General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVox: Bernie Sanders and many Democrats keep confusing identity politics with tokenism
Last edited Sun Aug 13, 2017, 02:44 AM - Edit history (1)
The tragedy in Virginia underscores what Trump and Republicans hide, and many on the left like Bernie Sanders ignores, Trump is practicing the ultimate form of identity politics and that is promoting the idea of white male supremacy. Yet, many on the left, choose to ignore this and give Trump and his supporters a free pass arguing that Trump is being a populist and listening to the economic fears of the working class. This is BS. What Trump is selling is not inclusion, but exclusivity:
Hopefully, folks on the left will not continue to minimize the degree to which Trump has relied on race and not to just oppress minorities, women and immigrants. Instead, the largest group being oppressed are white males who are being bamboozled by Trump selling them on scapegoats. In return, they happily give up their benefits, health care and job protections in return for the being allowed to feel superior and privileged.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13715164/bernie-sanders-identity-politics-democrats-progressives
Sanders suggested something close to that in his speech, when he characterized “identity politics” as something Democrats might want to consider going “beyond.” He elaborated on this idea by warning that while having an African-American CEO is a “step forward,” it’s a very limited step if that CEO is also “shipping jobs out of his country and exploiting his workers.”
But to people who actually practice “identity politics,” Sanders is presenting a straw man. He’s describing tokenism — the idea that you need a certain quota of “token” members of marginalized groups for the sake of “diversity,” regardless of whether those members are actually qualified or actually represent their group’s interests.
The very idea of tokenism has some offensive implications, though. And it’s not at all what identity politics are really about.
Generally speaking, identity politics is about recognizing and acting on the fact that different groups can have different interests, goals, and policy needs. It doesn’t require pitting those groups against each other, although it’s often presented that way. Rather, it’s about acknowledging that American politics tends to treat the “white male” identity as the default — and every other identity as some sort of optional bonus feature.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
oasis
(49,464 posts)
Beartracks
(12,834 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,789 posts)
pansypoo53219
(21,005 posts)bill maher this week was very good.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 13, 2017, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Bill Maher is another racial apologist who refuses to acknowledge that Trump is race baiting. Instead, Maher blames Democrats and minorities. How are Democrats going to win if they pretend that what happened in Virginia was not motivated by racial hatred and a white supremacist agenda?
This reminds of Republicans blaming rape victims for dressing inappropriately. Likewise, Maher and Sanders blame minorities, women and religious minorities for demanding equal rights, thus buying into Trump's idea that equality comes at the expense of white males.
In the 1960s, Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson both successfully addressed this issue head on and acknowledged that racism and scapegoating were used to oppress white males. Ignoring racism is not going to make it go away.
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/stop-blaming-identity-politics-with-liberals-like-these-who-needs-the-right-wing/
Is there any problem in America not the fault of liberal progressives? Has anyone actually ever met a liberal? What do these people do for fun? Sneer about cultural appropriation, burn American flags, and mock old women wearing crosses?
The idea that every political, social and financial crisis in the United States has a liberal origin is not only the propaganda of right-wing tantrums, but increasingly since the surreal election of Donald Trump, an obsession of liberals themselves. Myopically fixated on their own masochism and pathetic insecurity, they have wasted precious airtime, intellectual energy and freelance budgets of popular publications in attempts to explain how exactly they are to blame for 62 million Americans driving or walking to the polls to vote for a historically illiterate fool whose character actually appears in worse shape than his acumen.
Bernie Sanders, a leftist rather than a liberal, was one of the first to incoherently assign the presidential loss to the failure of “identity politics,” failing to recognize that Donald Trump is the most powerful practitioner of identity politics in the world. Mark Lilla, a Columbia University professor, acted as eloquent parrot to Sanders when he wrote that the Democrats’ fixation on diversity cost them the election. Recently, Bill Maher, whose derangement seems to advance with every television appearance, told Jack Tapper that the Democratic Party failed in 2016 because its leaders “made white people feel like a minority.”
