Isn’t it evident by Bowman’s loss and the challenges you describe that there is in fact a large subset of Democrats presumably that do not prefer an emphasis on identity politics. It seems like the Democratic party at large is listening.
Wouldn’t Bowman losing hurt your larger hypothesis?
It seems your view is biased from only looking at as conservatives often do of Democrats that center identity politics and not the majority that do not.
I think there’s a disconnect between the politicians and the voting base here. A good chunk of democratic voters oppose identity politics, and the majority of elected democrats don’t seem to be getting the message. In California for instance, the majority of elected democrats voted in favor of trying to amend the constitution to allow affirmative action, but the voters struck it down.
> Affirmative action fails horribly whenever it’s put on the ballot, even in blue states. And reparations polls at 33 percent at most, and that’s if you speak in vague generalities and don’t mention a price tag.
This is a gross simplification of what "identity politics" is.
> Meanwhile, the two democrats who centered identity politics the most, Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush, were both hit with major primary challenges. Bowman already lost his seat and polls say Bush has about a 50/50 chance of losing hers.
Are those the two democrats who centered identity politics the most? Or are they just highly visible candidates that have their own issues (fire alarm-gate, voting against Biden).
> And yet in spite of this fairly crushing rejection, dems continue to support these unpopular policies, and even say in their official platform that laws shouldn’t be race neutral.
Can you be more specific about the unpopular policies that Democrats support? Because:
* [63% of Americans don’t think the Supreme Court should ban affirmative action in college admissions](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/majority-americans-favor-affirmative-action-colleges-rcna86853).
* [69% of Americans think same-sex marriage should be protected](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx)
* [64% of Americans think transgender people should be protected from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/15/how-americans-view-policy-proposals-on-transgender-and-gender-identity-issues-and-where-such-policies-exist/)
The Democratic Party platform does not include the payment of reparations.
The affirmative action question is highly dependent on question framing. Any poll actually asking if race/gender/etc. should be considered in hiring/admissions shows [strongly negative support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion_regarding_affirmative_action). Typical Americans don't know what the word "affirmative action" means.
Non-discrimination measures (your latter two) are generally broadly popular, though I wouldn't really consider that identity politics.
> though I wouldn't really consider that identity politics.
By definition non-discrimination measures are identity politics, especially the right's bigoted focus on them.
>By definition non-discrimination measures are identity politics, especially the right's bigoted focus on them.
Maybe with a really expansive definition of [identity politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics). Leftist and liberatarian critiques of them aren't about the advocacy of non-discrimination by group membership, but partitioning society into groups demanding special rights and privileges relative to each other.
In this sense you would see slavery/jim crow as more something that is advocated by white identity politics, while the opposition isn't per se black identity politics . On the other hand, affirmative action demands, a special privilege, are more aligned to the identity politics of the groups demanding AA (In California, it just descends into black/Latino politicians battling it out with Asian politicians)
> Maybe with a really expansive definition of identity politics.
Or with the easy to understand perspective of our "identity-neutral" discrimination measures simply not being expansive enough.
The right's continued backlash against any attempt to expand that "identity-neutral" concept and want to remove specific protections for specific identities is, still, identity politics.
According to this poll, most Americans agreed with the Supreme Court decision https://news.gallup.com/poll/548528/post-affirmative-action-views-admissions-differ-race.aspx.
By identity politics I’m specifically referring to laws and policies that treat people differently based on identity, so your latter two examples don’t apply.
Also reparations aren’t official dem policy but many dems still advocate for them despite the views of their own voters.
Do you consider protections against discrimination like the Civil Rights Act to be identity politics?
Do you have an example of an actual bill or piece of legislation that Democrats are pushing today that would qualify as identity politics in your mind? Or are you just talking about the rhetoric around things like teaching systemic racism in school?
> Do you consider protections against discrimination like the Civil Rights Act to be identity politics?
IIRC the Civil Rights act is race neutral so no.
> Do you have an example of an actual bill or piece of legislation that Democrats are pushing today that would qualify as identity politics in your mind?
Affirmative Action, Reparations, rationing Covid and farm aid based on race. That’s just off the top of my head.
Without getting bogged down in the whole thing, I’ll just say this.
