Reflection on Dr. Adolph Reed's Gun Violence and Black Lives Matter

I assume that most other people who attended were disappointed by Reed's lack of explicit focus on gun violence and the Black Lives Matter movement. For certain, either he didn't clearly connect the pieces for his audience, or the organizers and promoters of the event didn't didn't clearly communicate the intention of the address. Nevertheless, Reed's broader discussion about the current composition of American political discourse and organization was beneficial if we can see through his theoretical observations to the practical implications that he didn't quite flesh out clearly (despite his obtuse attempts to respond to dissatisfied comments). As it relates to both the broader challenge of peace in international society and the contentiousness of the current political climate, Reed offers two important theoretical observations: first, the distinction between a political coalition and a political alliance especially with regard to the formulation of party platforms; second, the connotation of "class" as a cultural identifier rather than a referent to political economy in post-World War II American politics. Lastly, we can build on these points, and further develop the irreconcilable ideological entrenchment that takes root in this environment and leads to what seems unresolvable conflict.

Reed foregrounded the distinction between a political coalition and an alliance. A coalition is formed on an ad hoc basis by different interest groups who come together to support a shared goal. Distinguished from a coalition, an alliance may begin as a coalition on an ad hoc basis, but becomes an alliance once participants choose to align with each other's—and support each others—special interests. That is, in a political alliance such, it is assumed that when a participant brings an issue to the table, all others not only recognize the newcomer's issues as their own, but the newcomer also takes ownership of all others existing issues. In this sense, certainly one could describe many 20th century political peace movements as "coalitions." The anti-preparedness and peace movement leading up to entrance into World War I is an example of this. In these instances, the ad hoc basis of their organization led to their demise as each group remained primarily focus on their own disparate interests. With regard to an example of a "political alliance," Reed was critical particularly of the Republican party platform. The formation of this platform is part and parcel to the Reagan administration and the large variety of grassroots movements through the 60s and 70s leading up to Reagan's election in the 1980s. He also suggested that one would expect alliances to form as grassroots organizations (which may have at first organized around disparate special interests) seek to gain notoriety and influence on a national scale as it would then be necessary to the efficacy and strength of the movement to unify and ally.

The second thought-provoking observation Reed made concerned how class identity was delimited in post-World War II American politics. The historical premises for this observation were lacking with regard to an exploration of the post-WWII conditions from which the ideas or rhetoric may have developed. Nevertheless, Reed's observations seems substantiated by contemporary party platforms and contemporary rhetoric. At the basis of Reed's claim, is that "class" has been historically understood as a term which refers to political economy. That is, the "class" is denoted in its essence by income level and economic status. Reed places part of the problem with the incoherence of contemporary platforms as well as the contentious impasse in bipartisan politics on the transition from "class" as a term of political economy to a "class" as a term that denotes culture. He gave the example of "working class" as appearing in our mind's eye as probably ethnic or latino, socially conservative, in the building trades and possibly Catholic. All of these connotations are cultural rather than related to political economy.

The import of these observations then is mostly embedded in my interpretation of the contour between these problems. Part of this bipartisan impasse, is the way that "cultural class" politics are used to reify divisions as irreconcilable differences of culture or ideology and will always fail to solve actual underlying problems of political economy. Although its been mentioned before its worth recreating again within this framework: we see this manifest itself in contemporary politics by irreconcilability between those on the right who desire to "bring back manufacturing" and those on the left who support of social welfare programs (e.g. medicaid expansion, minimum wage hikes). All across the spectrum from Rust Belt to inner city, these people are united in their desire for a basic system of social security—on the right can be found in "the company" on the left it can be found in "the government." And yet, divisions are intensified by party platforms with largely ungrounded ideological mud-slinging that set up easy to destroy cardboard cutouts of lazy, entitled leftists and intolerant, bigoted right-wingers. And yet, the over reliance on, and exploitation of, these cultural and ideological orientations within party leadership on both sides locks constituencies in a war of cultural politics that distracts them from discovering their basic, mutual desire for enhanced forms of social security.

To circle back, one of the questions that remains unanswered for me, is the theoretical role that "political alliances" play in the obfuscation of class issues. It would seem to me that once an alliance forms, and its politics are rooted in issues related to culture or identity politics, this only creates grounds for the visceral, embodied process of "othering" political parties based on cultural interests or appearances. In my interpretation, Reed's observations do point to the heart of the question of gun violence and Black Lives Matter—that is, so long as political activism is rooted in issues of cultural, racial, or identity politics, we will continue to reify traditional political divides rather than discovering common ground to unify on the driving economic issues with which we all resonate. This is not to say, and even Reed emphasized, that activism on cultural issues is insubstantial. However, in even the most homegrown, grassroots mobilization, so long as it relies on issues of identity politics—on the left, or the right—will continue to mostly serve the political interests of those who benefit from continued divisiveness among working and middle-class constituents.