A popular misconception about identity politics...

[Doctor Cringelord]

...seems to be that progressive, center left democrats play identity politics more than any other political faction. However, I have noticed from watching recent democratic debates that the candidates who seemed to play the us/them, "they", etc angles in reference to minority demographics were mostly moderate democrats. Bloomberg was the most obvious example, as he scrambled to tell the debate audience and moderators what he did for "them" while mayor of NYC. Typically when the two most progressive candidates (Warren and Sanders) mention race and demographics, it is in the language of unity and they tend to refer to these demographics in one breath, usually speaking of unifying people. The moderates don't do this. Sure they will use words like "unity", but then they'll resort to the same pandering like visiting black churches to talk about racism (as if those churchgoers weren't aware of racism in america), when they would be better suited speaking to white churches of racism. They talk of "the blacks" or other groups almost as if they're obligated to do so, then go to the next town to assure the white middle class they're a safe choice. The way the moderates scramble to pander to certain demographics seems condescending, and I would argue quite racist. For instance Biden talking about how he "knew a black guy" or hanging out at a Roscoe's during the Super Tuesday results, or Hillary in 2016 bragging to a black radio host about always keeping hot sauce in her purse. I haven't seen any prominent progressive in a recent election stoop quite to the same lows in playing these games. The idea of the far left, insincere virtue signalling "SJW" is mostly a myth. I allege that if anything, it is the moderates who are more likely to offer empty platitudes and virtue signal their supposed wokeness. Meanwhile they continue to downplay the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, overlooking how the poor is a broad group encompassing multiple ethnic demographics and age groups. But the fact they still see ethnic demographics first, and individuals second, this speaks volumes about what they actually stand for. They're little better than the far right identitarians or Trump unenthusiastically waving a rainbow LGBTQ flag at a 2016 campaign event.


TL;DR - it is moderate democrats, not the left progressives, who are more likely to pander with identity politics, whilst doing little to reform the economic system that continues to disadvantage the very people they pander to every election year.

Thoughts?

 

[The Cat]

Outsiders have to stick together...If they wish to break through the Gates "keeping them out".
Insiders have to stick together...If they wish to keep the Gates sealed "keeping them safe" inside.

Both are overly fixated upon the Gates of Wrath.
Both are overly similar.
Both are equally sad.
Both will lie about it.
Both Smile with their mouths.
Both look lost in their eyes.

Both might be better than four more years of this...other madness.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm not sure about your specific question about moderate liberals, but I think it's the people who watch too much 24 news on either side that get brainwashed into the standard identity politics.

I see two levels of identity politics that are important to delineate.

There is the sports team mentality based on duality of Republican and Democrat, where people will cheer on their candidate like they are their new quarterback, and their morality is only marginally important as long as they can win the game. It is a mindset of egoism, of wanting to be number 1 and winning the game and berating the opponent to gain a sense of superiority.

There is a second type of identity politics in which demographics who have been suppressed and defined as a group by those in power are attempting to gain equality. They did not form the original demographic identity, but it was forced upon them in a spirit of oppression. They take hold of that forced identity and use it to reclaim equality. This is a completely different process from the one described above.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

curious [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION]'s thoughts too

 

[The Cat]

Yes, yes you see at least. One more drop in an all to empty bucket, one could die of thirst on such a ration

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

There is a second type of identity politics in which demographics who have been suppressed and defined as a group by those in power are attempting to gain equality. They did not form the original demographic identity, but it was forced upon them in a spirit of oppression. They take hold of that forced identity and use it to reclaim equality. This is a completely different process from the one described above.

Yes. And I believe that the moderate center likes to talk about helping these groups during elections, but the second they're in office they back the same policies that disproportionately harm and keep these groups oppressed.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Yes. And I believe that the moderate center likes to talk about helping these groups during elections, but the second they're in office they back the same policies that disproportionately harm and keep these groups oppressed.

That could well be the case. I think it happens a lot when people in power act as voice for the oppressed when the microphone should be given directly to the people experiencing the oppression. There needs to be more politicians directly from those demographics to serve as their voice.