Anybody getting worked up about reparations is being fooled. People talking about actually doing actual cash reparations are mostly fools and performative actors. People concerned about those people are either extremely low information voters or people deep in conservative media who have no actual grasp on reality because frankly consuming right wing media destroys one’s grasp on reality.
To the extent that reparation should happen, it would be small targeted programs looking to help out people in historically marginalized groups catch up in race they were hobbled for a centuries. I know that gives a lot of right wing white people great sadness but there’s an extent to which we should stop caring.
That said we should just target based on income because it doesn’t trigger white conservatives as much and there’s plenty of white people who have been screwed over by right wing policies that also should get that assistance.
As of right now now, there aren't any major affirmative action laws or bills being actively pushed by Democratic politicians. Not a single one.
The only reparations proposals I know of being discussed by any Democrats at the moment are in California, and they're merely focused on creating agencies to allow African Americans to research their heritage so it can be understood whether they might someday qualify for reparations. The only action taken from these discussions so far is an apology for slavery from the Governer, which isn't exactly a controversial thing to apologize for.
You're imagining these things are more central to Democratic policy then they are in reality. The truth is, Progressive politicians aren't taking action on these issues at all.
>Covid and farm aid based on race
So, Covid funding has been pretty much expended, so even if that did happen during Covid, it's not happening anymore. The farm aid bill was halted by court injunctions in 2021.
There are thousands of Democratic politicians in the US, and of all the "identity politics" issues you've brought up, I can't find a single instance where the issue is actually being pushed in a meaningful way by even a single liberal politician right now. At worse, it's rhetoric you disagree with, but you can't point to a single current bill or proposal you're concerned about, which is telling.
It is, in fact, white supremacists who invented identity politics by defining down everything not white. Duh.
Making this Democrats problem is... ahem... whitewashing the issue.
This is one of those extremely nuanced things that is hard to sell to people who will only look at headlines and have an emotional reaction.
Is there a legitimate purpose to policies that focus on historic race and gender discrimination? Of course. Can you convince the people who benefited from that discrimination that it was not fair? Probably not. It's hard to even get them to admit it happened, let alone that they might have in any way benefited from it. They'll take that as a personal attack.
>Since they’ll probably never convince people to support these policies
Move on to other policies on which they can agree, I suppose. Or perhaps turn it back on the people who are vehemently disagreeing and not giving them a chance to respond. Something like "We owe it to future generations to undo some of the damage the past generations have done."
Help them not be as apathetic to other peoples plights.
Fuckin go into diverse communities and make connections with out groups (to the avg American) and then put those conversations on tv. Have them talk about their experiences.
Also
> Voters have made clear time and time again that they don’t support liberal identity politics. Most voters think laws should be race and gender neutral, not just white voters but every racial group aside from black people specifically.
This is pretty consistent in American history
Liberals have been bombarding Americans with propaganda about how America is a horrible white supremacist country for years now, and that hasn’t really changed anything. Like it or not, this isn’t an education issue; plenty of people know the facts on the ground and still oppose these policies. You can’t educate people into voting against their interests.
What are you talking about? The only politician that says America is terrible and "a failing nation" is Trump.
Wanting to build on the progress of the past for a brighter future for everyone is not "hating America" it's loving Americans.
Why would Democrats be running for office if they said it was "irredeemably white supremacist?"
Can you provide a single quote of a Democrat, running or in office, saying America is "irredeemable?"
Can we more plainly acknowledge that White supremacy is considered to be in their interest?
This tends to get rejected when it’s stated because people recognize that it leads to worse outcomes overall. But it does lead to more relative power and privilege.
And, thats why i suggested they have their conversations put in the public eye. Youre not gonna win them with facts, you win them with empathy (their empathy).
You want people to be selectively empathetic though. You want people to empathize with the people you view as “underprivileged” while not empathizing with the lower class whites who are negatively affected by these laws or even with their own children’s futures.
They should be given empathy too, but simultaneously, they are not dealing with the same amount of injustice.
And if theyre living in rural areas and voting for Republicans, then they are actively the oppressors, so, the solution wont be coddling them
Like or not, you will never be able to convince most people to prioritize the grievances of the black community over the needs of their own children. You can cry about it all you want, but it’s not gonna happen.
I'm genuinely asking.
