No more fighting the idea?

The result of the U.S. presidential election cannot be very surprising. Not only did a careful analysis of the polls let to foretell Donald Trump's win in all 7 fluctuating states – the trend of the last 4 weeks was nevertheless very clear, the average state polls were increasingly favorable to the Republican, and individual studies showing Kamala Harris's win increasingly uncommon and little impressive. The erstwhile President's triumph was besides programmed due to the fact that this run was possibly the first in which identity policy had achieved its eventual triumph, although surely not what the left-wing acushers wanted.

The US has been setting trends in Western democratic politics for over half a century, both in political and socio-cultural terms. So they are subject to an highly thorough analysis and a vivid interest not only due to the power of the country and the size of the planet power of the head of this state, but besides as a determinant of the political future in another countries of our civilisation. In this context, the 2024 elections are peculiarly interesting, possibly groundbreaking. It seems that in a way no longer marginally present somewhere in the niches of the political clash, but in a mass way their consequence was born not in the fight of ideas, but in the fight of identity.

The ideas and, which are their concreteization, political programs have lost their importance in American realities with expanding polarization. This was due to the encroachment of both political camps that the phenomenon of two-party compromises, so essential in the complex political strategy of the United States, gradually disappeared. Since the president seldom had a majority in both chambers of legislature (about controlling 60 legislature mandates, only allowing full legislative freedom, not to mention), the agenda of subsequent presidents could only forge through the acquisition of variable coalitions in Congress, in which any politicians from the organization participated to the formally other president. The presidential organization gave compromises an ideological and programme tone, but they were softened by the demands of the another party. It was the price of anything moving forward.

With the polarisation came the almost complete blockade of any two-party initiative, which already since Barack's second word Obama was fundamentally the fresh reality of Washington's political life. Government began to limit itself to regulations. The programs ceased to play any function as doomed to impracticability, ideas ceased to make sense as “beautiful stories” justifying programs, and were forced into the service of building identities in which they were blurry, lost and analyzed to the ground. They stopped voting to change things in the country and began voting to attest to their individual identity.

So over the last 10 years 2 leading identities have been forged, assigned to both parties. The notions of “conservative” and “liberal” cannot be utilized against them anymore. These ideas in the classical sense of American politics are no longer present. 1 died erstwhile the right decided to reject the thought of free market, free trade, globalisation and the perfect geopolitical mission of America as an empire of freedom. The second was obscured erstwhile the thought of freedom of speech and equality towards the law obscured the notion of making the scope of public rights dependent on ethnic, racial, sexual and sexual recognition of the citizen.

Today in America, therefore, there is no more conservatism and liberalism, and 2 identities embedded in factors of origin, which are completely independent of the free choice of the political entity, which is the citizen. It is little and little possible to choose your views. They are assigned to people automatically.

However, the political problem here is besides that these identities are not symmetrical towards each other. 1 of them is simply a single and majority identity, referring to the long-lost signatures of belonging, and in addition mobilized as never before by the fear of the challenge posed by the another side, the fear that it might pass away. The second identity is not, in fact, 1 identity, but a mosaic of many different number identities, which brings together only a sense of harm and discrimination committed by the majority. It is simply a loose and fleeting "coalition" in which conflicts of interests are to be sown easy and to which it suffices to exploit the moral conservatism and Catholic bonds of Latin men to show them that they have no fellowship with non-binar activists of the Z generation or with black feminists.

As a result, we have 1 identity that is configured as a tool to facilitate winning elections and the other, which represents at least a handicap in the election situation, if not a simple ballast. It's amazing how the American centre has mocked the case by standing on the threshold of its eventual perfect triumph. After all, despite Bush's accidental 2000 presidency, cultural changes have been conducive to her all step of the way since the 1990s. Liberalism won with conservatism on almost all front. Opposition to the right to abortion bore the face of crazy preachers from churches to “reborn again in Christ” who, by touching their hands, put believers in convulses in exchange for the hail of dollar bills. Support for LGBT couples and marriages in a fewer years gained a immense social majority, and the right already asked not to force pastry makers to make cakes with 2 gentlemen figures on top. Racism, a minute earlier almost ubiquitous, was mostly driven out of authoritative and professional life by the approach "I can't see colors". Individual states stopped punishing for having a tiny amount of marijuana, and any even producing it, but it's against national law.