* * *
One has to wonder: With liberals like these, who needs reactionaries? Trump voters told pollsters that “diversity comes at the expense of whites” and that the federal government, throughout American history, has provided too much assistance to black citizens. Maher, Lilla and Sanders would not identify the problem with the white electorate as racism, but insufficient coddling and pandering from Democrats. The crucial aim of American politics, according to the increasingly widespread view of opposition to “identity politics,” is to make white cowards and bigots feel that they have no need for growth, and that they are the center of the universe.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 15, 2017, 01:50 AM - Edit history (3)
ways, "racists"--as an opener-- is not how you undo the scapegoating that they are buying into that is fucking them over even as they fuck over minorities and women and people of other religions than christian. You are giving them a reason to tune out before you've even presented the argument. Sanders is trying to get them to tune in. I don't see a problem with that, since he isn't abandoning issues of civil rights. He isn't pandering by pretending these people have the right of it when it comes to any social issue. He's saying they've got it wrong, in fact.
He is doing the EXACT work that addresses the problem that you are presenting, by getting people to let their guard down so that they can see what they are actually doing to even themselves. That has nothing to do with coddling or not coddling. That has to do with understanding that once you go to name calling and assuming people's worst intentions you have lost them before you even began.
Yes, racism is a huge part of this picture, but racism is not something that is in itself a fundamental element. It is fed by fears over safety and instability, at least in times of economic uncertainty when that well is particularly drawn from for the sake of misdirection. There are reasons why people distrust and hate. Stripping away their logic for doing so and showing them they are being played seems like a better approach than trying to rub their nose in it.
I can't speak to Maher...I don't think he fully gets the problem and for that reason sometimes his analysis hits and sometimes it is skewed. I wouldn't disagree though, if his point were that that's all we seemed to run on...our diversity and inclusiveness(excepting the deplorables of course), because even in a changing nation, that is branding stupidity(unless you really want to avoid the third rail of class warfare, and in that case it's what you have to work with). Its stupidity because it isn't dismantling the things that these white people are afraid of, it is seemingly reinforcing the propaganda that has been fed to them...that they are losing their country to brown people and people who are "erosive" to their values and foreign to their understanding. We decided to let that narrative stand, rather than to say we're all actually in it together and that the threat is not what they've been told by the people dividing us and letting us kick our own asses over and over. We thought it better to say, "Damn straight, its us versus you," than to do what Sanders is doing, which is talking to them about the things actually killing them and the things that could make their lives better.
That isn't to say that the system isn't rigged against Democrats, and that voter role purges and corporate propaganda, etc. etc. aren't making our elections illegitimate. By all rights Clinton should definitely have won the presidency, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it didn't go that way because of the purges. But if we aren't going to energize people to fight against oligarchy, then the oligarchy will steal it from us again and again, over and over while we piss and moan about the small percentage of hold-outs and all the Trump voters who we basically told were what was wrong with the country.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)Lyndon Johnson and MLK did not go around calling white people racists. Heck, even back in the 1940s when the U.S. was fighting Nazi Germany, they knew how you to address racism and intolerance head on.
Yet, some folks on the "left" create this straw man that you can't address racism or sexism, because that is wallowing in "identity politics," which will alienate working class white men. The attached video, "Don't Be a Sucker," shows that the key is informing people of how hate and scapegoating is used to manipulate them.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Sanders has said over and over that the working class white man who is losing out to competition from better qualified women, minorities and immigrants somehow is getting screwed. How in the fuck is that? Is he getting screwed because he was unwilling to get a better education or more vocational training? Is he being screwed because the woman that works twice as hard is finally getting a chance at the opportunities that she earned? Screw the identity politics argument, insuring that EVERYONE gets a fair shot to move ahead is not identify politics.
Omaha Steve
(99,840 posts)
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)You look up his public appearances and statements if you need convincing, I won't waste my time.
Omaha Steve
(99,840 posts)Go sell your unsupported crap on a right wing board!
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)You come to a Democratic website and post a sentence like 'Racism is a huge part of this picture, but racism is not something that is in itself a fundamental element. It is fed by fears by fears of safety and instability'??? Are you serious? Racism is not fundamental? You got to be kidding me.
And you statement about fear over safety? WTF. Crime rate are lower than they have been for 70 years. But we got to understand the fear of the white man of the black man? Total bullshit.
I would call your post sophist, but one of the definitions of sophism is it seems believable. You post is laughable man. Ha.
I have never seen a Bernie supporter straight out admit he trying to attract racist, but go you right to that point when you say we should not call them racist because, in your words 'Sanders is trying to get them to tune in'.
So that is the new Democratic Party message...Get the racist to tune in?
