You Say That I Am: Identity Politics

By: Ryan Harrington, Contributor

I am certain that each man I meet is more than just the sum of his parts. An individual is a unique patchwork of philosophies stitched together by delusion and laundered until faded by emotion. When God appeared to Moses through the burning bush, He introduced himself as “Yahweh,” which literally translates to: “I AM WHO I AM.” In the Jewish tradition, that name is too sacred even to say. Unlike God, I am not an eternal being of existence and can never achieve true purity. As humans, we live in uncertainty but emulate God when we claim responsibility for our beliefs and embody them fully. Individual authenticity is a moving target, but divine when achieved. 

Individuality is the enemy of the increasing radicalization of our political system. Throughout history, radicals have repeatedly purged moderates for the purification of their respective visions. On the right, fascist dictators like Hitler had the Röhm purge, Chiang Kai-Shek massacred Chinese communists and later, Mao ZeDong’s Communists purged party leaders for faltering in increased leftward radicalization. More recently, Trump censured Republicans in name only (RINOs) to solidify his political base.

In our recent election, the radical Republican prevailed over the centrist Democrat. Grappling with this loss, some Democrats argue the party must purify by shifting to the left. To radicalize, officials must purge the ‘Clinton Democrats,’ or moderates in the tradition of Clinton, Obama and Biden, then empower socialist thinkers like Greg Casar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. The result would be a factionless party, but let him among us who is without sin cast the first stone.

Any leader who looks for those who do not think exactly as he does will inevitably find them because it is impossible for two people to think entirely alike. The Republican party operates more unilaterally and therefore does not need to engage in academic debate before adopting a new position. They only need to hear the voice of one loud man. This creates an adaptable party but not a thoughtfully diverse one. The division of the Democratic Party prevents sectarian fanaticism from taking root, which is the fruit of unchecked radicalization.

Radicalization is not negative, nor is centrism positive by virtue of appealing to the middle; instead, both play an equal role in our political system. Radicals prevent moderates from becoming unproductive. Moderates prevent radicals from becoming fanatics. Radicals create philosophy and moderates reform it through pragmatic solutions. Where the end goals are the same, both should belong to one party; diverse unity is positive. We strengthen our positions when required to defend them.

I am not bound by the unfounded assumption that moderates are inherently wishy-washy. A man may be wholly committed to individual causes that exist outside a political binary. We presume anyone who does not fit into a binary is unmotivated in an effort to force conformity. I am not lukewarm; I am inflamed with the causes that appease my own conscience.

I am not fully one thing; no man can be fully one thing without ceasing to be himself. Humans exist in complex shades of gray. Even the most devout man agrees completely with another only if he has been brainwashed. Existentialists argue that existence comes before essence; therefore, humans are not cut from whole cloth but gradually stitched together by conflicting threads of experience. To reject your dimensional essence for societal expectations is to live in bad faith.

I am many things but I am first and foremost myself. We constantly distill people to a projection of reality. As a Gay Catholic, people assume I am delusional, but I am unwilling to relinquish either. Homosexuality does not negate belief in divinity; it is completely unrelated. Do not assume that I am an atheist because of my sexuality. There are no categorical humans. I think as I do because I support human flourishing, not because of my sexuality. Leftists will argue I am not progressive enough without pausing to consider that using the word ‘enough’ implies some arbitrary metric. At the end of the day, ‘progressive enough’ will always be exactly as progressive as the maker of the claim. As often as a Christian condemns me for my sexuality, an open-minded gay person condemns me for my religion. Both notions are reductionist efforts to enforce conformity. In the argument, the enforcer finds a common enemy and warns that I will become said enemy unless I adopt his ideology wholesale. This is a false binary.

Any person who tells another that he is not “enough” is a failure of human experience. We are called to love but we cannot love in part and must love in whole.

I am a contradiction; to be human is to be so. Only God has the divine distinction of being the “Great I AM,” but we have the free will to discern our own identities. In that discernment, we must not be bogged down by someone else’s unattainable standards. I cannot allow others to dictate what I truly believe, will believe or must believe. When someone asks me what I am, I may not know what to tell them, but I know that the choice is mine and mine alone.