But I'm sure the problem is even more ingrained that that. The powers that be, those individuals and institutions that are funding political processes are the ones that actually make the decisions, so the discourse used to get elected is just marketing and the candidate is never in much of a position to do anything. I tend to see candidates as pawns that serve different propaganda agendas by those behind the scenes with money. Trump is a great distraction puppet that gets everyone upset about one thing while those behind the scenes move the chess pieces to their ends with perfect slight-of-hand. A reassuring candidate like Obama is another good PR approach. I'm not sure any of them ever had much power at all.

 

[ceecee]

curious @ceecee's thoughts too

I came to the conclusion that the moderates, the center, the "classical liberal" (which isn't even very liberal but that's another conversation) are the most dangerous group in the sense that they a) generally don't think there is much problem in the US with well, anything and b) they somehow think most Americans also wants no change. If you watched anything for the last two days, you will see that there is one candidate that's using "identity politics" and it isn't Bernie Sanders and it isn't Elizabeth Warren. But Joe Biden got the black southern vote. And the black southern voters have probably suffered more under "moderate" policy than anyone else, historically.

I read something from David Frum, Iraq war apologist and generally shitty neocon:

"Joe Biden appeals to people who pay their cable bills on the day they arrive," Frum said. "Bernie Sanders appeals to people who may forget to pay their cable bill entirely. The first group, they're both equally morally worthy, but the first group is more reliable."

This dumb bitch is so out of touch that he simply assumes everyone can afford a cable bill and doesn't know that most people stream at least some of the TV they watch. That's moderate identity politics in a nutshell.

Every progressive I know wants to pull the country left. The reason is because the center or the moderates have moved to the right. Some have cozied up to the to the far right. The actual right are terrifying and repressive and completely off the rails as far as being a decent human are concerned. I say that last part specifically because if you line up to be counted with them, it makes no difference what kind of a good Christian you are or how much you donate to a soup kitchen. None. The difference between them and me is that there should never be soup kitchens in this country. They shouldn't be required.

But I don't find them to be as dangerous overall to the country. That's people like Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they are. Because moderates for the most part just don't want to be bothered. They want to go back to not caring about politics and the left, the real left, knows this. That's why the civility police are out in force on CNN and MSNBC. But in the end, they will make sure they take the black southern vote, the women's vote, the Latinx and Asian vote happily. And continue to do nothing for them.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

That could well be the case. I think it happens a lot when people in power act as voice for the oppressed when the microphone should be given directly to the people experiencing the oppression. There needs to be more politicians directly from those demographics to serve as their voice.

and this is why I made the distinction between the moderates and the progressives. The Progressives are actually trying to build a coalition of these voices, and in many cases running candidates from these backgrounds, rather than just zinging out empty talking points or worse, joking about how much they love their fried chicken and hot sauce to win a few wokeness points. Yet the second a BLM activist or war vet calls them on support for certain past policies at campaign stumps, watch them deflect or try to run away and dodge the attacks.

A reassuring candidate like Obama is another good PR approach. I'm not sure any of them ever had much power at all.

He came into office with a lot of big ideas and lofty goals, which were quickly squashed. We blame the republican congress for obstructing, but we also forget that the first two years of his campaign he had to deal with the blue dog democratic establishment fighting any attempt at real progressive policy change.

 

[The Cat]

these days politicians are a kind of celebrity. There is always a disconnect between celebrity and the common person. For example very few commoners get their meals comped just for showing up.

 

[ceecee]

Here's one example of the progressives wanting to build a coalition.

The Michigan 12th Congressional District is my hometown. This young man is running for that seat.

U-M medical student launches primary challenge against Dingell | The Michigan Daily

I hear OMG he's a socialist! He's a kid. He's nobody. Why would I vote for him?

Because that seat currently held by Debbie Dingell, widow of John Dingell and his father before him, have held this seat for 85 years. Eight decades. That in itself is enough to make me want to support someone else. The fact that he is a progressive is even better because the last thing that district needs is another moderate that will do nothing. I've heard him speak, I met him back in the fall. I was impressed.

