All politics is "identity politics" I was listening to a talk radio show and a Political Science expert was discussing the very issue a couple of weeks ago. I forget the details but the gist of the discussion was something like, "When we talk about Soccer moms, we are talking about an identity. When we talk about the White working class or Midwestern ideals, we are talking about identities"

The problem with "identity politics" is that the people who support the status quo say that the focus is on the wrong identities. Black people, women, reproductive choice, Immigrants, etc... those are all "identities" that people want to just shut up and accept the values of "real Americans" which again is just another identity.

Those on the left who have been pushing that narrative ever since the 2016 election should pause and consider why right wingers (and members of the media) were also pushing that narrative.

And, as I've written before, it demonstrates that some on the left have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between social injustice and economic injustice.

So, yeah, as others have said, Kamala Harris is spot-on.

Christian... white... born in the USA... etc. My Republican mother cannot describe people without race, party, religion and geography coming into it.

Dissuading Democrats from emphasizing anti-racism and anti-sexism (while suggesting that persons of color don't experience economic anxiety) is very purposeful. Republican Party survival depends on it. How sad and infuriating that some on the left have been playing into GOP hands.

Nearly every self-identifying post we make on DU starts with our race. To many of us, our skin color and the skin color of others is the most important thing about us.

“I took my laptop in to my little Cambodian computer guy.” “My little Salvadoran house cleaner washed the windows today.” “ My Indian doctor says my blood pressure is a little high.” And within a couple of minutes of meeting strangers, she seems to zero in on whether they are Republicans (score!) or not. And OMG, if they turn out to be Republicans AND from the South, she is in HIGH COTTON. (She moved to CA from Mississippi 62 years ago.)

When I took her for a consultation at USC Hospital in LA, she looked at the medical students in the cafeteria, and asked me, “Where are OUR kids?” (Most of the students were Asian.) She even asked the same question to a white sales person in the gift shop who had a British accent! (In other words, it wasn’t about her thinking maybe these were foreign-born students, since the salesperson seemed to be foreign-born, too.) She actually asked, “What’s going wrong? Why aren’t OUR kids getting into medical school?” And the thing that REALLY pissed me off is I had taken time off work, right before Christmas (so not a very convenient time), to travel down to the Central Valley and drive her to LA for that consultation, and then to Santa Barbara for eye surgery… and while I left my two older kids at home with my husband, I brought my younger daughter (2-years-old or so, then) with me, and she is adopted from Vietnam! So, my mom was babbling on about “our kids” as her (apparently) NOT “our kids” granddaughter was standing right there. And of course, even though I (as always) was the daughter helping her (as opposed to my right-wing sister, who never does anything but bleed my mom dry financially… though my mom prefers her company since she doesn’t have to even pretend to be anything but a racist xenophobe around my sister and her family), she took any available opportunity to trash San Francisco, where I live (and would have much preferred to be).

pushed . They differ by huge degrees as to what is actually being said. And one is a matter of getting Trump voters to open up and listen to policies that can help them. Its a matter of tone. Not calling them all deplorable pieces of shit may not be the worst idea in the world if you want to appeal to their children and their grandchildren, or pick a couple of them off in the process.

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2018, 11:44 AM - Edit history (2)

...Democrats (Clinton in particular) focus(ed) too much on "identity politics" and not enough on economic policy that will help the white working class. The clear implication is that only white working class people experience economic anxiety (otherwise, why not just refer to the working class as a whole?). After the election, article after article after article (many from a leftist perspective) were written about white working class anxiety. Again, the implication is that only white people experience economic anxiety, or that only their economic anxiety matters, and that their economic anxiety is why so many voted for Trump (never mind that a majority of the working class voters opted for Clinton).

All this while downplaying the role racism played in Trump's rise (Bernie Sanders, for instance, has made several statements suggesting that racism was not a factor for most Trump voters, which is beyond outrageous).

That's the crux of the narrative that was being pushed by both sides prior to and following the 2016 election. And the right wing absolutely loves that some on the left push that bogus and racist narrative.

Am I saying both sides have the same objective? No. But narrative trumps nuance. And that narrative is dangerous. Any suggestion that Trump, or Republicans in general, have a stronger platform for the working class is laughably absurd. There's a reason Democrats get more votes than Republicans among the working class. There's also a reason why Republicans get more votes among a select portion of the working class (white men in particular), and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with economic anxiety.

