If someone’s political stance is something like, “We should move to a VAT tax system like the U.K.”, I will be happy to entertain conversation with them. If their stance is something like, “We should ban trans people.” then they can fuck all the way off.
You know the old saying: “Don’t judge a book by its contents.”
Once upon a time, there were liberals and conservatives whose most significant differences were things like how much of the national budget we should allocate to defence. We’ve become much more polarized, and now we have a party that openly supports racism, has literally staged a failed coup, has aligned with fascist dictators, and wants to strip the rights from many of our friends and family. Yeah, judging them is the right thing to do.
Yes and no. Even in living memory, the Southern Strategy goes all the way back to the 60s, and explicitly identifies opposition to the civil rights movement as a conservative goal. Going all the way back to the Civil War, it’s undeniable how much the economy of the United States is built on slavery — opposing slavery is thus also an economic argument.
Point being, I don’t think there was some time in the past where economic policy could be so cleanly separated from racial justice, gender equality, queer rights, disability advocacy, and other things that are now seen as “polarizing.” Every economic debate is, I would posit, at least to some significant degree a proxy for a much more critical human rights debate.
'You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” ’ - Republican strategist Lee Atwater.
As you say, it’s never been possible to cleanly separate economics and social justice, as if there is somehow no moral dimension to how and where we choose to allocate our resources. Sometimes these things are straight up dogwhistles for more overtly prejudiced acts, and sometimes they reflect deeper and more subtle biases about the world. But there is always a moral dimension to everything we do.
This is because politics isn’t identity, or at least it fuckin’ shouldn’t be. A person can change their political stances if they decide to. I’d go so far as to say that’s the point of judging people on the basis of their politics; the hope that it might get them to think about the consequences of their stances just a little bit.
That’s true. But when I encounter someone who ignores all rational arguments and instead continually clings to racist nonsense and the like, I can’t help but judge this person as a racist with whom I want nothing to do with. Politics thrives on discussion and the exchange of arguments. In my eyes, anyone who doesn’t want to see that has no right to be taken seriously.
“You should only judge people for sensible things like race and gender… and being left of “Race War Now!” as that’s a little cringe, the Left wants to claim they’re so tolerant, but they judge for something as petty as political affiliation…” - Average Nazi