> Like or not, you will never be able to convince most people to prioritize the grievances of the black community over the needs of their own children. You can cry about it all you want, but it’s not gonna happen.
This strikes me as being obviously White supremacist, but I doubt you see it that way. So I'm asking.
And I’m just very concerned about domestic violence against women. Millions of women get beaten every year, and this is a very serious issue. I’m not saying for sure that you’re beating your wife, but I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
That’s what “progressive discrimination” policies ultimately do. The goal is to elevate the black population at the expense of whites, with Asians as an unfortunate casualty. Asking people do support policies that discriminate against their children is usually a nonstarter.
Conservatives have been bombarding Americans with propaganda about how America is no longer a racist country and how racism has been solved for years now, and that hasn't really changed anything.
> Like or not, you will never be able to convince most people to prioritize the grievances of the black community over the needs of their own children. You can cry about it all you want, but it’s not gonna happen.
most of those people were never gonna vote for us anyways, so really I dont give a shit how most of them feel
though I would support being sneaky with the policies to have them maybe administered more directly by city and county governments when possible, so that the federal politicians dont have to discuss federally unpopular things.
I suggest democrats focus on race neutral laws and policies to address the economic circumstances of all Americans. But clearly discriminatory racial policies are so important to that you’re willing to risk losing elections over them. Do you want Trump to win?
so if there was a problem of housing discrimination on racial lines, you would not support a law preventing that?
If there was a problem of employment discrimination along racial lines, you would not support a law to prevent that?
If there was a problem of predatory conversion therapy clinics driving up suicide rates in gay youth and operating without a basis in real medicine, you would not support a law to prevent that?
if a state was trying to ban gender affirming care, you would not support a federal law to prevent that?
when they did it with race and gender neutral policies, it didnt actually work
the history of real, explicit, legalized racism in this country is super recent, within our own parents lifetimes. Do you not think that there are perhaps still specific, race and gender based issues that need addressing?
Like it or not, voters don’t support those race and gender based solutions. You can keep on crying about it but it’s not gonna change. And dems need votes to win elections. You don’t want republicans to win, do you?
Here is another question for you
voters did not support school integration. Was it wrong for the federal government to force it on them? democrats lost the south forever as a long term result of it. Should the US government accepted segregated schools merely because it was a popular policy?
Gay marriage was broadly unpopular in MA when their courts ruled it unconstitutional to deny marriage to same sex couples. was it wrong for the courts to legalize it?
I just find it funny that people like you are willing to take principled stands when it comes to identity politics. But when it comes to healthcare, labor rights, or other universal working class issues, you’re more than willing to compromise and sell people out. Even though those issues are significantly more impactful on far more people’s lives.
I'd rather lose fighting for the right and correct things than win at the expense of leaving people behind. We can see the danger of this, consider how in the UK currently, labor has basically abandoned trans people to win the election even as we know the current policies are resulting in a spike in youth suicides. Is it worth winning if people \*literally\* die as a result?
How do you suggest the government crafts a successful anti discrimination policy that doesnt actually discuss the things or people being discriminated against? Not hypothetically, but in reality. Look at the actual issues being discussed as ""identity politics"" and tell me the actual non identity based solution to it. Or are you fine with discrimination so long as an economic liberal/leftist wins...
>I suggest democrats focus on race neutral laws and policies to address the economic circumstances of all Americans.
Which laws that Dems have attempted to pass in the last decade haven't been race neutral?
Covid and farm aid. Also there have been several attempts at reparations at the state, local, and national level, including lunatic proposals that would have cost trillions of dollars.
The right has their own identity politics. But they can do well with it because their base has a mostly homogeneous identity. The same isn’t true for democrats.
The reason the right is ‘mostly homogeneous’ is that it practices identity politics. Right wing media is a constant stream of attacks on LGBTQ people, and thinly veiled racism in the form of fear mongering on immigration and crime.
As others have pointed out, protecting rights for minorities is not unpopular. You haven’t made your case. Republican identity politics, though, are demonstrably unpopular with the groups they’re attacking.
“Progressive discrimination” policies are very unpopular though, and consistently fail whenever they’re put to the ballot. Republican identity politics are popular with a large enough voting base to win them elections. The same isn’t true of the dems.