I'm also not meaning to suggest that Democrats in general haven't taken persons of color for granted. Because they have. The problem has not been too much emphasis on racism and sexism/social injustice (or what some dismiss as 'identity politics'). The problem has been a lack of emphasis on social injustice (see link embedded in my first paragraph above) in terms of both platform and, more importantly, policy. In other words, the popular narrative that followed the election has taken reality and flipped it on its head. Economic injustice is enabled by racism and sexism (and, no, the reverse is not true). The latter makes the former possible, which is why it's so crucial to address the latter. Not that there wouldn't be any economic injustice if we more or less eliminated systemic racism and sexism, but economic injustice wouldn't exist nearly to the degree that it does. And the Republican Party would essentially cease to be viable.

voting one way or another, there is a long established machinery and messaging campaign almost all about the money that has done the damage of keeping swaths of our society either ignorant of issues or badly misinformed, and this machinery has stoked racism and sexism and homophobia and anti-Islamic sentiment perpetually. And so much of it IS about anxiety regarding security and safety. Hatred is built on the sense that something is being done to you by "those people." "They" are taking your tax dollars and contributing only drugs and violence...."They" are taking your jobs..."They" are stealing from you and hurting you.

Granted, sometimes the force of this comes from within...that is, when you have stuff and others don't, and worse, when you get the itching feeling on some level that you took from others and that the life you live is by virtue of exploitation of them, then you've only got a few options...you can embrace your evil nature, you can redistribute what was ill-gotten, or you can justify it all by dehumanizing those you have exploited and continue to exploit. There is a kernel of that among poor whites I'm sure. That sense of still having somebody to kick down at, or even wanting those "good old days" back might seem worthy of supporting for them. But that's because we haven't given them a better narrative. That sick and twisted reality seems like the best they can hope for. Yeah, its sick, but it is a societal sickness that has infected them. I see no reason to our energy into blaming them for it all.

it is no easy feat to burst the bubble of people who enjoy upper-class or above status. There's too much incentive for them to cling to their beliefs...and even if they know better, they still have all the indecent incentive in the world to support the propaganda that they benefit from. But the poor and the diminishing middle class...we need some of these white rural voters. I think we can get them if we just give them a better dream. One that isn't vague flowery talk but is about what they could have today. Right now. Do they harbor racism? Yeah, most definitely, and we should continue to chip away at that, and what better way than to make them realize that they aren't at odds with people of color and immigrants, but actually need each other to achieve this better life?

But there's no chipping away at that by aggressively calling them bad people. They don't think they are. Often enough, they don't think their motivations are racist. So why, why, why, get in the way of an opportunity to challenge their misconceptions by getting them to put up their defenses and retreat into what is too damn fortified a bubble, with I might add, a hell of an echo chamber. This isn't a fringe of the population. You can't shame it into changing its mind. You have to convince these people its in their best interest to change their mind.

I don't. The Democratic Party message/narrative (which is heavily focused on economics) is far superior to the Republican Party message on every single issue that should matter to working class people, which is why a majority of working class people vote for Democrats. Those who vote for Republicans are voting against their economic interests by default, as what they are really doing is voting *for* their (perceived) cultural/social interests.

The Democratic Party would do well to place much more emphasis on ending systemic racism and sexism. And on establishing comprehensive, humane immigration reform. While saying "fuck off" to the bashers of "identity politics" (be they on the right or left).

populism is even worse. Then there's no excuse really. Why wouldn't we want to excite our base? Failures aside, we are already the party identified as focusing on ending systemic racism and sexism. Clinton put a whole lot of eggs in the basket of breaking that glass ceiling. We shouldn't stop being that party. But we can't reduce ourselves to being the party of a more inclusive elite, who believe in "opportunity" for everybody, rather than actual economic justice for everyone. We have to deal in a big way with economic stratification.

But why don't you think they are reachable anyway? Some voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. How did that shit happen?

Sure, these voters are voting for their perceived cultural/social interests which have been fed to them for their whole lives, and again, its that economic component that has to be disrupted. They are being distracted on purpose with bullshit, and we should be turning the people doing that work into the boogie men. We should be giving these people a different villain. That is the narrative. This villain is robbing them blind, fooling them stupid, and laughing to the bank. Instead, we play into it and go after the minions. We attack the "deplorables." We end up contributing to the divide rather than finding ways to bridge it.

Dangle real relief right in their face and see if they turn that down in favor of their bigotry. I assure you that if they truly understand what they are getting, that its not some vague nonsense involving bringing bankers and other bigwigs to the table to hash out somethign that's good for everybody...they will snatch at it. Maybe just 3 to 5 percent....maybe only a couple percent. But it isn't a message that is bad for democrats and the democratic base, and it is a message that could grab just enough reachable people on the other side.

Who are the people who don't want a 15 dollar minimum wage? those who make 10? Who are the people who don't want free college tuition or actual healthcare? These things all poll well.

