Disclaimer: The following article contains a LOT of bias.

In the new podcast episode that will be coming out shortly, one topic of discussion is identity politics and the criticism that it receives. The definition of “identity politics” according to Merriam-Webster is “politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.” In other words, when people vote based on social issues that benefit their personal identity, rather than the “greater good.”

Of course, there are people who discredit this kind of voting, just like there are people who discredit taking a stance based on emotion. I try not to subconsciously assign either point of view to just one party in my mind, but this seems to me like a way to simply brush off social issues that hold people of a certain identity’s lives at stake.

There are many different routes one could go while examining what identity politics means and what the contrary would be. I personally cannot take the criticism seriously, because it seems like a direct attack on LGBTQ+ folks who have an incentive to vote for liberal leaders instead of conservative, for their own rights. Simultaneously it attacks people of color who are incentivized to vote for a leader who condemns white supremacy (the bare minimum) and does not deny the existence of systemic racism. Thus, my train of thought goes straight to the concept of identity politics helping out liberals/leftists, and being more looked down on by conservatives/rightists. Ah, that’s why it is condemned so much.

Here’s the thing though: everybody uses identity politics. Even cis-het white men, who typically are not at risk from any new legislation, cannot be completely objective. They will always vote from the perspective of a cis-het white man. There’s really no use getting mad at marginalized people for thinking the same way, when their rights are potentially at risk if they vote a certain way.

This is something I talked about at length on my first podcast episode: voting for your own priorities is not inherently bad. Everyone can choose to care about the struggles that others face or not. I certainly call on everybody to be empathetic when they think about issues that do not necessarily impact them; that’s what I do and what I think is right. But I don’t necessarily believe in the ideology of voting as if you are somebody else, with less privilege perhaps. It is up to everyone to decide if their priorities include help and support for those of different identities. If empathy is taught as something to be applied everywhere, including the polls, I believe people won’t have to be told to vote as if they are somebody else.

I frankly think it’s odd that “identity politics” is even a phrase, because identity is such an important factor in politics for so many people. The existence of the phrase and its definition separate the consideration of one’s own identity from our system of politics, invalidating all votes that people cast to look out for their marginalized identity. As my friend Melissa pointed out on the podcast, it’s quite a display of privilege to not have to vote based on how you identify.

Those are all of my thoughts, spilled out here for you to read. Of course, everything I have written is completely opinionated, but I would love to hear what anyone else thinks about this! I am 100% open to other ways of thinking, but this has just been my collection of thoughts after taking the week to research and think about it. Thanks for reading this far!