I suggest you head on over to JPR. You will fit in fine there.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)posting your rant. What I meant by a fundamental element is that it is not itself intrinsic. It isn't part of a person's DNA, nor is it itself the root. I did oversimplify it because blackness, as somebody said to me recently(and she herself is black and fighting hard for black and LGTBQ rights) is very much an economic construct...a way of making some less than others so that they can be exploited, used, or stolen from or discarded without emotional consequence to those doing the harm.
But while that function is alive and well, it is reinforced by fear. People are afraid that immigrants are coming into the country and taking their jobs, or muslims are coming in and introducing sharia law or terrorism, or that black people are taking their money through welfare, or that women are taking their jobs and are independent enough to leave them...etc. etc. These are not legitimate fears and quite the opposite...well the last one is legitimate but fuck them. But those fears feed their animosities and their distrust of anybody who they see as "other." When people are experiencing instability they are more likely to behave at the limbic level, and less so at the rational level. Since we want to get these people to vote in our best interest, and hell, their own, we should probably find a better way of getting through to them than just slinging shit. Just because they do it doesn't mean its any better for them. They are fucking themselves. We should not be fucking ourselves.
Sure, why not get the racist to tune in. We aren't telling them that racism is peachy keen. We're not condoning or supporting or advocating racism, and quite the fucking opposite. If you can get some of reality into their heads, which would go some distance to actually dismantling racism and its persistence, why is that a bad thing to you? Quit pretending like I'm saying we need to accept the world as it is seen through their eyes, because I know their reality is warped as fuck and it doesn't match up at all with what is. I want to get it just slightly closer to what is.
As to "understanding the fear of the white man...." that isn't so that we can coddle them or pander to them. It is so that we can undermine their shoddy logic. Its so that we can get through to them and the next generation that is weaned on that shitty logic.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JOBS? WTF - the fear of a women having basic freedom to come and go is something you call a LEGITIMATE FEAR?!?!
GTFO of here with that totally sexist crap. It's so disturbing I don't even know where to begin. You ARE CODDLING SEXISTS WHILE PRETENDING YOU DON'T WANT TO CODDLE RACISTS. Can you even hear yourself spewing this shit? What complete sexist garbage.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)lost without that power to lord over women. Not legitimate, as in they are totally justified in having it and that the world should not change. Come on.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)aware that men have actually lost their dominance over women, so I said that was something real, but I certainly didn't intend for that to be taken as something I myself lament. I don't know why you want it to be that so badly. Take it as you want, but if you wont accept clarification, the "as you want" part seems to be the dominant factor.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sit with that for a while- because it's completely super sexist and fucked up to make that disctinction. Women taking men's jobs! I never thought I read such crap "legitimaized" here. Now you know why you're no one to talk strategy- you're afraid of the majority of the base- women.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)was legit and not on the women were taking men's jobs part that was some of the misconceptions I was throwing out there. I can absolutely see how that got conflated. I'm happy to apologize for shitty writing. The intention hasn't changed. Why are you trying to hold me to something I never meant? What are you getting out of it?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)No they're often doing just fine according to their own calculations, the ones visiting Charlottesville just treated themselves to a nice little party weekend w likeminded asssholes. They're the ones hoping to fuck over the rest of us. Jesus. How wrongheaded and twisted your take on this is.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)was saying their own racism was fucking them over, even as, to a far far greater extent, they were intending to fuck over minorities and women, etc.
edited the beginning of that one to try to make that less ambiguous.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's is is not liberal or progressive. Its regressive horseshit.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I'm talking about the misconceptions of these people, not at all the reality.
Oh, I see...when I said in the case of women, I didn't really mean that it was true they were taking men's jobs, but that the independence of being able to work means that they aren't actually dependent on a male spouse to support them, as they shouldn't be. Certainly that is something that some men would find threatening, and one thing that is not entirely inaccurate, but too bad for them, they'll have to learn to be better humans to attract a mate.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Nothing legitimate about calling them "their jobs" and the whole problem with women coming and going as they please... what the hell? It's disgusting to read this here. Truly hateful framing you're employing there. You don't even see why it's so wrong. Ugh. Stop it. You sound like it's the fifties and you don't even realize it. Just stop.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)it was. In the context of what I'm posting though, how could you think, why would you think, that I share this caveman mentality, unless you just choose to because it suits your narrative?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Said. Sickening to read this sexist tripe. And now YOU play the poor misunderstood victim? Nope. You're legitimizing sexism and racism. Stop it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)such thing as what you are ascribing to me, even if you read it that way, which admittedly I contributed to because of shitty writing, but you want to hold onto that interpretation come hell or high water. One sec...posting and then coming back to add .
from the addendum I put on a post above but I think you read before I added this:
Oh, I see...when I said in the case of women, I didn't really mean that it was true they were taking men's jobs, but that the independence of being able to work means that they aren't actually dependent on a male spouse to support them, as they shouldn't be. Certainly that is something that some men would find threatening, and one thing that is not entirely inaccurate, but too bad for them, they'll have to learn to be better humans to attract a mate.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Because only an apology would be honest at this point.
