Don't Stop Arguing, Complaining And Fighting *For* 'Identity Politics'

[ehrnst]

Last edited Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

"Make identity politics the main operational model in a country that is two-thirds white and 50 percent or so male, and what do you expect?" asked the National Review. Sen. Bernie Sanders warned that the Democratic Party's future rests on whether it can "go beyond identity politics" and says he is "deeply humiliated" by the party's failure to attract more people with his white, working-class background.

No one seems to have a satisfying definition of what "identity politics" means, exactly, but the message is clear: Liberals have been paying too much attention to race and gender and sexual orientation — or not enough attention to the right variants of those — and sensible Americans are rightly saying "no thanks."

The critique is aimed at the astonishingly broad, often fractious, ever-shifting coalition of voices that has been pushing Americans to rethink essentially everything about the way we treat each other. That coalition has been at it in full force for the past few years, on every available platform, from street protests and campus walkouts to tweetstorms and first-person essays; from investigative reports to Hollywood boycotts to a new crop of identity-focused podcasts helmed by prominent writers and thinkers of color.
.............................................................................................................

We must continue insisting that "identity politics" are simply politics; that a truly civil society requires empathy from all, not self-abnegation of the few; that while it's easy to write off as frivolous and indulgent that which doesn't affect you, doing so doesn't make you a good citizen. Because a logical next step in that direction is writing off entire groups of people whose concerns seem silly to you, or don't make sense to you, or offend you. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists among us are already hard at work trying to make that happen.

Indeed, rewriting our ideas of what it means to be an American has been the point of all this "identity" politicking all along, and there are signs it's working, albeit slowly, unevenly and imperfectly. For one thing, white supremacists are clearly paying attention. I also take heart in the way words like "institutional racism" and "implicit bias" have become commonplace everywhere from the campaign trail to the Wall Street Journal.
...........................................................................................................

That's why it's never been more important to continue talking — and arguing, and complaining, and venting — about identity in America. To continue interrogating whiteness as a construct, even as we discuss the economic woes of many white Americans. To continue asking why so many of our superheroes are white and male, even as we push to better understand the defeat and humiliation felt by many flesh-and-blood white men in our country. To continue surfacing the science that proves this stuff matters: that the faces we see (or don't see) on TV can change our brains; that housing segregation makes some of us scared of each other; that being seen as "other" can hurt your grades, your income, your friendships, even the way you feel about yourself.

We must continue insisting that "identity politics" are simply politics; that a truly civil society requires empathy from all, not self-abnegation of the few; that while it's easy to write off as frivolous and indulgent that which doesn't affect you, doing so doesn't make you a good citizen. Because a logical next step in that direction is writing off entire groups of people whose concerns seem silly to you, or don't make sense to you, or offend you. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists among us are already hard at work trying to make that happen.

Let's not make their jobs any easier.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/12/08/504575810/dont-stop-arguing-complaining-and-fighting-for-identity-politics

[FarCenter]

1. The Future of Racial Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/09/republicans_and_the_future_of_racial_politics_132523.html

[ehrnst]

2. I don't agree. Two white men dissing the "emerging Democratic majority"

Last edited Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

doesn't sound very surprising though....

[Me.]

3. So Only White Working Class People Matter THese Days?

Frankly, that sounds strangely like DT's message to me

[ehrnst]

6. The article is pointing out that there is a faction in the Democratic Party that thinks it is. (nt)

[Me.]

12. That's What It Sounded LIke To Me

And I find it deeply disturbing

[ehrnst]

16. Thank you! (nt)

[WhiteTara]

11. No No No. Only White Working Class Men

matter these days. The rest of us, not so much. Bernie says so, so just stop thinking that you are part of the Democracy if you aren't white male.

[Me.]

13. Geez Oh Pete

How did we get here

[WhiteTara]

14. Fake news and alt-Reich attitudes?

[Me.]

17. So Dems And Not A Dem Bernie

Think this is the way to go? If so they are seriously not understanding what just happened. Sad.

[WhiteTara]

19. I am sickened by the whole affair.

The people I know around here (NW Arkansas) are all, oh well, let's have a cup of tea and enjoy our flowers. We're too busy with our own lives to care about any of this. Besides, what can we do. Ho Hum.

[yeoman6987]

52. I think he means to include white working class in addition to identity groups

Both can be done successfully.

[WhiteTara]

55. I think he meant what he said.

White working class men are the only ones that matter. The rest of us, not so much. We're just after thoughts that don't need to have our issues addressed as thoroughly as white men. They are the standard, the rest of us, sub standard.

[yeoman6987]

58. I hope he doesn't mean that.

Our country does well when we have a variety of cultures and minority groups. It would be devestating to focus on just white working families and leave out the rest. If that were to occur, were done as a country.