Also, as I already posted to this OP, I wholly disagree that there isn't a criticism to be made against a certian kind of identity politics campaigning. It is not effective to say there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Clinton. It is not effective to say that Welder should just throw away his campaign and betray his supporters because a Native American woman entered the race. That is the kind of "identity politics" Sanders attempted to narrow the definition down to. He said it was about how these candidates fight for issues that affect those communities, not about how they themselves identify, and he's right about that.

Last edited Sat Aug 4, 2018, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Regarding many of those Trump voters who had voted for Obama, I'll post this again: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/why_did_some_white_obama_voters_for_trump.html

You may also want to read the following article: http://archive.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/. I post that just in case you think people can be persuaded by facts that contradict their preconceptions. I don't know that you necessarily do, but it would be good to read that article, as depressing as it is.

And then there's this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210911302 (I point to this so as to highlight just how isolated, ignorant and unreachable *many* Trump supporters are). And, quite frankly, anyone who still supports Trump at this point is utterly hopeless.

Our base does need to be excited (in fact, the Democratic Party focus needs to be on turning out the base and registering people to vote). It should be noted that our base supported Clinton over Sanders. And it really wasn't close (replace disenfranchising caucuses with primaries and it would have been an absolute blowout). Those who are most oppressed cannot afford to disregard pragmatism and take risks. That said, the difference between the likes of Obama/Clinton and the likes of Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez (in terms of policy positions) is greatly overblown. There's rhetoric. And then there's the reality of how one would govern. Sanders, were he to become POTUS, would quickly come to terms with reality. A higher minimum wage, more progressive taxation, more affordable college tuition and quality, affordable health care for everyone are all policies supported by most so-called "establishment" Democrats. The differences are a matter of degree.

I don't take issue with most of the policy positions held by Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, etc. But - and this is important - I do take issue with their approach and the narrative about the 2016 election that they (and right wingers) have been pushing. I take issue with being dismissive of the role racism plays in Republican Party victories, while suggesting that "economic anxiety" is what drives Republican voters. I take issue with all the attention being placed on *white* working class voters, while ignoring the fact that a majority of working class people vote for Democrats (i.e., a majority of working class people prefer the Democratic Party message and governance over the Republican Party message and governance). I take issue with the patently false accusations that Clinton and other Democrats don't focus enough on economics, or that Clinton simply ran on becoming the first woman POTUS. Again, if anything, the Democratic Party needs to focus much more on racism (including xenophobia) and sexism.

Lastly, breaking barriers (such as first Black POTUS, first woman POTUS, first transgender state legislator, etc.) constitute more than mere symbolism. They are cracks in the facade. They help open the door to having a conversation about and addressing systemic racism and sexism...and, thus, breaking barriers is crucial to addressing economic injustice. I'm by no means saying that white men shouldn't run for office. But I would never be dismissive of the value in breaking barriers. Not when we're talking about Democratic candidates who aren't really as different (in terms of how they would govern) as some make them out to be.

They are good at that part of politics, anyway, the sleazy parts...not so great at the actual governing thing, though.

Do not let them frame the discussion. Do not let them inject their coded language. Reject their perjorative labels. Call them out for it then and there, do not proceed until the issue is correctly framed. This is where our media has failed abjectly. Setting the table is more than half the battle. The positioning of goalposts determines the outcome.

From now on, whenever I read a "we need to avoid identity politics" posts on DU, I'm going to just cut and paste this in response.

Link to tweet

Except, of course, if it's white identity politics.

Then we're just being snowflakes.

Why is it a pejorative term? Go ahead and ask yourself who in the world benefits from turning it into a pejorative. I'll give you a hint: it's the same people who made "social justice warrior" an insult.

Link to tweet

Symone Sanders.. formerly BS' National Press Sec..

that Welder, who was in the race first and has dedicated supporters(as all campaigns are likely to have) who believe in his message and have put in hours, days and months towards getting him elected so that he can fight for the causes they most care about, makes the bizarre assertion that he should drop out because a female Native American candidate has entered the race, and that THAT ALONE is the reason, that IS playing identity politics. It isn't about policies towards Native Americans that both candidates hold. It isn't about their past record in that regard. It is a horrible way to promote a candidate and will make us weaker in the GE, not stronger. That Sharice Davids could be our first Native American congresswoman is truly a wonderful thing, but it is a factor to be added to her position on issues, her history, and her campaign rhetoric, not to stand on its own. Sadly, even here on DU the only specific I've seen anybody post about her is that she's a Native American progressive or, to applause, what entities have endorsed her. Then there's what's between the lines, which is the fact that she is in the running against a candidate supported by Sanders and Cortez(as if that isn't obvious).