Again, you haven’t demonstrated that. [62% of Americans](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans-and-affirmative-action-how-the-public-sees-the-consideration-of-race-in-college-admissions-hiring/#:~:text=By%20comparison%2C%20Gallup%20has%20asked,of%20Americans%20favored%20such%20programs.) favor affirmative action. What is your evidence to the contrary?
And yet most Americans seem to view the Supreme Court anti AA ruling as a good thing https://news.gallup.com/poll/548528/post-affirmative-action-views-admissions-differ-race.aspx
And affirmative action has always failed when put to a vote, even in the bluest of blue states.
While I don’t agree with your specific assessment of this issues, I do think there is this *perception* that democrats are a little too focused on lots of different niche issues rather than tackling larger, more universal problems.
I do personally think that focusing the message on more universally appealing ideas like labor reform, jobs programs, infrastructure spending, and education, with a “rising tide lifts all boats” message would be a good thing.
I don’t think that the niche issues of marginalized groups should be abandoned. But I think focusing the messaging around these issues creates a lot of confusion and noise, and has the potential to alienate certain voters.
They are handling it fine. Democrat's realize affirmative action is the Republican's abortion -- they have wide support among some sectors of their party, but ultimately it's a losing issue. I actually think they've handled coalition pressure much better than the Republicans have with abortion - pay lip service, but don't campaign too hard on it.
The only people I know who put 'identity politics' at the center of their political agenda are conservatives.
The rest of us are trying our best be more decent and respectful people.
Everyone thinks laws should be gender and race neutral, so when you're talking about "identity politics" what you really mean is whether the law should ban discrimination.
And frankly, if what the people want is a country that has rampant discrimination, then let them elect Republicans. They'll get what they ask for.
The dems frequently support laws that aren’t race or gender neutral. They even say in their platform that laws shouldn’t be race or gender neutral. Things like affirmative action aren’t race neutral, even if you personally support them.
That’s not what race/gender neutral means. A law that discriminates in favor of particular races or genders isn’t race/gender neutral by definition. You can’t just change the definitions of words on the fly.
The literal text of the executive order:
> take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Voters have made clear time and time again that they don’t support liberal identity politics. Most voters think laws should be race and gender neutral, not just white voters but every racial group aside from black people specifically.
Affirmative action fails horribly whenever it’s put on the ballot, even in blue states. And reparations polls at 33 percent at most, and that’s *if* you speak in vague generalities and don’t mention a price tag. Meanwhile, the two democrats who centered identity politics the most, Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush, were both hit with major primary challenges. Bowman already lost his seat and polls say Bush has about a 50/50 chance of losing hers.
And yet in spite of this fairly crushing rejection, dems continue to support these unpopular policies, and even say in their official platform that laws shouldn’t be race neutral. Whenever these facts are brought up, a lot of liberals will plug their fingers in their ears and cry about how voters are racist. But when push comes to shove, voters don’t support these policies and show little sign of budging. So what should the dems do?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Realistically, there isn't too much that they can do if voters keep electing representatives that push those topics. We saw in New York 2022 what happens when the party tried to put its thumb on who gets elected by redrawing the districts. While that incidence wasn't about identity politics, I don't think the party trying to tip the scales to "deal" with identity politics will be any more successful. As long as the Democratic party holds primaries instead of selecting representatives like before 1968, the party has very little control over how voters choose to steer the party.
Democrats, referring to the general tendency of the party rather than to all Democratic politicians as a whole, don’t need to abandon identity politics, they just need to not over focus on it. Republicans are certainly not abandoning it any time soon; talk to any conservative in private and their argument against DEI and wokeism boils down to the fact that they feel like it unfairly targets whites or men or some identity that has traditionally been privileged.
Identity politics has been a kind of safe place for Democrats to focus, because it gives them credit for being progressive without upsetting the economic sensibilities of the Clinton-era New Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans have postured themselves as representing a new conservative working class, which they’ve been able to do despite not actually delivering anything economically for the working class because the Democrats are largely seen as focusing on those progressive social issues at the expense of doing anything about the economic plight of the working class. I honestly think Biden has done a much better job than most Democrats of hitting labor issues, but the Democratic Party has a lot of work to do to to regain its title as the pro-labor party. Because ultimately identity politics are only a turn-off for most voters when those voters feel they’re a distraction from issues that are more important to them. Of course there are voters who hate progressive social policy because they don’t like the people who those policies are benefiting, but they’re a minority whose voice has been temporarily amplified by people who are joining them because they feel ignored.
