Identity Politics and Electoral Loss

[Kaye_NY]

The results of three elections in different parts of the world have been cast by pundits as proof that politicians who embrace “identity politics” risk being punished for it at the polls. In each case, this narrative has pointed to an emphasis of LGBT rights as being politically risky and somehow divisive.

Analysing the unexpected electoral loss of Hillary Clinton in the US presidential elections in November, professor Mark Lilla argued in an op-ed in the New York Times that her campaign had “slipped” into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, LGBT, and women voters while saying nothing of direct resonance to white, working-class voters that have long been part of her party’s base. In his telling, this led many white working class voters to feel abandoned.

He said that national politics is not about “difference,” but about commonality, and that Clinton’s campaign failed to speak clearly enough to issues like economic justice that cut across group lines. In a campaign that set out to embrace diversity, white, rural, religious Americans started to see themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity and real-world needs were being ignored.

Whatever one thinks of the term, public unhappiness with “identity politics” has shown itself to be a complex and volatile political rallying cry. Many of the questions Lilla and many others have written on are of course worth exploring. But it’s dangerous and intellectually bankrupt to claim that the right lesson to draw from all of this is that politicians have gone too far in embracing diversity and standing up for the rights of women, racial minorities, LGBT people or anyone else. Political leaders may well need to look for new ways to speak to the needs and interests of groups who feel alienated by mainstream politics, but they shouldn’t embrace bigotry as a cheap and easy way to get there.

Politics that stops talking about minority rights on the theory that upholding them is “divisive,” or makes it harder to win over majority voting blocs, will only lead to a more fragmented society, not bring people together. Instead, political leaders should make clear that rights are not a zero-sum game – protecting my rights does not undermine yours. On the contrary it creates a framework we can all rely on if our rights come under threat.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/03/identity-politics-and-electoral-loss

A question was asked, "What is the Alt-Left?" In my opinion the Alt-Left are individuals who are economic liberals and social conservatives. My belief is that the Democratic Party must strive to continue to be both economically and socially liberal.

[brush]

1. What a surprise. None of the geniuses mentioned Comey/Putin...

in their electoral analysis.

Guess none of that happened, even the Oct. 28th letter to Congress.

[Kaye_NY]

5. Yes. Those were large factors as well.

It all seems to be ignored to suit a different agenda. An agenda that wants to move socially to the right.

[grossproffit]

2. The extreme left are NOT socially conservative. It's the extreme opposite.

[Kaye_NY]

6. I'm referring to the Alt-Left

[yallerdawg]

3. The M$M sold us a corrupt fraud...

and assassinated the experienced, qualified candidate.

Now the pundits want us to believe that the Democratic Big Tent should include the Republican base of white, rural, conservative, religious bigotry or we won't win?

And some on 'the left' are buying THIS now?

[Kaye_NY]

7. Yes, and it's very frustrating.

[Blue_Tires]

4. So tell me why it isn't "identity politics" when the GOP does it?

[Kaye_NY]

8. I think both the Alt-Left and the GOP

call it "identity politics" now, although some in the GOP still refer to it as "political correctness".

I wish they would all call it was it is, Civil Rights.

[Ezior]

9. This is a delicate issue

As a gay man, I understand that it's generally a good thing to mention minorities and tell everyone, as a politician, that you will make sure all the minorities will have equal rights and you support everyone, no matter their skin color, sexuality, etc.

That rarely happens in Germany though, I was actually a little confused when I saw US campaign rallies where liberal politicians seem to mention LGBT and other communities in every second sentence of their speeches. Here, they mention it in their platform and talk about those issues from time to time, like all the other issues. But nothing even close to the US way of identity politics.

Now, looking at the results, I wonder if maybe the more low-profile way of identity politics is actually more successful. When I listen to Bernie Sanders or Hillary, I feel quite good whenever they say how they love gay people and how they support me with their policies... But in Germany, the guy from the left party had a coalition with the green party, and since both of their platforms had different levels of LGBT support in them, they compromised and introduced civil unions. I was quite young at the time, so I don't really remember it, but it probably wasn't a big issue during the campaign. They just did it, even though many conservative voters probably didn't like it.

Now, almost 15 years later, the Germans are overwhelmingly in favour of full gay marriage and almost nobody, not even the alt right party, wants to get rid of civil unions. I wonder if that's because left-leaning politicians never made that huge of a deal out of it? Or is it unrelated to that? I don't know.

Now, we definitely have problems with (mostly latent) racism but most Germans refuse to acknowledge that fact. So I wonder if the right thing to do is – turn it into a campaign issue? Or will that alienate voters even more and lead to more (maybe even overt) racism and right-wing votes? Maybe the best thing to do is to raise awareness through media, TV shows, newspapers, but in a subtle way. A few years ago an investigative journalist disguised as a black person and simply reported how people now treated him differently. It was an interesting read. I think that's a good idea and probably way more helpful than chancellor candidate Schulz telling us how he wants to work very hard to improve the situation for black people, and repeat that all the time. (I do hope our future chancellor is going to work on this issue, of course.)

So instead of talk, talk, talk, talk – maybe it's better to just talk, then talk about all the other important things you plan to do, and when you're elected make sure you improve the situation for minorities?

[Kaye_NY]

10. I don't care for the term "identity politics"

"Identity politics" are Civil Rights. Calling Civil Rights, "identity politics", is a tactic to diminish them.

The 2016 Presidential election exposed an ugliness in the United States that ran much deeper than believed. To fully understand the election, we must address events that led up to it. Many State legislatures had been actively pushing to restrict the civil rights of many. There were bills restricting women's reproductive rights, bills discriminating against LGBT rights, bills discriminating against immigrants, and a large push to discredit the need to address racial bias in our judicial system.

During the election, Donald Trump openly campaigned on bigotry. He campaigned more on bigotry than he did on the economy. He said that women should be punished for having an abortion. He denied the racial bias in the judicial system and instead promised to become more harsh. He promised to round up and deport all "illegal" immigrants, without a thought as to those who have no path to become "legal". He very much implied that all people of Muslim faith were suspect. And sadly, he was cheered on for these views. These bigoted statements could not go unanswered.

Hillary Clinton campaigned on thoughtful, sensible and practical foreign policy. She campaigned on detailed and achievable economic goals. She also campaigned on being a strong advocate for civil rights. All of which are what deem the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

The Democratic platform did win, as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. A mere 70,000 voters provided Donald Trump the win due to the electoral college.

I agree that we must seek all avenues to raise more awareness, but to stop talking about the importance of Civil Rights, especially in campaigns, will only make things worse.

All of these issues are already accepted by the majority of the general public, again it shows in the popular vote. The bigger issue lies with those who choose not to vote, and those who have had their voting rights restricted.

Sexism, racism and all bigotry is still ignored by too many. My belief is that we need to talk about it even more.