It's obvious you've internalized some of this resentment toward "identity politics" and that's likely the real reason you want people to STFU about it. Not going to happen.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)apologize for shitty writing, that's fine. If you want me to apologize for thinking and meaning something I never thought or meant, that's absurd.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That fears of terrorism etc were not legit- but fear of a woman freedom or ability to work any decent job is legit. You made a clear statement. And it's a disturbing thing to read here.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)dogged interpretation?
A war criminal might have a legitimate fear that he will be found out and tried for war crimes. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be found and tried for war crimes.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Complaints. That's literally what you said- it's not me "taking it the wrong way" it's what you said. I'm guessing it reflects your thinking too. Otherwise that whole paragraph makes no sense. You have their sexist ideas legitimacy while saying their racism is not.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I'd say that's pretty fucking legitimate. It has no bearing on whether or not he should be tried for war crimes. Of course he should be.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)compaing women in the workplace to war criminals- what?
You should stop with this drivel. Really. Stop giving other people advice on how to communicate too. It's not your strong suit. You're not going to get anywhere with the base with this shit.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)fears had been or would be realized, not about whether or not that made them justified in their misogyny and in wanting things to stay the same. In my example, the fear was legitimate as in, it could absolutely happen, not legitimate because it shouldn't happen.
I think we are done though, because you clearly don't want to engage in an honest discourse. You want to lord over me a really shitty bit of writing I did and pretend it means something that I say it doesn't mean, that does not represent me or anything else you could find ever posted by me to corroborate such a reading. You don't want to accept my meaning because it doesn't sit well with your agenda of delegitimizing anything I've ever said. You smell blood. I get it. I've spent a lot of time going back and fourth with you because I accepted that you were genuinely misunderstanding me. I've had discourses with you before and I've never gotten the impression that you were all about the win and not the conversation, but I think that ship has sailed.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You really should stop talking about women, period. And stop giving Dems advice. You keep suggesting we're creating problems for bigots and sexists- and you've got that completely ass backwards. Totally. So nope, nope and more nope to this bullshit about feeling for them. Screw that.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)at ya. That statement is bullshit. Nor have I suggested that the point of empathy for Trump voters or conservatives was to make sure we don't hurt their feelings or redress their wrongs, etc. It was to figure out how to deprogram their fucked up conceptions of reality.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You keep telling me you worded it wrong, but you've said it over and over again, I'm going to believe it reflects your thinking at this point. Which explains plenty.
JCanete
(5,272 posts).well the last one is legitimate but fuck them.
who the fuck do you think I"m saying "but fuck them" about? does that sound like I'm sympathizing with their loss of power over women?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Why you did that for sexists only....is beyond me.
Saying fuck em all after doesn't matter- especially since YOU want to say that while advising US not to say that.
It's all pretty fucking bizarre to read here. Legit my ass.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Asking me about me willingness to say "fuck them" is actually a legitimate question, and I'll have to think about that, but you can't have it both ways. Either I'm a misogynist who laments the loss of the good old days or I'm saying fuck the people who want the good old days. But still, I'm not saying they are irredeemable.
Keep bandying about the word "creepy" as if that somehow makes your case stronger and makes me more vile, but the facts still don't mete it out and you know it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Thems the facts. You parsed out women taking "their jobs" as a legit fear. You weren't paraphrasing them, in this day and age YOU were referring to our jobs as men's. Deal with it. There's a ton else to unpack there but yes- saying men are legit to be afraid of women is creepy as fuck. It appears your empathy only extends to them.