I've asked a couple times for people to lay out what it is about her particular policies above other dems in the race that is the reason for her having their support, and so far those posts have been ignored. I won't judge the reasoning for that, but I'll ask again, if somebody has some specifics as to why she is the candidate that should be supported over Welder, or knows of a thread where specifics have actually been talked about, I'm certainly interested.

Now I understand where this has come from and how it is used as an umbrella term to dismiss any candidate that is black, latino, female, gay etc. by the right. But that ISN"T what Sanders did. Sanders took language already existing in Republican bubbles and narrowed its scope to reflect a certain kind of campaigning that I do think is a problem, not when it is done at all, but when it is done in lieu of campaigning forcefully on the issues...because lets face it...in some ways that's a hell of a lot safer than going on record as to what you will absolutely fight for. I understand it as a strategy. Maybe you can get enough people to embrace the hope that is implicit in changing the dynamics of these traditionally white male institutions, and at the same time, not go scorched earth on the financeers that could actually put you in office or derail your campaign. But there are plenty of candidates we could be and should be embracing who bring it all to the table, and personally I want to KNOW what my candidates will stand for...not what they acknowledge "well everybody wants that...we just need to be smart about how....its not the right time..."

Arguing that race should be the sole factor. Otherwise Ben Carson or Alan Keyes would be supported by “identity politics.” News flash: they aren’t.

a great progressive native American woman" I absolutely see that. What do you see when that is the way an argument is framed?

While being the first X to run for Y is nice and does move society forward, that can’t be the candidate’s main selling point. It appeals to us DUers and the like, but most voters aren’t going to be as equality-minded as us.

We have to turn it around to say what’s in it for the voting populace as a whole, regardless of how it helps subsets. That’s how you broaden your support.

What do you believe should be done? That should be each candidate’s message. If that is strong, the identity aspect becomes a bonus. If that is weak, the identity aspect looks like a crutch.

Welder did get in first, a few months after he moved to Kansas.

entirely different tangential complaint that doesn't fit into the call for Welder to drop out, which didn't reference that detail but did reference Davids heritage.

As in "Don't ask who my sponsors are because I'm the first X to run for Y".

That, and the fact that it always seem like certain identities matter more than others. Like when a Muslim man is running against a white woman in Michigan then the woman gets awarded the "identity brand" for some reason.

Also: "Knowing what it is like it grow up poor" is an identity that more people can relate to than "having been passed up for CEO".

Makes me sick when I hear voters on the left side of the political spectrum complain about "identity politics", and how parties on the left should focus on economic issues instead of "feminism", "genderism", "refugees and migrants" etc.

Basically, they want to throw women, LGBTQ+, anyone who's not white under the bus and focus on getting more tax payer money for themselves (white, straight, males). That's a great politically left-leaning position to have…

Note I'm NOT SAYING that every white, straight male is like this. I know lots of white, straight males who are very empathic and generally great. Also I like left-leaning economic policies, like a reliable social safety net. And the social safety net here in German actually needs some tweaks.

Right now we have a new left political movement in Germany, "aufstehen" (meaning both "get up" and "stand up&quot , and I'm afraid it might be headed in this direction. I'm going to wait and see.

I've never heard anyone on this side of the Atlantic say that economic Issues should REPLACE Identify politics, just be added to them... -- It's not an "either/ or" issue -- It's both.

it needn't here either, and in fact didn't for most of the life of the Democratic party in 20th Century America. That said, if what you say is true, I don't know why the poster claims that "the same thing" is going on in Germany.

The German labor and green parties have been pro immigrant, pro choice and pro marriage equality as long as I remember. But then, the social safety net has also been pretty sound for all of my life.

Ezior? He/she is the one who made the claim and the poster to whom I was responding

Link: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech

The Democratic Party would do well to place a lot more emphasis on tackling systemic racism and sexism. DNC Chairman Perez is right to say persons of color have been getting taken for granted.

We need much more emphasis on so-called "identity politics." Not less. Because it is largely the fostering of and exploitation of racism and sexism that enables economic injustice. The eradication of racism alone would essentially end the viability of the Republican Party.

There's a reason a majority of working class people vote for Democrats. The Democratic Party message is far superior on every single issue that should matter to working class people. Wages, workplace safety and other regulations, unionization, retirement benefits, equal pay, health care, sick leave, family leave, tax rates, lending practices, affordability of college and other education programs that allow for advancement...you name it, the Democratic Party message is far superior.

Always important to note what is *not* called "identity politics" too.

