Identity Politics: Why Conservatives Dislike It, Why Progressives Defend It

Conservatives don’t like “identity politics.” The late John Silber, longtime president of Boston University and a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s, was like that. When he ran for governor, Silber preferred to issue general position papers. His philosophy was straightforward: if you agreed with his views on taxes, education, transportation, or foreign policy, you should support him — no matter what your race, gender, or sexual orientation. The problem was that various groups wanted him to address their specific concerns. Black voters wanted to know his stance on policing and housing. Women wanted to know his positions on childcare and pay equity. LGBTQ+ groups wanted clarity on civil rights protections. Silber eventually relented, because it became clear that ignoring identity-based concerns was politically impossible.

In a diverse democracy, identity politics is unavoidable. If you look at Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law, it is clear that identity — in this case, being Black — determined where you could live, what schools you could attend, and what jobs you could get. Housing covenants barred Black families from certain neighborhoods; Jim Crow laws enforced segregation; miscegenation laws controlled who you could marry; and poll taxes and literacy tests restricted voting. Similar patterns held true for women, who for centuries could not own property independently or vote. Identity wasn’t incidental — it was the axis of injustice. In that sense, identity politics is not a luxury or a fad; it is a necessity for advocacy. It is the language by which marginalized groups have organized to demand rights denied to them.

Still, conservatives and progressives disagree sharply about its value. Conservatives argue that it fragments society, undermines merit, and fosters grievance. Progressives argue that it corrects historic exclusion and is essential to genuine equality. To understand why, we need to look at their reasoning across several dimensions: philosophical, practical, cultural, and historical.

Philosophical Differences

Conservatives emphasize the individual as the basic unit of society. They worry that organizing people primarily by race, gender, or sexuality undermines personal responsibility, merit, and shared citizenship. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said — in a line conservatives often cite — people should be judged “by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.” Conservatives also favor universal rights and equality under the law, fearing that identity-based claims fragment society into competing groups.

Progressives, in contrast, argue that “colorblind” individualism ignores structural inequality. Even if laws proclaim equality, systemic barriers still exist. For example, Black defendants are sentenced more harshly than white defendants for the same crimes, and women continue to face pay gaps across industries. Ignoring identity means ignoring how injustice operates. Progressives also argue that representation matters: institutions designed without input from marginalized groups often fail to address their needs.

The concept of intersectionality, introduced by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, further refines this view. It holds that systems of oppression are interconnected — a Black woman, for instance, may experience discrimination differently than a white woman or a Black man because her race and gender interact. From this perspective, addressing inequality requires understanding how identities overlap, not treating them as separate categories.

Practical and Political Concerns

Conservatives argue that identity politics fosters “us vs. them” thinking, hardening divisions rather than healing them. They fear it encourages a culture of victimhood, in which people define themselves by oppression rather than resilience. Policies like affirmative action or diversity initiatives, they argue, unfairly privilege some groups at the expense of others and contradict the principle of equal treatment under the law. Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), reflect this concern by rejecting race-conscious admissions policies in the name of formal equality.

Progressives see it differently. They argue that identity politics is a corrective. For centuries, politics centered almost exclusively on white, male, heterosexual perspectives. Naming marginalized identities helps rebalance the conversation. Progressives also stress that marginalized groups must organize around their identities to protect their rights. The women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights Movement, and LGBTQ+ rights campaigns succeeded precisely because people united on the basis of shared identity.

In contemporary politics, this plays out through debates over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Conservatives often see these programs as ideological overreach or bureaucratic intrusion. Progressives see them as imperfect but necessary tools to ensure that workplaces and universities reflect the full diversity of the nation.

Cultural Concerns

Conservatives believe meritocracy should guide society. They oppose quotas or preferences that, in their view, replace individual skill and effort with group entitlements. They also worry that subgroup loyalty weakens national identity and patriotism. Free speech is another concern: conservatives argue that identity politics can lead to “cancel culture” and policing of language, limiting open debate.

Progressives counter that true meritocracy is impossible without equity. If some groups start far behind due to poverty or discrimination, then “merit” simply reflects existing inequalities. For them, identity-conscious policies help level the playing field. Rather than fragmenting the nation, progressives see identity politics as enriching it by acknowledging the contributions of all groups. On free speech, they argue identity politics promotes accountability: challenging speech that normalizes prejudice is not censorship but responsibility.

Historical Context

Conservatives often argue that the Civil Rights Movement’s ultimate goal was a colorblind society. Identity politics, by emphasizing categories of race or gender, seems to them like a step backwards. They also note that older liberalism focused on universal class and economic issues, while modern progressivism is narrower and more fragmented.

Progressives respond that civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. did not simply preach colorblindness. They highlighted systemic racism and economic injustice. Modern identity politics, progressives argue, continues rather than betrays this legacy. They also argue that universalist liberalism was never truly universal: women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people were excluded. Naming identity is necessary to make equality real.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Conclusion

Identity politics is not easily dismissed or embraced wholesale. For conservatives, it undermines universal principles, meritocracy, and shared identity. For progressives, it is essential to address systemic inequality and ensure marginalized voices are heard. Both perspectives raise legitimate concerns: conservatives about division, progressives about invisibility.

But John Silber’s gubernatorial campaign shows the reality: identity politics is unavoidable. Groups will always demand that their particular experiences be addressed. And history shows why. From The Color of Law, documenting housing discrimination, to women’s long struggle for property and voting rights, to the fight for marriage equality, identity has always been the axis of both exclusion and empowerment. The 2023 debates over affirmative action and DEI show that this tension persists.