To put the icing on the cake- you get to say "fuck em" right here in this thread while preaching again and again that no one else should judge or write them off. I'd say that lacks integrity and there's a motive involved. Anyway it's bizarre and nonsensical.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)doing mental backflips to make it remain so. I point out that in the post I was clearly not lamenting their state, showing you EVIDENCE right in front of your face that it was never my intention to suggest that their world-view was legitimate, only that yes, they had absolutely lost some of the control over women, and you astonishingly turn that into me being creepy for saying that was a legitimate fear. I get an initial misread of this, especially since my writing was clunky, but since it can mean both things, your refusal to apply the generous read to my post, and hell, accept my own explanation for the meaning, suggests more about your agenda than mine. You don't want to make headway here. You want to punish me for your dogmatic interpretation of something I've said.
And now that I'm more awake, it is totally different to say "fuck em" as in, you can't always get what you want, especially when its shit that is literally bad for other people dude," and saying "you are a horrible worthless evil dude." Its saying, "I'm sorry you liked the way things used to be, but your wants are not going to be privileged here." Nor have I ever stated that we need to privilege the twisted desires of racists, or for that matter, see the world more like they do. That was never my point, and only people straw-manning my argument have tried to make it that.
But this is going nowhere, so good luck to you. Feel free to cap things off with how creepy I am.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Anything I misunderstood. Why do you insist I owe you a "generous read" when today you're actually coming up with new explainations for your "sloppiness" in communicating. You really could do with some reflecting why you singled out grievances against women as "legit", but it's obvious you're not going to do that, but instead just tell us that our reactions are not smart and valid but yours are. LOL. Nope, clumsy communication is your problem, if you didn't mean to sound like you have problems w women you'd not describe said problems as "legit". I'm over it. You said what you said, and it's sad.
JI7
(89,285 posts)they don't deserve jobs that they can't do and jobs that others are better than them at.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)and still lost the electoral college.
At one point do we stop blaming our candidate for not campaigning well enough, and start working to fix the system?
sheshe2
(84,010 posts)Thanks for posting this Tom.
lapucelle
(18,389 posts)A large proportion of the electorate was convinced this year that the least qualified male option was better than the most qualified overall option because she happened to be a woman.
Thanks Tom.
Response to lapucelle (Reply #7)
ciaobaby This message was self-deleted by its author.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Great article. Thanks for posting it, Tom.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
betsuni
(25,765 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
ismnotwasm
(42,023 posts)
Rob H.
(5,354 posts)when you posted this same article in the postmortem forum almost 9 months ago?
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)...about how it is Trump and Republicans, NOT Democrats who have been using identity politics and appeals to race. Nine months later, I think we can all now agree that this is the case, and that it is wrong of many liberals to blame women and minorities for the sexism and racism that fueled Trump's rise. Indeed, we need to call out what Trump is doing and highlight how Trump is using hate to exploit his strongest supporters, taking away their healthcare, benefits and freedoms while offering snake oil of racial superiority.
If/when Trump to start a war as distraction, I will probably re-post articles noting that this was expected, and not a surprise.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)But hey, if it's a start to another "bash Bernie" post then it's a-ok....
carry on.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)Just like former Clinton strategist Mark Penn. In other words, just Bill Clinton attacking Sista Souja to attract white working class support, you have some liberals railing against "identity politics" and giving Trump a free pass on his appeals to racism arguing, instead, that Trump's base is rightfully angry.
In contrast, you have Elizabeth Warren rejecting this blame minorities and women for racism and sexism. Instead, reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson, they say we should focus on how scapegoating and hate is used to oppress us all.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/elizabeth-warren-netroots-nation/index.html
Warren pointed to a New York Times op-ed by Mark Penn, a Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign strategist, who called for the party to abandon "identity politics." Warren noted that those calls, after previous election losses, had prevailed.
"This time, no one cared," she said. "Big yawn." "In the wake of the last election, I've heard people say we need to decide whether we're the party of the white working class or the party of Black Lives Matter," Warren said.
"I say we can care about a dad who's worried that his kid will have to move away from their factory town to find good work -- and we can care about a mom who's worried that her kid will get shot during a traffic stop," she said. "The way I see it, those two parents have something deep down in common -- the system is rigged against both of them -- and against their kids."
quakerboy
(13,923 posts)Seems to me this way:
There is no President trump without racists voting.
There is no President trump without sexists voting.
There is no president trump without a nafta backlash.
There is no president trump without russian interference
There is no president trump without 30+ years of RW media attacks on Hillary Clinton
It took all of this together to just barely overturn the popular will and eke out a electoral college victory. Lose any one item on the list, and there is no president trump.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
lunasun
(21,646 posts)