[WhiteTara]

63. I don't think it is about families

so much as white men.

And yes, it will be devastating.

[RedWedge]

4. An approach to politics that pretends that racism, misogyny and bigotry don't affect policy is

doomed to fail.

[Taitertots]

5. Identity politics will make us the permanent minority party

It's exactly the same ideology that drives all bigots (KKK, Nazis....). The ideology that says my politics are based on only being concerned with people who look a certain way.

You need to be President for all Americans. Not just the group of your choice.

[ehrnst]

7. Are you saying that inclusivity is reverse racism? (nt)

[SubjectiveLife78]

8. Diversity is messy

What's more diverse; 10 groups of 10 people, or 1 group of those 100 people? Is either more diverse than the other? Does it depend on where you are, or what you're looking at?

We must continue insisting that "identity politics" are simply politics; that a truly civil society requires empathy from all, not self-abnegation of the few; that while it's easy to write off as frivolous and indulgent that which doesn't affect you, doing so doesn't make you a good citizen. Because a logical next step in that direction is writing off entire groups of people whose concerns seem silly to you, or don't make sense to you, or offend you. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists among us are already hard at work trying to make that happen.

That bold part is where everyone is. Black people? Your problems don't matter. White people? You can't even have any problems, but if they do somehow exist, they don't matter. Women? Stop it. Men? Just shut up.

[ehrnst]

10. Diversity is messy, and neccessary. Acknowledging that inclusiveness is necessary is vital. (nt)

[SubjectiveLife78]

47. What is diversity?

I'll ask my simplified question again; if you have 10 different groups of 10 people doing things 10 different ways, and 1 group of those same 100 people doing things 1 way, is one more or less diverse than the other? From within the one large group, it might look like its more diverse. From the outside, it might look like the 10 groups is more diverse. Which is correct? Is either correct? Is there a right type of diversity?

Diversity is necessary. What is it though? As another quick example, that the US doesn't use the metric system, while most of the rest of the world does, that's diverse. Do things work better, are mass systems more efficient, with less diversity?

[ehrnst]

48. If you have groups of people all needing the same thing

but have different experiences trying to get it, and they work together honoring their differences, that is the "diversity" we are talking about.

Diversity is a positive attribute in a political organization, because there is diversity of experience in the governed.

When you dismiss the experience/obstacles of someone who is trying to achieve what we all want and need - that is bigotry. And the GOP is is dismissive of the idea that differences in race, gender, religion suffer discrimination because of their differences, and the dominant culture is dominant because is it more deserving to be dominant. Those discriminated against are 'deserving' of their treatment at the hands of the dominant culture (white Christian male straight cisgender). They think that "diversity" is negative.

I think that "respect for other's experiences" is what makes 'diversity' possible. It is more synonymous with "inclusiveness," than "jumbled."

No one said that there is "one kind of diversity." No one said that inconsitency = diversity.

Diversity of ethnic, religious and racial groups in an organization is what we are talking about, not math systems. Although you could certainly say that it is advantageous in terms of investments and genetics.

[uponit7771]

67. No, racism and tolerance is messy... diversity is beautiful and functional and diet racism

[bettyellen]

20. The KKK is the same as BLM? What?

[bettyellen]

23. Your context being white supremacy equals civil rights? What a twisted view. Sick.

[Taitertots]

24. You're hallucinating if you think that.

It's the only explaination for you're intentional misrepresentation of my views.

[bettyellen]

25. You're of the opinion "inclusiveness" requires some sort of reverse racism. A big RW talking poin

[ehrnst]

37. +1000. (nt)

[ehrnst]

36. Now there's respectful discourse....(nt)

[ehrnst]

38. Do I hear the sound of someone's white cis male privilege being pointed out to them? (nt)

[SlimJimmy]

26. You really are reaching for an insult.

That's not even close to what the poster said. And he is right, by the way. When we split people into groups, politically, we weaken the whole.

[bettyellen]

27. The fallacy is that WE are splitting people into groups when it's society that has historically done

That. If we refuse to acknowledge that, or worse accuse those who do of racism, as they just did- we become as soulless as the GOP. Nope. We have lost too much.

[SlimJimmy]

28. OUR party has split these groups for political purposes.

This must end, or we will be doomed to lose for generations to come. I just can't make it any plainer than that.

[ehrnst]

30. No - society split these groups and Democrats acknowledge it. If that offends you

you may be in the wrong party, and certainly on the wrong board.

You sound very much like the people who think we are in a "post racial" "post feminist" society.

Do you?

[SlimJimmy]

32. I've been on this board from nearly the beginning of this board, so back off.

If WE, as a party continue to play identity politics, we are going to be losing for a long time to come. That people like YOU, don't recognize it, is what got us where we are today.