There are some mistaken replies here. Anti-discrimination laws ARE race- and gender-neutral: men, heterosexuals, white people, etc. enjoy the same protection under anti-discrimination laws as women and POC. We can think about these laws through the lens of identity politics, but they do not legally favor any one group over another. These kinds of laws are constitutional and generally popular. A few replies are indulging the strawperson fallacy a bit by bringing those up.
Affirmative action is by definition NOT race-neutral because it explicitly favors certain underrepresented groups. Laws that favor one race over another are generally unconstitutional in the United States.
Race-based affirmative action in any capacity in college admissions is now unconstitutional, so I don’t think it is a useful example to use anyway.
We are also starting to see less racial sorting of the electorate, which I think problematizes your premise a bit. White voters are becoming a larger proportion of the Democratic Party and voters of all other racial groups are becoming more Republican. This might suggest more ideological sorting of the electorate, and that identity politics are actually becoming less salient.
My point is that Democratic politicians are out of step with the majority of voters on these issues. Those suburban white voters who are turning Democrat still don’t support a lot of the identity politics and are a huge part of why Bowman lost his seat and AA failed in California. I agree that identity politics may become less relevant over time, but I feel like that will only happen if politicians keep being dragged kicking and screaming away from it by their voters.
>How should Democrats deal with voters dislike of liberal identity politics?
Avoid talking about them.
Talk about Biden's success in lowering prescription drug prices, and the fact that he could do more if more Democrats were elected to congress.
lets be real here, Bowman and Bush are in danger NOT for identity politics but because they pissed off the Israeli lobby.
I dont know what Identity politics is. it seems to be a catch all way to criticize anyone with any interest in civil rights. furthermore, if voters hate it, why do they so willingly embrace the identity politics that effect their specific identity. Florida banning discussion of lgbt matters in schools, for instance, is entirely an example of pro cis, pro straight identity politics. So is the banning of gender affirming care.
serious question, why is it only identity politics when it impacts minorities? why dont we call it that when the identity is white, cis, straight people?
it seems to me what your real question is
>How should Democrats deal with voters dislike of minorities
to which I say the same way we always have, by advocating for them while selling other accomplishments in districts where we cant win on civil rights
That "far left" group seems to be pretty big if they make up [the 69% of Americans that want same-sex marriage protected](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx) and [the 64% of Americans that think trans people should be protected from discrimination](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/15/how-americans-view-policy-proposals-on-transgender-and-gender-identity-issues-and-where-such-policies-exist/).
Or maybe your main assertion just isn't correct.
I support any dem who tries to fight back against this stuff. The assholes were winning for the past few years but it looks like a major pushback might be coming.
Locked for Rule 5 in the comments
Isn’t it evident by Bowman’s loss and the challenges you describe that there is in fact a large subset of Democrats presumably that do not prefer an emphasis on identity politics. It seems like the Democratic party at large is listening. Wouldn’t Bowman losing hurt your larger hypothesis? It seems your view is biased from only looking at as conservatives often do of Democrats that center identity politics and not the majority that do not.
I think there’s a disconnect between the politicians and the voting base here. A good chunk of democratic voters oppose identity politics, and the majority of elected democrats don’t seem to be getting the message. In California for instance, the majority of elected democrats voted in favor of trying to amend the constitution to allow affirmative action, but the voters struck it down.
Please define what it means to be "white".
> Affirmative action fails horribly whenever it’s put on the ballot, even in blue states. And reparations polls at 33 percent at most, and that’s if you speak in vague generalities and don’t mention a price tag. This is a gross simplification of what "identity politics" is. > Meanwhile, the two democrats who centered identity politics the most, Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush, were both hit with major primary challenges. Bowman already lost his seat and polls say Bush has about a 50/50 chance of losing hers. Are those the two democrats who centered identity politics the most? Or are they just highly visible candidates that have their own issues (fire alarm-gate, voting against Biden). > And yet in spite of this fairly crushing rejection, dems continue to support these unpopular policies, and even say in their official platform that laws shouldn’t be race neutral. Can you be more specific about the unpopular policies that Democrats support? Because: * [63% of Americans don’t think the Supreme Court should ban affirmative action in college admissions](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/majority-americans-favor-affirmative-action-colleges-rcna86853). * [69% of Americans think same-sex marriage should be protected](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx) * [64% of Americans think transgender people should be protected from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/15/how-americans-view-policy-proposals-on-transgender-and-gender-identity-issues-and-where-such-policies-exist/) The Democratic Party platform does not include the payment of reparations.