 

[The Cat]

Here's one example of the progressives wanting to build a coalition.

The Michigan 12th Congressional District is my hometown. This young man is running for that seat.

U-M medical student launches primary challenge against Dingell | The Michigan Daily

I hear OMG he's a socialist! He's a kid. He's nobody. Why would I vote for him?

Because that seat currently held by Debbie Dingell, widow of John Dingell and his father before him, have held this seat for 85 years. Eight decades. That in itself is enough to make me want to support someone else. The fact that he is a progressive is even better because the last thing that district needs is another moderate that will do nothing. I've heard him speak, I met him back in the fall. I was impressed.

I'd vote for a scarecrow with a single good idea rather than have a what even is that a legacy admission seat? Holy crap. The Dingell Dynasty. eesh.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Here's one example of the progressives wanting to build a coalition.

The Michigan 12th Congressional District is my hometown. This young man is running for that seat.

U-M medical student launches primary challenge against Dingell | The Michigan Daily

I hear OMG he's a socialist! He's a kid. He's nobody. Why would I vote for him?

Because that seat currently held by Debbie Dingell, widow of John Dingell and his father before him, have held this seat for 85 years. Eight decades. That in itself is enough to make me want to support someone else. The fact that he is a progressive is even better because the last thing that district needs is another moderate that will do nothing. I've heard him speak, I met him back in the fall. I was impressed.

I'll continue to support progressives and outsiders in democratic primaries, but as long as they continue to run weak willed moderates in general elections, it's third party city for me. My votes might seem wasted but at least I'm providing them a chance to break thresholds for state and federal funding and possible admission to debate stages. I welcome the addition of those voices to debates where moderate dems are more concerned with appeasing that imaginary handful of moderate republicans they hope to win over. Thinking about donating to AOC's reelection campaign this year.

I hear McAulliffe is going to run for governor again in VA. I really hope they primary someone decent against him.

 

[ceecee]

I'll continue to support progressives and outsiders in democratic primaries, but as long as they continue to run weak willed moderates in general elections, it's third party city for me. My votes might seem wasted but at least I'm providing them a chance to break thresholds for state and federal funding and possible admission to debate stages. I welcome the addition of those voices to debates where moderate dems are more concerned with appeasing that imaginary handful of moderate republicans they hope to win over. Thinking about donating to AOC's reelection campaign this year.

I hear McAulliffe is going to run for governor again in VA. I really hope they primary someone decent against him.

You can bet on them running more weak moderates or insane Republicans (check out Tommy Tuberville) as sure as I'm typing this. But the one positive is that they can't control the conversation and progressive ideas are certainly more mainstream than even a few years ago.

You should donate to AOC's campaign, I've given her $10/mo since before she was elected.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

check out Tommy Tuberville

It's pretty bad when this guy makes Sessions look like the more levelheaded republican in the primary.

 

[Jaguar]

The way the moderates scramble to pander to certain demographics seems condescending, and I would argue quite racist. For instance Biden talking about how he "knew a black guy" or hanging out at a Roscoe's during the Super Tuesday results [...]

Congratulations, you basically called Rep. Jim Clyburn a stupid man.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Congratulations, you basically called Rep. Jim Clyburn a stupid man.