[ehrnst]

34. "Back off?" You diss the coalitions that made this party strong

And you're telling someone else to "back off?"

I think that YOU are the one who doesn't recognize that white men are not what made the party what it is.

You're thinking of the GOP.

Sounds like somebody had their privilege pointed out to them....

[SlimJimmy]

41. Sounds like someone doesn't understand that the party needs to move back to the

Bill Clinton era where he understood that identity politics didn't work. Remember "It's the economy stupid?" Well guess what, "It's still the economy stupid." And until we get back to that message, we are going to continue to lose.

[ehrnst]

39. 2005? That's not nearly the beginning. Unless you were tombstoned under another name. (nt)

[SlimJimmy]

40. Well, it's quite a long time. Long enough to take you to the woods over your

little threat about me needing to find another board.

[ehrnst]

44. Threat? Maybe you are a bit too sensitive to be discussing things on any board....(nt)

[SlimJimmy]

50. I'm sorry, I should have said weak and worthless threat.

Just to be precise.

[ehrnst]

57. Look in the mirror. (nt)

[ehrnst]

77. Straw man much? Some doberman....

You seem to be getting very brittle. Careful.

[melman]

73. But 2004

is the magic number where you get to tell people they shouldn't be here?

[ehrnst]

78. When did I say someone should not be here? Please link.

[ehrnst]

29. To ignore that groups of people are treated fundamentally differently and worse

is opposite of what the Democratic Party stands for.

[el_bryanto]

31. If we ignore divisions in favor of one point of view it disenfranchises folk

If we decide as a party that identity politics don't matter, than people who happen to belong to minorities or woman will suffer. This policy only works if you assume that you are part o the majority and that people should cater to what you think.

We need to acknowledge our differences in perspective and deal with them rather than sweeping them under the carpet in favor of party unity.

Bryant

[ehrnst]

35. Thank you. (nt)

[SlimJimmy]

42. It's the economy stupid. Remember that? That's what will make us winners again.

[el_bryanto]

49. Winners at what cost? While I do believe the economic to be a key part of our message

I think ignoring these sorts of issues in favor of focusing on the economy is going to create more problems than it solves. We might win a little in the short run, but at the cost of empowering people who already have too much power.

Bryant

[SlimJimmy]

51. I disagree. When folks are employed in good paying jobs, lots of problems

get solved by themselves.

I think ignoring these sorts of issues in favor of focusing on the economy is going to create more problems than it solves.

[ehrnst]

56. When white men are employed in good paying jobs, you mean. If the discussion veers away from their

issues, you seem to find it off-putting.

Almost as off-putting as being called out on it.

Some "doberman."

[SlimJimmy]

62. No, I mean ALL people.

And the Democratic party better get in tune with the notion that what's good for one is generally good for ALL. Especially when it comes to the economy.

[ehrnst]

64. Because that's such an easy thing to figure out, isn't it?

Especially when it comes to roadblocks like lack of paid family leave, state laws that don't protect LGBTs from employment discrimination, contraceptive access, voter suppression laws that marginalize the electoral voicd of people of color, a criminal justice system that slaps black men with jail time far more than white men, who then can't get work because of a record.

All of those create problems for people trying to make a living, because all of those issues affect one's econmic choices.

Just not where white straight men are concerned.

So, hey, one economic reform plan that excludes all those 'identity polics" fits all.

Right?

[ehrnst]

81. Insulting me through my DU inbox won't get your posting privileges restored.

Them's the rules, SlimJimmy.

[Dave Starsky]

9. Why can't we focus on things that we ALL share?

I mean, we ALL would like to know that if we work hard, we will at least be able to afford a place to live and food and education for our families.

We ALL would like to be comfortable that we can go to work or school or just walk down the street today and not get fucking shot.

We ALL would like to know that we can get stricken by an accident or illness tomorrow and not have it bankrupt our families and throw them out on the street.

ALL of us consenting adults would like our government to stay OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS and AWAY from our private parts, period.

We ALL want peace in our lives and comfort that we won't get nuked tomorrow.

These are things we ALL want. Even the worst rat bastard Republicans want them. They would just prefer they be for their own perceived class, religion, or skin color.

[ehrnst]

15. Some of us experience things that straight white cis men don't share, that prevent us

from having many of those things we ALL want, and that has to be acknowledged and dealt with by our party, because they sure as hell aren't going to be dealt with by republicans.

Deciding to dismiss those things in the name of "rebooting' the Democratic party to appeal to more straight white men will take us down a path away from everyone being able to live the life we ALL want.

You cannot focus on income inequality without dealing with the fact that women are paid less than men, and POC and LGBTQs are shut out of many opportunities for employment. Dismissing it as "identity politics" is counterproductive.