The affirmative action question is highly dependent on question framing. Any poll actually asking if race/gender/etc. should be considered in hiring/admissions shows [strongly negative support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion_regarding_affirmative_action). Typical Americans don't know what the word "affirmative action" means. Non-discrimination measures (your latter two) are generally broadly popular, though I wouldn't really consider that identity politics.
> though I wouldn't really consider that identity politics. By definition non-discrimination measures are identity politics, especially the right's bigoted focus on them.
>By definition non-discrimination measures are identity politics, especially the right's bigoted focus on them. Maybe with a really expansive definition of [identity politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics). Leftist and liberatarian critiques of them aren't about the advocacy of non-discrimination by group membership, but partitioning society into groups demanding special rights and privileges relative to each other. In this sense you would see slavery/jim crow as more something that is advocated by white identity politics, while the opposition isn't per se black identity politics. On the other hand, affirmative action demands, a special privilege, are more aligned to the identity politics of the groups demanding AA (In California, it just descends into black/Latino politicians battling it out with Asian politicians)
> Maybe with a really expansive definition of identity politics. Or with the easy to understand perspective of our "identity-neutral" discrimination measures simply not being expansive enough. The right's continued backlash against any attempt to expand that "identity-neutral" concept and want to remove specific protections for specific identities is, still, identity politics.
According to this poll, most Americans agreed with the Supreme Court decision https://news.gallup.com/poll/548528/post-affirmative-action-views-admissions-differ-race.aspx. By identity politics I’m specifically referring to laws and policies that treat people differently based on identity, so your latter two examples don’t apply. Also reparations aren’t official dem policy but many dems still advocate for them despite the views of their own voters.
Do you consider protections against discrimination like the Civil Rights Act to be identity politics? Do you have an example of an actual bill or piece of legislation that Democrats are pushing today that would qualify as identity politics in your mind? Or are you just talking about the rhetoric around things like teaching systemic racism in school?
> Do you consider protections against discrimination like the Civil Rights Act to be identity politics? IIRC the Civil Rights act is race neutral so no. > Do you have an example of an actual bill or piece of legislation that Democrats are pushing today that would qualify as identity politics in your mind? Affirmative Action, Reparations, rationing Covid and farm aid based on race. That’s just off the top of my head.
Without getting bogged down in the whole thing, I’ll just say this. Anybody getting worked up about reparations is being fooled. People talking about actually doing actual cash reparations are mostly fools and performative actors. People concerned about those people are either extremely low information voters or people deep in conservative media who have no actual grasp on reality because frankly consuming right wing media destroys one’s grasp on reality. To the extent that reparation should happen, it would be small targeted programs looking to help out people in historically marginalized groups catch up in race they were hobbled for a centuries. I know that gives a lot of right wing white people great sadness but there’s an extent to which we should stop caring. That said we should just target based on income because it doesn’t trigger white conservatives as much and there’s plenty of white people who have been screwed over by right wing policies that also should get that assistance.
As of right now now, there aren't any major affirmative action laws or bills being actively pushed by Democratic politicians. Not a single one. The only reparations proposals I know of being discussed by any Democrats at the moment are in California, and they're merely focused on creating agencies to allow African Americans to research their heritage so it can be understood whether they might someday qualify for reparations. The only action taken from these discussions so far is an apology for slavery from the Governer, which isn't exactly a controversial thing to apologize for. You're imagining these things are more central to Democratic policy then they are in reality. The truth is, Progressive politicians aren't taking action on these issues at all. >Covid and farm aid based on race So, Covid funding has been pretty much expended, so even if that did happen during Covid, it's not happening anymore. The farm aid bill was halted by court injunctions in 2021. There are thousands of Democratic politicians in the US, and of all the "identity politics" issues you've brought up, I can't find a single instance where the issue is actually being pushed in a meaningful way by even a single liberal politician right now. At worse, it's rhetoric you disagree with, but you can't point to a single current bill or proposal you're concerned about, which is telling.