Nope.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

...seems to be that progressive, center left democrats play identity politics more than any other political faction. However, I have noticed from watching recent democratic debates that the candidates who seemed to play the us/them, "they", etc angles in reference to minority demographics were mostly moderate democrats. Bloomberg was the most obvious example, as he scrambled to tell the debate audience and moderators what he did for "them" while mayor of NYC. Typically when the two most progressive candidates (Warren and Sanders) mention race and demographics, it is in the language of unity and they tend to refer to these demographics in one breath, usually speaking of unifying people. The moderates don't do this. Sure they will use words like "unity", but then they'll resort to the same pandering like visiting black churches to talk about racism (as if those churchgoers weren't aware of racism in america), when they would be better suited speaking to white churches of racism. They talk of "the blacks" or other groups almost as if they're obligated to do so, then go to the next town to assure the white middle class they're a safe choice. The way the moderates scramble to pander to certain demographics seems condescending, and I would argue quite racist. For instance Biden talking about how he "knew a black guy" or hanging out at a Roscoe's during the Super Tuesday results, or Hillary in 2016 bragging to a black radio host about always keeping hot sauce in her purse. I haven't seen any prominent progressive in a recent election stoop quite to the same lows in playing these games. The idea of the far left, insincere virtue signalling "SJW" is mostly a myth. I allege that if anything, it is the moderates who are more likely to offer empty platitudes and virtue signal their supposed wokeness. Meanwhile they continue to downplay the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, overlooking how the poor is a broad group encompassing multiple ethnic demographics and age groups. But the fact they still see ethnic demographics first, and individuals second, this speaks volumes about what they actually stand for. They're little better than the far right identitarians or Trump unenthusiastically waving a rainbow LGBTQ flag at a 2016 campaign event.


TL;DR - it is moderate democrats, not the left progressives, who are more likely to pander with identity politics, whilst doing little to reform the economic system that continues to disadvantage the very people they pander to every election year.


Thoughts?

I agree with this. I'm actually inclined to think that the elites in this country seek to maintain "divide and conquer." The establishment of both parties plays this out. They take advantage of existing racial and gender tensions for their benefit. It's way I'm not convinced that the same "moderate" approach is going to be able to do anything about far right extremism because I think it is the goal of the establishment to keep people divided. Racism and sexism can't flourish without sharp divisions.

Do you remember when Hillary said that being in the Senate minority was like being on a plantation? I believe this was back during the Dubya years.

You can bet on them running more weak moderates or insane Republicans (check out Tommy Tuberville) as sure as I'm typing this. But the one positive is that they can't control the conversation and progressive ideas are certainly more mainstream than even a few years ago.

That's why I officially joined the DSA yesterday. There are always state and local offices to consider. Gains there will help regardless of who wins in November. The real game is state and local, anyway. I really do think the left, the real left in this country is going stronger.

When I think about what the "left" option was in 2004, and what it is now, and how much more successful that his been, it's obvious that it's only gotten stronger. The individual movements (like Occupy Wall Street, which I admit I mostly sat out because it seemed too disorganized) or candidates may come and go, but the force behind them seems to be getting stronger as the years go on. This probably isn't our year to win big (the Presidency), but I think it will come.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I agree with this. I'm actually inclined to think that the elites in this country seek to maintain "divide and conquer." The establishment of both parties plays this out. They take advantage of existing racial tensions for their benefit.




That's why I officially joined the DSA yesterday. There are always state and local offices to consider. Gains there will help regardless of who wins in November. The real game is state and local, anyway. I really do think the left, the real left in this country is going stronger.

When I think about what the "left" option was in 2004, and what it is now, and how much more successful that his been, it's obvious that it's only gotten stronger. The individual movements (like Occupy Wall Street, which I admit I mostly sat out because it seemed too disorganized) or candidates may come and go, but the force behind them seems to be getting stronger as the years go on. This probably isn't our year to win big (the Presidency), but I think it will come.

Sometimes I worry the only way we'll get a really progressive president will be if some plutocratic FDR type takes it again. I mean, better than nothing, I'll take it, just a shame that the last remotely progressive candidate to win was a rich guy with the connections and the money to win. And that was quite literally a lifetime ago.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Sometimes I worry the only way we'll get a really progressive president will be if some plutocratic FDR type takes it again. I mean, better than nothing, I'll take it, just a shame that the last remotely progressive candidate to win was a rich guy with the connections and the money to win. And that was basically a lifetime ago.

JB Pritzker in Illinois seems a little like that. I didn't vote for him in the primary, but he seems to have some decent policies like the Fair Tax even though he comes from an insanely wealthy family.