Culture wars at the heart of US identity
As midterms approach, Biden faces battles tied to questions of identity that can reshape US’S social fabric. But his differing approach to each of them highlights a larger liberal crisis, including in India
Joe Biden is in trouble. As the Democrats head to the midterms later this year, Joe Biden’s biggest political challenge is the economy. Spurred by a pandemic stimulus package, supply chain disruptions, a shift in consumer spending patterns, and the Ukraine war, record inflation threatens to undo Biden’s achievements on job creation.
With the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates, the economy is now headed for a slowdown, possibly even recession. Convincing Americans, who can feel the impact of rising prices every day at gas stations and in grocery stores, that they can trust him with the economy will be hard for Biden.
But Biden is fighting this political economy battle even as “culture wars” have intensified. These refer to an assortment of issues that go to the heart of American identity — abortion, guns, affirmative action, education, voting rights, criminal justice reform, the so-called “Great Replacement Theory”, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual (LGBTQIA+) rights, and immigration.
Take three of these issues and Biden’s contrasting approach — when he has chosen to fight, to remain tactically silent, and to retreat — illustrates the larger liberal predicament on when and how to fight the Right.
Abortion is back on the ballot with the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion of a majority in the Supreme Court that overturns the protections guaranteed under the landmark 1973 decision, Roe v Wade. If the final verdict resembles the leak, states will be empowered to pass legislation that either bans abortion or circumscribes it.
In response, Biden, a Catholic who opposed abortion in the past, has taken a strong stance against the possible verdict. He has framed the issue around the principles of reproductive rights and the right to privacy, and pushed an attempt in Congress to create a national framework to protect Roe v Wade. This legislative attempt failed, given the lack of numbers in the Senate for the Democrats to overcome the filibuster, but was seen as an important signal to voters.
Indeed, this is a rare culture issue where values and electoral interests converge for the Democrats, for opinion polls have shown that there is widespread public support for abortion. The Democrats hope that this will galvanise swing voters, particularly women, later in the midterms to turn out to vote against the Republicans. The Republicans, on the brink of a historic ideological and judicial victory, have been careful not to gloat yet, for they are aware that while this galvanises their base, it may erode their prospects in swing seats and among swing voters.
The second broad set of issues relates to education, both in terms of curriculum and inclusion. The Republicans have begun a campaign at the state level to portray the teaching of racism within the broad brush of “critical race theory”; this allows them to tap White anxieties about how the history of slavery and oppression is taught and, in an act of political chutzpah, paint Whites as the victims. Virginia governor, Glenn Youngkin, leveraged this issue in his successful campaign last year. This is coupled with an attack on pedagogy around sexuality, especially LGBTQIA+ identities and rights, with Florida governor Ron Desantis, a Republican presidential hopeful for 2024, leading the way in banning or restricting how this is taught. This allows the Republicans to paint the Democrats as “wokes’’ who are out to disrupt social and gender norms, which would break up families.
Then there is a concerted Republican push to characterise any attempt to push for greater inclusion of Black students in schools and colleges as being against “merit”. With this, the
Republicans hope to not just tap into White grievances but also strike a chord with other minority groups, especially Asian-americans, including Indian-americans, who see affirmative action for Black students as coming at a cost to their seats in educational institutions.
Seemingly aware of the GOP’S ability to turn these issues into electoral assets, Biden has, besides symbolic gestures, chosen largely to stay away from the education and history wars. Critics allege that this betrays ideological weakness. Supporters point out that the federal government, in any case, has limited authority to fight these battles, which are being waged in school boards across the country.
The third issue is criminal justice reform. In the wake of the Black Lives Matters movement in 2020, which exposed racist biases in police forces, the Democrats promised an ambitious road map to reform the criminal justice system. Some more radical segments of the party even began a “Defund the Police” campaign.
But over the past year, as crime has increased, Biden has distanced himself decisively from the radical wing of his party. In his State of the Union speech, he, in fact, spoke of the need to “Fund the Police”. The search for order spans across social groups, but the silence on criminal justice reform has alienated civil liberties activists. At the same time, a large segment of White Americans, fuelled by Republican rhetoric, continue to see Biden as “soft” on crime, allegedly because he is hostage to his voting base, in what is a not so subtle reinforcement of racist stereotypes.
These identity-related battles are a reminder, in some ways, of the predicament Indian liberals face when fighting the Right. What issues do you take up? What do you avoid, even at the cost of ideological compromise, to prevent an electoral backlash? Is there a risk of losing out on both the dominant communities — who think you are too “soft” on minorities — and minorities — who feel you haven’t gone far enough to raise their issues? As Biden’s experience shows, there is no easy answer, and each strategy — fighting, remaining silent, retreating — comes with its own risks.