I think GOP likes to pretend that they're pushing back on people being used as tokens and given positions they are not qualified for simply because of their "identity" like when they were screaming about the gay woman fire chief in LA who was VERY qualified and did a fine job in an apocalyptic situation given limited resources. WHICH IS HILARIOUS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING THAT. Clarence Thomas anyone? One of the least experienced nominees who is intellectually dishonest and inconsistent on top of being a sexually harassing perv, hack and thoroughly corrupt. Kristi Noehm, bumbling, self dealing corrupt, dog killing idiot who has done nothing good for her state but HEY shes a woman so now we can pretend we don't hate women, same with Sarah Palin and the list goes on and on.
I gotta say, just based on my own observations and the level of cruelty and spite I'm seeing from Dems to other groups who are typically supposed to be "allies", I'm not optimistic. It's like they can't see that winning by dehumanizing others is called losing for Democrats. If they make those trade offs in order to win, the party loses cohesion and means nothing in particular. Which is winning in name only, only for the worst of its members. However it doesn't seem that they can get enough votes to win by doing this (almost like alienating multiple portions of your base isn't good political strategy) even though this seems to be the approach they're invested most in.
Democrats have won a lot in the trump era (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 (Jan), 2022, 2023) .And I think as I said there are a number of people in the party who get it. It's just an ongoing struggle...
The oddest thing about the way the phrase “identity politics” is wielded - is the fact that we are all supposed to pretend that “white” and “male” isn’t the dominating form of identity politics.
I'm disappointed that the Dems chose Slotkin to give the response. As you noted she is wishy-washy on "identity politics," also known as human rights. I will listen to see what she has to say, but I wish they had picked a stronger advocate.
This is a tricky subject, not because there’s any nuance to the rights of the marginalized groups, but because this is the ground that Republicans want to be fighting on. The best advocates, like AOC, can state clearly that everyone has the right to live life and be accepted for who they are, and immediately pivot to, “Why are you taking health care and SNAP benefits away from Americans to give tax cuts to billionaires?“ Too many leaders in the Democratic Party are no longer grounded by any convictions. So they either try and sneak by while only throughing a few people under the bus or they try and fake ally-ship and come across as inauthentic, alienating everyone.
Well, they have ONE conviction—The Donations Must FLOW!!!!!
Watching Democrats desperately scramble for cash from corporate interests, spending more time trying to raise money than, you know, representing us? Is one of the more repulsive aspects of Clinton NeoLiberalism.
I have always hated the term "identity politics" even before it was co-opted by the right, the same way they co-opted "woke" and particularly "DEI." But it was a mushy term to begin with. Why SHOULDN'T you back causes that are important to your identity--as trans, female, black or another race, another sexual preference, being a senior? I'm pretty sure that almost NO ONE who isn't white male simply ignores all the other issues in the world, from climate change to Russian expansionism (or for that matter, OUR expansionism). It has come to mean "only caring about your identity" and the person who most exemplifies that is Drump.
You mention some examples that have been imported into "identity politics" from the earlier idea of "PC." That has actually been mostly a campus phenomenon--it's the call mostly of late teenagers and early twenty somethings. It can go too far--I HATE trigger warnings; the only one I ever want to see that might affect my decision to read a book is "the dog dies." (Actually I don't care if someone lists a bunch after a book recommendation; it is when it affects what can be taught or discussed that I draw the line.) The proper term for things like that is "over PC," not "identity politics.
I hope that Slotkin is savvy enough to recognize this. She is going to have SO MUCH putrid meat to chew from the SOTU that she really doesn't need to waste time denigrating other Dems.
I think GOP likes to pretend that they're pushing back on people being used as tokens and given positions they are not qualified for simply because of their "identity" like when they were screaming about the gay woman fire chief in LA who was VERY qualified and did a fine job in an apocalyptic situation given limited resources. WHICH IS HILARIOUS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING THAT. Clarence Thomas anyone? One of the least experienced nominees who is intellectually dishonest and inconsistent on top of being a sexually harassing perv, hack and thoroughly corrupt. Kristi Noehm, bumbling, self dealing corrupt, dog killing idiot who has done nothing good for her state but HEY shes a woman so now we can pretend we don't hate women, same with Sarah Palin and the list goes on and on.
