Recently, I have joined two communities: one which is very conservative and another which is very liberal. In both, I was vetted—the gatekeepers wanted to know more about what I may or may not bring to the table; however, only in the conservative space was the vetting process clearly identified as vetting. When asked in this space about my politics, I was pleased by the directness. And here is roughly what I said…
I believe all people, regardless of class, race/ethnicity, sexuality, religion, citizenship, physical/mental capacity, or language usage should have access and rights to be fully human. I believe in the power of the collective to help build a world where all can be fully human and where the collective helps people who individually cannot help themselves. Finally, I believe in individual and fiscal responsibility and believe in the fundamental commitment to act out personal values in a way that is truthful and courageous (taking ownership when gaps are identified between what is said versus what is done).
I was aware that my response was lengthier than what may have been desired. I felt as though I was expected to choose a single word descriptor…to succinctly say that I was either a liberal or a conservative… or maybe even a moderate. But while these neat and tidy words can usher in a political schema that says a whole lot while saying only a little, I found that they did not wholly represent the fullness of my beliefs.
I have been in formal spaces with conservatives and liberals and have never felt completely in sync. When I am around conservatives, I find myself enjoying conversations around fundamental (not to be mistaken with traditional) values but am bewildered when those values don’t translate to compassion for the “least of these.” When I am around liberals, I love talking about the inherent right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but find myself agitated when these conversations show little to no regard for the practical demands (financially, politically, and socially) in which these ideals require.
So in the end, we settled on calling me a moderate. Knowing that I don’t operate on either ends of the spectrum, I allowed it. But deep in my heart, I wasn’t sold on this single word descriptor.
The Cultural Challenges of the Political Construct
Dr. Melissa Harris Perry, in her role as a professor—not her role as a cable news personality, talked about the difficulty of labeling African Americans as conservative or liberal. She has said that the defining of conservatism and liberalism has not held the tenets of the black political experience and therefore does not allow for an easy political designation. According to research, Harris Perry says African Americans are perceived to be politically confused not because there is confusion but because their politics do not succinctly match the boxes that are available.
In one of her writings at the Nation, Dr. Harris Perry offers an example of the challenges associated with the African American political experience. In this particular piece, she writes about the discussion of racism and the political actors that are allowed to engage. She recycles a point from Jamelle Bouie when she states that race-talk is an “intellectual exercise” between whites that restricts African Americans to being objects as opposed to having viable voices as subjects.
Nowhere is this point about the de-legitimization of black political voices more clear than in the intellectual discourse surrounding race. Of course the right slams people like Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jessie Jackson, and Reverend Dr. Michael Eric Dyson. But interestingly enough, the left slams people like Dr. Ben Carson, Herman Cain and even Don Lemon. Of course, African Americans are not the only ones harassed for offering a differing opinion than what is desired. It can also be argued that women have also been left out of the liberal and conservative construct (which is precisely why I don’t participate in conversations that are aimed at publically shaming Sarah Palin, even when I am at odds with her views). But if you look at arguments surrounding the voices listed above, they don’t just challenge the points offered by these political actors. They challenge the bodies of those voices as though having a black body is a liability in the conversation as opposed to being an asset. It is this racialization, the fixation on the body of the person as opposed to the body of his/her message, that restricts African Americans from being recognized as viable political agents. It denotes an illegitimacy based on an unspoken rule—a cultural expectation that subjectifies some while objectifying others.
It is this monocultural subjectivity that weakens the conservative and liberal construct. WhenLewis et al. talked about monoculturalism, they reveal a dangerous pattern of imposing a subjective reality of one onto another. Through monoculturalism, right and wrong are universal, as understood through a single culture, and all things are filtered accordingly. And, through monoculturalism, any difference or deviation from this blind and pervasive single-consciousness is understood and accepted as a deficit. So, when African Americans are unable to align their thinking to fit into the neat and tidy, yet monocultural, schema of liberal and conservative, they are deemed confused, uninformed, or apathetic. And while this political reductionism is not limited to African Americans, it does provide a viable lens to critique the framework and start making room for one that is more ideologically inclusive and dynamic.
Conclusion and Considerations
Is it possible to efficiently yet effectively define our political beliefs? Is there a single word that can truly represent what we hold to be true and important? And, do these single word constructs honestly represent the political experiences of all people?
These are the questions in which we should consider as we think through our own political identities. We need to understand that the political and cultural context of knowledge is contested and repeatedly yields to the same victor…to those with the resources to create the rules. We need to recognize that while we are shaping, framing and proclaiming our political identities, we are using constructs within our reach yet not necessarily within our control.
At the end of the day, I identify as a pragmatic-progressive. Until this description is published, I guess it could be argued that I am a moderate. But my middle of the road position doesn’t mean that I sometimes identify with the left and then I sometimes identify with the right. For me, my moderate position means that I want each and every American to protect and advance our democracy. And using my body as an asset, not a liability, I understand and am committed to the real work in which we must contend.