When I hear people like Sen. Sanders arguing that we can find can find common cause with white bigots, I take note of what he values.

misconceptions that reinforce that bigotry, I think that would be a worthy endeavor. How about you? You think getting 45 percent of the population to retreat into their stupidity is actually going to move us as a nation, forward? They aren't going to die off...they are going to keep breeding. They aren't going to be out-bred. You can farm ignorance in humans of any color or gender. The moneyed machines will find new ways of tapping into and reinforcing different bigotries that will just replace the white bigots with others who will vote for authoritarian Presidents. Its been done before, effectively.

No more being 'presentable' to the right wing authoritarian.

introduce politics that get them to think maybe they are getting a raw deal from the side that's conning them. We are inundated here with reasons why we need to tread the line just left of conservative politics, and that isn't coming from the mouths of Sanders advocates.

Address the bigots about that, instead of telling black folks to not play “identity politics.” The that that position is defended here and that what I said needs to be said is a big part of my issue.

Bigots are reposible for bigotry, not the victims of bigotry who dare to insist that bigots be called bigots.

as you too use the term to divide . . . because God knows you aren't putting the term into action.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the interrelationship between capitalism and racism because the fact is that, while they travel together, they do not hold hands. I will say, however, that anyone who denies that we have been kept in iron and then institutional chains for essentially four centuries to benefit wealthy people is stupid as fuck. White folks could have maintained their tribal advantage with bullets in the head (which they do to many of us anyway) if that was all it was, but instead they forced us to provide low (or no) cost labor to add value to raw materials in order to make them rich.


I will get into a debate, however, about whether the rhetoric (which is the only way we can judge them because they have never held power) of "leftist" Democrats (which does indeed seem intent on avoiding the subject of white tribalism because it confronts an odious moral failure which economically-oppressed white voters (their target audience) appear every bit as unwilling to discuss as rich white voters) are in any way worse than "centrist" Democrats who self-identify as champions of social justice issues who have held both the governmental power to effect social justice and the power within our party to control messaging, but have done nothing with that power which might offend suburban white voters (their target audience). On both sides, the focus is on keeping some group of white folks happy.

__________


Allow me a little aside here, from a pragmatic standpoint, which group of white folks it is most important to appease is at least debatable. The simple fact is white suburban voters fill voting booths at a high rate. On the other hand, economically oppressed white voters do not, but there are far more of them.

____________

Are expressions like "a rising tide lifts all boats" any more of a concession to white interest than making -- undeniably inspiring to most white folks -- Dreamers the face of our outreach to Latino voters? Is it too much "identity" to stand up just as strong for the Spanish-speaking immigrants who work at every-day jobs, and who sometimes drive drunk, and who sometimes commit crimes JUST LIKE WHITE FOLKS and say "They're just like you and they deserve the same opportunities you have?" Do we seriously have to wait until some monster like Trump starts ripping their babies out of their arms and their plight becomes sufficiently offensive to white suburbanites before we stand up for the "every-day immigrant?"

How many young black males are going to have to bleed out in the street before we'll do more than stand next to their bereaved mothers (something white folks like). When will we stand up for people like Dorian Johnson who told a story that me and every guy I grew up with knew by heart, a story about how cops start shit with young black males for the very purpose of creating a situation where they have an excuse to search them, or arrest them, or fucking kill them because ALL cops are trained to believe that any time two or three of us stop on a steet corner to talk we have a pocket of rocks and a gun OR we can be intimidated into telling them who does? Is that too much "identity?" Would we be standing too close to Willie Horton if we did that?

Should we be standing up for "identities?" F yes we should. But we need to do it for real, not just when the "identity" is one that won't offend one group of white folks are another.

I'm about done and before I can even hit the "Post my reply!" button I can hear pragmatists saying how this is the height of naetivity. It may be. It may be that REALLY standing up for people of color will doom us as a party. Because, like most all people who look like me, I know Trump and his ilk are putting our lives in imminet danger, I am willing to accept the reality that we we will not be truly practicing "identity politics" anytime in our lifetimes (which for me will not be that much longer). But I am fucking over a group of people who are pandering to white voters in their own way not only acting like are they somehow better than another group of people who are also pandering to white voters, but actually accusing them of not caring about people of color.

We can accept that we aren't going to see either wing of our party really stand up for us. We can accept it and we'll still vote 90%+ for anyone you put out there. What at least I am tired of seeing are people trying to divide this party along a racial line that doesn't exist because that shit costs us elections and losing elections costs us our lives.

There is a racial chasm between us and Republicans and that's the only divide I care about.

FWIW, I think this would make an excellent stand alone post.

Link to tweet