🎯🎯🎯🤬🤮🤬🤮🤬
I gotta say, just based on my own observations and the level of cruelty and spite I'm seeing from Dems to other groups who are typically supposed to be "allies", I'm not optimistic. It's like they can't see that winning by dehumanizing others is called losing for Democrats. If they make those trade offs in order to win, the party loses cohesion and means nothing in particular. Which is winning in name only, only for the worst of its members. However it doesn't seem that they can get enough votes to win by doing this (almost like alienating multiple portions of your base isn't good political strategy) even though this seems to be the approach they're invested most in.
Democrats have won a lot in the trump era (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 (Jan), 2022, 2023) .And I think as I said there are a number of people in the party who get it. It's just an ongoing struggle...
It's definitely an ongoing struggle.
I blame Clinton NeoLiberalism for this, and their sucking up to corporate interests and turning into "Republican Lite".
Well, if they're REPUBLICANS they deserve cruelty and spite because they gave us Trump!
Everybody else? You're right—it's kind of like hearing John Cleese ally with J.K. Rowling and double down on transphobia....
JOHN CLEESE! Who dressed up in drag all the time on MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS!
Knock it off—you've become the very thing you used to make fun of.
Please tell me he has changed his tune since 2020.
If anything, he's doubled down on it just like Rowling or Dave Chapelle has.
The oddest thing about the way the phrase “identity politics” is wielded - is the fact that we are all supposed to pretend that “white” and “male” isn’t the dominating form of identity politics.
Exactly!!!
“Peace in our time.” Neville Chamberlain. 30 September 1938.
Germany invades Poland. 1 September 1939.
I'm disappointed that the Dems chose Slotkin to give the response. As you noted she is wishy-washy on "identity politics," also known as human rights. I will listen to see what she has to say, but I wish they had picked a stronger advocate.
This is a tricky subject, not because there’s any nuance to the rights of the marginalized groups, but because this is the ground that Republicans want to be fighting on. The best advocates, like AOC, can state clearly that everyone has the right to live life and be accepted for who they are, and immediately pivot to, “Why are you taking health care and SNAP benefits away from Americans to give tax cuts to billionaires?“ Too many leaders in the Democratic Party are no longer grounded by any convictions. So they either try and sneak by while only throughing a few people under the bus or they try and fake ally-ship and come across as inauthentic, alienating everyone.
Well, they have ONE conviction—The Donations Must FLOW!!!!!
Watching Democrats desperately scramble for cash from corporate interests, spending more time trying to raise money than, you know, representing us? Is one of the more repulsive aspects of Clinton NeoLiberalism.
I so hope you’re wrong, but my gut is also very suspicious about Slotkin and moreover, choosing her to offer the rebuttal.
I have always hated the term "identity politics" even before it was co-opted by the right, the same way they co-opted "woke" and particularly "DEI." But it was a mushy term to begin with. Why SHOULDN'T you back causes that are important to your identity--as trans, female, black or another race, another sexual preference, being a senior? I'm pretty sure that almost NO ONE who isn't white male simply ignores all the other issues in the world, from climate change to Russian expansionism (or for that matter, OUR expansionism). It has come to mean "only caring about your identity" and the person who most exemplifies that is Drump.
You mention some examples that have been imported into "identity politics" from the earlier idea of "PC." That has actually been mostly a campus phenomenon--it's the call mostly of late teenagers and early twenty somethings. It can go too far--I HATE trigger warnings; the only one I ever want to see that might affect my decision to read a book is "the dog dies." (Actually I don't care if someone lists a bunch after a book recommendation; it is when it affects what can be taught or discussed that I draw the line.) The proper term for things like that is "over PC," not "identity politics.
I hope that Slotkin is savvy enough to recognize this. She is going to have SO MUCH putrid meat to chew from the SOTU that she really doesn't need to waste time denigrating other Dems.