a little repair here and there, some fine tuning, a tweak or two, perhaps some bits of new upholstery and more polish, but it doesn't need a new engine or a new transmission. Doing this job is what conservatism does best - carefully adding small improvements while preserving the best of what's already there and recognising that people value, even love, the old tried-and-tested ways.

...

Quote of the day - on groupthink and identity politics

****

David Paxton writing in an online magazine, Quillette:

The reason I don’t have much optimism for my argument is that those under the spell of identity politics are not seeking to end the fallacious thinking that causes racism, sexism or any other such thing. They merely seek to adopt it themselves to affect power dynamics. Upon dividing people into groups they then seek to achieve equality of outcome across them without realising that if there is a problem of discrimination in society, the principle of grouping people in such ways tends to be the cause.

The whole article is an excellent challenge to the idea of groupthink - I've written about this before, pointing out that our modern idea of diversity depends on putting us into boxes, on allocating us to groups.

However, there is a fundamental objection to the idea of “diversity” as practiced and promoted – it depends on us being defined solely by the groups of which we are (by choice, by birth or by accident) a member – or worse still to which we are allocated by the merchants of diversity. Someone isn’t an individual – they are Afro-Caribbean, LGBT, over-50, working-class, disabled, Jewish – only given identity through the mediation of a group.

So “diversity” as we see it in practice is focused on there being diverse groups rather than diverse individuals. The reality of our thoughts, ideas, loves, prejudices, opinions and attitudes – real diversity – are as nothing beside the squeezing of everyone into a pre-determined set of boxes.

...