Sorry.  It’s rolling around in my head and I have to get it out.

I have a deep aversion to identity politics, and not simply because I am politically conservative.

One of the more provoking aspects of human nature is our tendency to judge books by covers.  Every one of us does it daily, being limited as we are by our five senses.  Though it is a natural tendency, it is a decided human failing, an outgrowth of our innate lack of wisdom—foolishness, to put it bluntly.  It is an inclination we should resist with all our might and main.

Long ago, God told Samuel, who was seeking a new king for Israel from among the sons of Jesse:  “The LORD does not look at the things man looks at.  Man looks at the outward appearance but the LORD looks at the heart.”  Here is true wisdom.

Our way of sizing people up is not God’s way.  We assess people by their looks, their bearing, their abilities or disabilities, their skin color, their last name, their sex, their age, the clothes they wear, the stuff they have.  But none of these surface traits is the source of our humanity.  What makes us human is the imago Dei:  the image of God every one of us uniquely bears.

One way in which we image our creator is by our conscience.  We display a profound sense of right and wrong, an innate ability to recognize injustice—a moral sensibility.  Each individual has a guide hardwired into him for making decisions that direct the course of his life.  In America, conscience is given specific protections under the law:  freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, etc.

The trouble with identity politics is that it would sub-group people on the basis of superficial traits and only then will it seek justice for specific instances of oppression against a specific group.  Sometimes the oppression has been real (segregation).  Sometimes it is perceived (Hirshman essay).

Difficulties arise when an individual, for reasons of conscience, either does not perceive himself to be a victim of oppression, does not believe the proposed means for ending oppression are good, or flatly does not care to be grouped against his will on the basis of traits over which he has little or no control.

When that individual resists “groupthink,” he or she is often subjected to intense pressure or ridicule.  Identity politics often result in mockery like this.  Of course, these are public figures and ridicule is often par for the course for them.  But that the very people who engage in this behavior would claim in other contexts to be working for causes that promote tolerance and justice demonstrates so clearly the blindness and foolishness that plague human nature.  Despite stated ideals, they are judging others on the basis of superficialities, rather than on the core of their humanity (which is, after all, the one thing we have in common). 

For private individuals, standing up under pressure to conform from colleagues, peers, and/or family takes considerable courage and toughness of mind.  How many of us have been criticized for homeschooling in a country where the cultural norm now is to institutionalize children at very young ages?  Many of you have felt this pressure even from family members.  Those who forged the way for us know quite well what it’s like to have the courage of one’s convictions--and not much else in the way of support.

Let me simply ask this.  Historically, when has suppression of individual conscience ever led to freedom?  Identity politics is hampered by its failure to root human rights where they properly belong:  in the essential humanity, the unseen core of personhood, the imago Dei (as I would put it) within each human being. 

Consider Hirshman’s essay.  If you skim through it again, you will get a distinct sense of the obligation she would impose on women, especially those who are privileged.  Their first obligation is not to God, nor conscience, nor even their families—but to other women.  Loyalty to the group i.d. trumps all other allegiances.  Explain to me how this leads to freedom, justice, and the American way?  It doesn’t, of course.  Its logical outcome is tyranny.  Hirshman would clearly do all the thinking and choosing for us, had she but the power.  (Her powers of persuasion being limited by the blessed common sense of her readers.)

Every instance of oppression in our society, past or present, can be addressed and remedied under our good Constitution if it is simply applied impartially.  There is no need to appeal to a group identity when addressing matters that pertain to human rights.  Why else is justice depicted wearing a blindfold?

Impartiality is not a uniquely American ideal, either.  It arises from the created order and displays itself in our consciences in that we can easily identify partiality (especially when we fall victim to it ourselves).  Examine the following verses just for starters:  Exodus 23:3; Leviticus 19:15; Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; 1 Timothy 5:21; James 2:1, 9.  Justice must be blind not only to privilege, beauty and wealth, but also poverty, disadvantages, and ungainliness.  To be truly just, the law must apply the same standard to everyone, regardless of appearance or station in life.

If you are a human being and a citizen of this nation, the guarantees of the Constitution apply to you.  It can indeed be a struggle at times to lay hold of them, but the struggle should be engaged, not for your own sake, nor for the sake of those just like you, but for the sake of all humanity.  A cause which does not benefit humanity as a whole, but would only confer special privileges on a single group, is not deserving of effort.

As homeschooling families, we recognize that reaffirming our basic Constitutional rights (freedom of conscience in the form of speech, religion and peaceable assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.) limits the likelihood of unwarranted state intrusion into the home for everyone, not only for us.  What we do benefits the cause of freedom worldwide, for this movement is even spreading overseas where our Constitution does not reach.  We are not concerned only with the interests of homeschoolers, but with the ideals of freedom and how they apply to everyone.  We don’t ask for special privileges or reparations, but only for the basic inalienable rights we are guaranteed as human beings. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop a man from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”  He was touching on the basic truth that the law must be applied impartially in order for everyone’s rights to be properly recognized.  When the law protects my neighbor, it is also protecting me and vice versa.  He also said, "The good neighbor looks beyond the external accidents and discerns those inner qualities that make all men human and, therefore, brothers."  Amen.

I believe that’s what the original suffragettes were after too; not just for themselves but for their fellow humans.  But feminism later morphed into the revolutionary mode—deeming fatherhood patriarchal, freeing women from the “injustices” of housework, fueling power struggles between male and female, demanding special privilege to the detriment of others (the right to kill their own unborn children at whim, at any point, no questions asked).

So, that’s why I’m not a feminist.  Feminists like Ms. Hirshman engage in the lowest, most freedom-endangering form of identity politics, in my assessment. 

And if I haven't gotten it all out by now, well, too bad for me!  LOL!