And then the liberal centreland, alternatively of consummating its cultural and ideological advantage, alternatively of establishing a situation in which 3 out of 4 word in the White home will sit politician (and increasingly Democrat), and in the remaining centreline Republican underdogs in the McCain or Huntsman style, decided to let the pendulum to tilt the another way. She gave the extremist left field, which invented respective ideological “inventions” that discouraged these social changes already agreed with them centreright.

Feminists of 1 generation attacked feminists of another generation for besides small radicalism and accused them of fighting for white women's rights being racism. Then another feminists decided that fighting for the rights of middle-class black women was classy. This dispute was joined by feminists representing non-binar, queer and biological non-women identifying themselves as women and calling all another "terfs", which – rather different – gained an advantage in the left-wing bubble of debate. It turned out that the activist's right to the pronoun "bunna" is more crucial than a middle-class woman's right to equal pay for equal work or maternity leave!

Equal rights for all races and cultural backgrounds based on “blindness” on the colour of the skin were considered to be just as bad as discrimination due to skin color. It turned out that the removal of racism requires emphasis and emphasis on the racial origin of a individual at all turn and not so much equal rights as the privileged treatment of non-white people (i.e., simply, discrimination against white people). All whites were considered descendants of colonials, slave traders, and segregationists, so it was established that they had the blame taken against society and had to make up for it, apologizing for the colour they were born with all step of the way. all white man was considered a racist by birth, unless he actively fights racism from a lowly position. This is called “critical race theory”.

With respect to the public debate, it was recognised that white people, men, heterosexuals, believers Christians and Jews, full-fledged, binars, overweight and middle-aged people have no right to talk on many of the issues discussed. They were excluded from “safe spaces”, included “no-platform” and those protesters were treated with “cancel culture”. This is how the "woke culture" dictated. The same view, expressed by a typical of an cultural minority, was applauded and in the mouth of a white individual was the origin of condemnation. It was begun to remove from public space for views, to exclude the anticipation of discussing any issues due to the anticipation of “anxious” the reader or the listener, to censor books, to change the content of books written a 100 years ago to “become little disturbing to the modern generation”, to usage racial parities and related gender-sexual identity in cinema and television. The erotic scenes on the screen became more acceptable if they were homosexual, and the photographs of acts, if the model was obese or elderly.

In a word, due to the activity of the far left, the social majority changed their head and felt that the liberals at the centre had deceived her, fighting for equal rights for previously discriminated groups. It has been reasonably widely recognised that, after obtaining equal rights, minorities not only request more (i.e. privileges), but identify themselves with the usual absurd, nonsense and derogatory intelligence demands. Racism is becoming little and little ashamed, as are machoism, patriarchism and transphobia. 1 more minute, and the homophobia will come back to fashion.

Donald Trump is not a conservative, but in an almost perfect way he has entered into the endangered, tired and annoyed identity of the white majority of Americans. Moreover, he besides pointed to the device of maintaining the electoral advantage by this side in the span of respective decades, erstwhile whites cease to be a majority. Simply, the communicative suicide of "woke", "intersecration", "critical race theory" and the x-th wave of feminism" become the tools for joining the right-wing side of subsequent non-white groups, for the beginning of male Hispanics, but it's most likely just the beginning.

If the Democrats want to halt this march towards a long-standing political defeat, they must reconstruct the situation from the 1920s (plus-minus) 1993-2013. They request to go back to the center, cut off from the far left niches and clearly show that anti-freedom demands actually represent the same threat to the imagination of "American" as maccartism, only a rebours. They must discredit and break down these groups, even at the price of 1 or 2 more electoral failures (social processes must continue). Ultimately, Democrats must stand for election as 1 of 2 parties on equal footing sustaining Americanness in its classical edition. As a organization of liberal America, the guardian of her free spirit. Only then will there be space to show the public that the utmost right-wingness of the MAGA is, contrary to appearances, mentally close to the ideology of the woke. Instilling specified a thought in the minds of millions of people will break down the current patterns of racial-sexual identity, re-establish Republicans in the defence and reconstruct political dispute over ideas within the common or defiled nature of a multicultural American identity society.

Photo by Wikimedia Commons