Britain can still avoid America’s identity politics fate
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
If you were to ask any centrist commentator in Britain their favourite TV show, there is a very good chance they’d say The West Wing. The US drama series, based on a fictitious Democrat White House, first premiered a quarter of a century ago. The West Wing was significant in the phenomenon of “America-brain”, as swathes of the British ruling class began to believe they were no longer governing a monarchy of 65 million in North-West Europe, but were in fact enmeshed in the integral machinery of the grand American republic.
Soon US terminology and ideas crept in. Tony Blair tried to introduce the “separation of powers”, a concept alien to the UK constitution. John Prescott became a “running mate”, rather than a pugilistic man from Hull. Politics nerds stayed up all night watching the US midterms. You rarely hear of Americans performing similar feats for the local council elections; unless you count that surreal moment on EU referendum night when the actress Lindsay Lohan took a pop at Kettering for voting Leave. Since then, “America-brain” has become a defining feature of British political and intellectual discourse.
Symptoms include mapping US concerns and political dramas on to our own. One recent example was the repeal of Roe vs Wade, which inevitably led to House of Commons debates about reproductive rights, despite our vastly different legal stance, and public opinion, on abortion. After George Floyd’s murder, protesters took to the streets of London shouting “stop, don’t shoot” at police officers who’d probably never handled a gun in their lives.
Another trend is in the world of DEI – “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” – a concept rooted in the US affirmative action rulings of the 20th century, designed to widen access particularly for African-Americans to US institutions and colleges. Despite British race relations and migration history being substantially different to America’s, the DEI agenda has been imported wholesale into British institutions.
Channel 4 is currently engulfed in an internal row over diversity, following the appointment of five new members to its board; four white people and one black man. (Incidentally, one of the appointees judged to be insufficiently diverse happens to be Jewish. Clearly Jews do not count as ethnic minorities according to the perverse logic of identity politics). But the composition of new board members roughly resembles the ethnic make-up of the UK. Such outcomes should be unremarkable in a country that is 83 per cent white.
All the appointees appear impressive people with extensive CVs, but apparently this is no longer enough. In a leaked memo, Channel 4 chairman Sir Ian Cheshire complained that the appointments were not representative enough of the organisation. Presumably, Cheshire (a white male) will now have to sack himself.
This is not to say that organisations should ignore racial and gender diversity, but the idea that these should trump all other criteria may encourage myopia in other important areas, such as diversity of thought. Ironically, Channel 4 resisted plans to open more offices outside London, which would have enhanced regional diversity.
Some attempts to level the playing-field are triggering what appear to be explicitly discriminatory policies; as when the chief executive of Aviva admitted that she would personally sign off senior “non-diverse” hires. Note how all of this is about the superficial rather than the practical. Retroactive gerrymandering is easier than fixing problems that might have caused the initial lack of representation. Since the hard work of breaking down barriers to opportunity is too boring or complex, let’s go for some surface-level diversity in the boardroom instead.
In America, DEI has come under scrutiny following the resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay amid allegations of plagiarism. It was striking that those who attempted to defend Gay with the language of identitarianism didn’t get far. One headline described plagiarism as a “new conservative weapon” against colleges; the fact that this was roundly mocked suggests that people are beginning to tire of the excesses of DEI.
Appointing under-qualified individuals to high office in turn casts unwarranted doubt on talented employees who are there on merit. Among Gay’s most vociferous critics is Dr Carol Swain, a prominent African-American academic whose work she was accused of lifting. Swain has demanded “remedies” to restore meritocracy and intellectual inquiry at Harvard.
The US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down “affirmative action” admissions policies at colleges delivered another blow. DEI advocates tried to portray this move as a victory for white supremacy, even though the previous status quo constituted overt discrimination against some racial minorities in favour of others. The case was brought by an Asian-American student; a member of a high-achieving group that disproportionately suffered from diversity quotas.
Britain – mercifully – isn’t so far down the rabbit hole as America. Whereas Joe Biden openly admitted that Vice-President Kamala Harris at least partly owed her appointment to her DEI credentials, there isn’t that lingering suspicion that Rishi Sunak, Kemi Badenoch, Anas Sarwar and other successful UK politicians owe their positions to race. Long may it continue.
There are signs that the Americans may have reached the high water-mark of DEI. With luck the same is true in Britain.
