World Series Winners - The Chicago Cubs disparate fans unite

Yesterday was a glorious, bright, sunny, November day in Chicago. After a century the Cubs had won the World Series and 5 million delirious fans packed the streets with sheer joy and unabashed cheer. Tears of joy streamed peoples cheeks as they high fived and exulted in each other’s company. Nobody complained of the traffic, overcrowded trains and there were no reports of unpleasant incidents.

The crowd included young and old, black, white, brown, men, women, professional and working class people. For one glorious moment all the divisions amongst people were forgotten and everyone rejoiced together. The bond that united this otherwise disparate group was their common identity as Cubs fans.

Amanda Taub (NYT 11/1) examines the affect of identity on politics and the definition of ‘ who we are ‘. Academics she says divide identity into two broad categories, ascribed (based on innate characteristics) or achieved (based on personal effort).

Yesterday in the streets of Chicago everyone identified as a winner with the victory the Cubs achieved but then later in the day, no doubt reverted to their own ‘best’ identity.

Successful people often define their identities through their careers and their achieved identity supersedes their ascribed identity. Individuals dissatisfied with their status generally lock on to their ascribed or communal identity. It is a small step from there to then fixate about the differential or relative identity, where one is comparatively, or who is cutting the line before?

The fixation with relative identity may explain why especially working class whites often vote against their own economic self-interest. In the 2016 election Democrats are generally in favor of a higher minimum wage, stronger safety net, lower taxes for lower income individuals and expanded access to community college. All of these would significantly benefit working class white men, but a common perception amongst them is it will also let others (minorities, women, immigrants) get further ahead, so they are overwhelmingly supporting Republican candidates. The passionate debate over Obamacare is another example. Over 90% of Americans are largely unaffected by Obamacare since they have either employer sponsored health care, Medicare, or VA coverage. Yet it generates a lot heat. The much maligned health exchanges cover about 6% of the population yet the headlines imply that they affect everyone. Obamacare has enabled about 20 million previously uninsured to get health insurance and if you had employer covered insurance or Medicare you are largely unaffected. So why is it such a passionate issue where Republicans have voted over 60 times in the house to repeal it? Primarily because it changed the order of relative identity in health care. Before only if you had a good job or were over 65 could you have decent health care coverage. Now others have cut in the line and are also getting health care coverage.

The Democrats contribute to this angst over relative identity too with their focus on income inequality. The concept of a safety net is that society should provide a floor in essentials food, shelter, education and health care not how high someone else is.

Short of an all out war effort like WWII, the euphoria and common identity the Cubs generated for Chicago cannot be duplicated at a national level. But to build consensus for future programs, politicians need to be sensitive to the concept of relative and ascribed identity.