White people may worry about getting shot, but unless you deal with the fact that if you are black, you are far MORE likely to get shot by police. Dismissing that as "identity politics" is counterproductive.

Women who cannot get access to reproductive health care cannot carry on with their lives or often employment if they become unwillingly pregnant. No one is coming for men's reproductive health, or legislating their bodies.

If 'focusing' is another term for kicking those 'identity politics' on the back burner, then no, I don't think that we should.

[bettyellen]

21. Thank you!

[SlimJimmy]

43. And finally, it's the economy, stupid. The one thing that makes a difference for ALL of us.

[ehrnst]

45. The economy works differently for different groups, "stupid."

If you ignore that, you are no progressive, no matter how long you say you have been posting here.

[SlimJimmy]

53. You're like a little dog nipping at a doberman's heels.

When the economy is thriving, many problems get resolved on their own. Just ask the guy in my avatar how that works. BTW, I'm a DEMOCRAT, not necessarily a "progressive." There is a difference.

[ehrnst]

54. Nip, nip. So what does a touchy "non-progressive Democrat" do on a progressive board like this?

Other than complain and get irritated at the idea that people respond to posts?

My, what a touchy little doberman you are. Guess I didn't hear your mic drop.

[SlimJimmy]

59. It's NOT exclusively a "progressive" board. You might want to read the TOS.

[ehrnst]

76. I did. I just find it interesting that you like to diss progressive ideas.

And get your hackles up when someone points it out.

You must have some real scar tissue built up.

[jack_krass]

72. You can be progressive and against identity politics....

To me, Identity politics divides people into groups and pits different groups against each other. Talking about a colorblind society in front of these people is like showing garlic to a vampire.. they react violently (its a good way to ID them)

It is a relatively new idea taken from radical ideologies that only seem to "work" on college campuses.

IMO and IME Not only is identity politics not progressive, but evil and poisonous, also a loser politically. I believe Republicans would be happy for us to keep running on identity politics so they can used it as a weapon against us.

[ehrnst]

75. "Identity Politics" is "political correctness" or "All lives Matter!" for the Left.

And has just as much validity.

For everyone but white straight cis men, anyway.

[Cha]

80. lol

[TCJ70]

46. Some people can't handle messaging that doesn't specifically mention them...

...what you wrote should be the future because those concerns are legit for everyone.

[jalan48]

61. Are we winning elections with identity politics? That's the real question.

[ehrnst]

65. Can we win if we alienate all those pesky "identity groups?" That's the real question. (nt)

[jalan48]

66. Are we currently winning?

[ehrnst]

79. Oversimplification.

Our candidate won the popular vote in the presidential election. We did not win the fraction of a percent (as of the count at this time) in a few key states where one win would have given us the electoral win.

There was voter suppression, and election interference by the FBI and Russia - which was outside of our ability to prevent, which contributed to the loss in those states. Messaging and putting aside the interests and issues of non-white males would not have affected that.

People who are of color and women are seeing setbacks in their rights, due to GOP influence past and present.

Our platform is the thing that increases the quality of life for those who are other than white, straight cisgender males, which is what is included in the term "Win" for our party. Without those issues being addressed, any candidate "win" would pretty much be what the GOP considers a "win," and we would not be different from the GOP.

So the problem with your question is that there are many aspects and definitions to the term a "win," that encompass more than votes.


Is that clearer?

[jalan48]

82. Yes. I agree with what you say. I just want to see us win more elections.

We lost not only the Presidency but also the Senate, House, State Governorships and State Houses. It's great to be right but that does little good if we have no power. We also need an economic (jobs) message which part of our strategy, something that includes all Americans.

[ehrnst]

83. I understand. Tell that to the die hard Jill Steiner or Bernie or Bust folks.

They think that anyone who doesn't meet the very strict manifesto is "selling out," and are some of the whitest, straightest lefties out there.

The notion that we have to keep talking about the issues that concern so many of us right now - discrimination on the job, racial profiling by police, the inability to use the freaking bathroom - to simply address the concerns of the lefty whites - is far more of a handicap to getting elected in an increasingly diverse society than ignoring their issues.

[jalan48]

84. I don't know any to tell it to.

Do you?

[ehrnst]

85. Yes. (nt)

[uponit7771]

68. Yes, we are ... if there's no cheating involved

[jalan48]

71. Ok-no need for change then. All's good.

[LanternWaste]

69. After this, therefor because of this? That's the real fallacy...

After this, therefor because of this? That's the real fallacy...

[jalan48]

70. Pretzel logic.

[janx]

74. That was not a post hoc fallacy by any means.

It was a simple question, a legitimate one.