Those who want to behave like an insurgent and dismiss "identity politics" won't ever grasp the idea of collective identities and the importance of engaging with allies who may not fully share their vision.
No coincidence that identity politics has become a hot topic when these same white liberals want to tear everything down. It was they who decided that the white working class should be at the epicenter of political calculus, ignoring that Democrats were losing whites since the 60's when the party pushed a civil rights agenda. Anything outside of WWC concerns was deemed a wedge issue, divisive or frivolous or 3rd on their priority list.
And this is problematic because identity has always been embedded in Politics, particularly American politics. When white men thoroughly dominated the political arena, "identity" often featured highly in campaigns, from anti-catholicism, projecting masculinity to contrast with an opponent's perceived homosexuality, archetypes like the "Outsider" the "dude you can have a beer with", the "Log cabin and hard cider candidate", and channeling the "silent majority" - all identity based, and crafted to resonate as such. When non-whites and women entered the arena and demanded representation, the modern idea of "Identity Politics" arose. I'd even say identity politics has become a euphemism for civil rights.
When the chosen candidate for these liberals lost, they decided that the system must have been rigged. The same system African Americans pragmatically worked through to wield influence. Worse, when their chosen candidate - Sanders- was way behind in the delegate count, demands were made that Superdelegates who supported his opponent Hillary, a stalwart who always worked her way in the party, switch their support from her, who the base clearly wanted, to him who was losing badly. This reeks of entitlement and sour grapes.
Changing the system when it doesn't suit you is the prerogative and privilege of white men, the fracas over Super Delegates is just a symptom of this. The next step will be pushing for all open primaries. Clinton won the majority of Open Primaries in 2016 but she won them in states with many black Democrats. I suppose the hope is with all open primaries, this dynamic will shift, suppressing the influence of some demographics. Yes a cynical take, but how else to take it really?
You know, it's interesting that major populist movements in the States are always connected to race somehow, and not class, because we have no concept of class in a deep way. We talk about race like those in other countries talk about class and this is because this country's wealth was generated from a racial caste system. It's why economic justice and social justice must always be intertwined, with social justice as the foundation. To see some white liberals deny this has been a revelation, and I think I'm justified to be wary of them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
