Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged identity_politics

Rss Feed Group items tagged

mabel taylor

One for All and All for One - 5 views

  •  
    This article stood out to me since it discusses a topic that I often find myself drawn to, which is the appropriateness of identity politics and how they affect not only Democrats, but politics more broadly. While this is a rather brief overview of a large issue, it efficiently mentions where the legacy of identity politics has its roots and how the Democratic focus on minorities has been successful in creating policies that strive for more equality. The article then goes on to discuss how identity politics can alienate key voters who are supporters of the party, but find themselves "excluded from" the focus on topics and issues they, as generally white and older citizens, cannot relate to. Though identity politics began as a way to bring in a more diverse audience of supporters and voters who were often left marginalized by other parties and politicians, the Democrats can easily make their campaigns and policies too specific and exclusive, leaving those not affected by more common forms of prejudice forgotten. I like that this article finishes with the idea that shifting the Democratic focus from tailored appeals to minorities to broader campaigns about unity would avoid the problem Democrats face, but I find it hard to imagine Democrats giving up a type of campaigning that their Republican rivals really struggle with when it gives them such an advantage, even with the alleged cost of forgotten white voters.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I think the efforts by both Obama and Romney to focus on minorities and identity groups is as much about tapping into wider voting groups as it is about creating equal policy (Jeb's comment about widening the appeal). I agree with you, though, that the Obama approach to identity politics is probably here to stay and worth the sacrifices he has to make in terms of old white voters. This is one of the ways, at least it seems to me, that "conventional" Democrats are not going to be all that important in deciding the election this year. This article reminds me of that infographic Anna posted: not only are some of the concerns of these smaller sections of the party outside of the bubble of typical Democrat issues, some of them actually contradict these views.
  •  
    According to Joe Klein, Obama and the democratic party have focused so much in supporting the minority groups that they have ignored the needs of white middle class voters. It's interesting to think about how this actually excludes a huge portion of the country. I wonder specifically which white voters Klein is referring to. Watching the crowd at the Democratic Convention I was struck by the diversity of the group. It seemed to reflect the US much more than the white crowd at the Republican Convention. There seemed to be many white, democratic delegates. Were these delegates from coastal states? Were they from cities? Did the majority of them connect to groups like women's rights, LGBT rights and other identity groups? I am concerned that the democrat's position on social issues could upset middle class voters who share other values with the democrats. However, I cannot imagine supporting issues of social justice and not highlighting them. They are just too important.
  •  
    This article brings up an interesting division in the Democratic party between white, middle class voters and the various minority groups. It's odd to think that a white construction worker in Texas or California, though he would probably agree with the Democratic party's stance on unions and worker rights, minimum wages, universal health care, etc, would probably be alienated by the party's stance on immigration. Ultimately, though, I feel like the democrats are right to court minority voters - every day, more old white men die and more minority voters become voting age. That is the direction that the country is heading, and I'm sure that if the Dems are consciously choosing minority voters over a more traditional voter base they're doing so with good reason.
  •  
    While I was reading this article, something about it didn't resonate with me. This is the line that really threw me off, "But if I'm a plain old white insurance salesman, I look at the Democratic Party and say, What's in it for me?" Well, for this salesman what's in it for him is a more fair tax code, a medicare system that will guarantee him health care longer into his life, the list goes on. I don't see how "identity politics" are hurting the Democratic Party, because there are so many issues in politics. I really don't believe the equal rights stance of the Democratic Party would alienate middle-class white men, because the Republican Party's economic policy will hurt these middle class men more. Now, all of my views on this issue are completely biased by my liberal politics, but I just disagreed with what this article was trying to get at.
  •  
    Interesting article and a great discussion. Identity does impact political leanings, and middle class white men more often vote Republican. I agree that it seems like the Democrats would have a lot to offer the "plain old white insurance salesman," but working class white guys don't seem to see it that way. If only women voted in this country, Republicans would not have a chance. Indeed, you can say the same about Latinos, Jews, African-Americans, immigrants, the poor ... And Republicans have their base groups as well -- white men, evangelical Christians, rural voters and those in the ex-urbs, etc. It turns out that how you vote is enormously impacted by citizenship status, race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.
1 - 1 of 1
Showing 20 items per page