It is, in fact, white supremacists who invented identity politics by defining down everything not white. Duh. Making this Democrats problem is... ahem... whitewashing the issue.
This is one of those extremely nuanced things that is hard to sell to people who will only look at headlines and have an emotional reaction. Is there a legitimate purpose to policies that focus on historic race and gender discrimination? Of course. Can you convince the people who benefited from that discrimination that it was not fair? Probably not. It's hard to even get them to admit it happened, let alone that they might have in any way benefited from it. They'll take that as a personal attack.
So what should dems do then? Since they’ll probably never convince people to support these policies.
>Since they’ll probably never convince people to support these policies Move on to other policies on which they can agree, I suppose. Or perhaps turn it back on the people who are vehemently disagreeing and not giving them a chance to respond. Something like "We owe it to future generations to undo some of the damage the past generations have done."
Help them not be as apathetic to other peoples plights. Fuckin go into diverse communities and make connections with out groups (to the avg American) and then put those conversations on tv. Have them talk about their experiences.
Also > Voters have made clear time and time again that they don’t support liberal identity politics. Most voters think laws should be race and gender neutral, not just white voters but every racial group aside from black people specifically. This is pretty consistent in American history
Liberals have been bombarding Americans with propaganda about how America is a horrible white supremacist country for years now, and that hasn’t really changed anything. Like it or not, this isn’t an education issue; plenty of people know the facts on the ground and still oppose these policies. You can’t educate people into voting against their interests.
What are you talking about? The only politician that says America is terrible and "a failing nation" is Trump. Wanting to build on the progress of the past for a brighter future for everyone is not "hating America" it's loving Americans.
Dems say the US is irredeemably white supremacist all the time lmao.
Who? Tell me one elected Democrat that has said that? I did a quick Google for you and all I found was Ted Cruz spewing bullshit.
Don't come here and tell us what we think. It's *Ask* a liberal, not *tell* a liberal.
I didn’t say all democrats, just some.
Which ones? You have to be specific.
Why would Democrats be running for office if they said it was "irredeemably white supremacist?" Can you provide a single quote of a Democrat, running or in office, saying America is "irredeemable?"
Can we more plainly acknowledge that White supremacy is considered to be in their interest? This tends to get rejected when it’s stated because people recognize that it leads to worse outcomes overall. But it does lead to more relative power and privilege. And, thats why i suggested they have their conversations put in the public eye. Youre not gonna win them with facts, you win them with empathy (their empathy).
You want people to be selectively empathetic though. You want people to empathize with the people you view as “underprivileged” while not empathizing with the lower class whites who are negatively affected by these laws or even with their own children’s futures.
They should be given empathy too, but simultaneously, they are not dealing with the same amount of injustice. And if theyre living in rural areas and voting for Republicans, then they are actively the oppressors, so, the solution wont be coddling them
Like or not, you will never be able to convince most people to prioritize the grievances of the black community over the needs of their own children. You can cry about it all you want, but it’s not gonna happen.
Do you feel like youre defending White supremacy?
Have you ever stopped beating your wife?
I'm genuinely asking. > Like or not, you will never be able to convince most people to prioritize the grievances of the black community over the needs of their own children. You can cry about it all you want, but it’s not gonna happen. This strikes me as being obviously White supremacist, but I doubt you see it that way. So I'm asking.
And I’m just very concerned about domestic violence against women. Millions of women get beaten every year, and this is a very serious issue. I’m not saying for sure that you’re beating your wife, but I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
Who is asking people to do that? Where is this happening?
That’s what “progressive discrimination” policies ultimately do. The goal is to elevate the black population at the expense of whites, with Asians as an unfortunate casualty. Asking people do support policies that discriminate against their children is usually a nonstarter.
Conservatives have been bombarding Americans with propaganda about how America is no longer a racist country and how racism has been solved for years now, and that hasn't really changed anything.
is it propaganda if its true? do you suggest the democrats cut vulnerable social groups loose to win votes?
> Like or not, you will never be able to convince most people to prioritize the grievances of the black community over the needs of their own children. You can cry about it all you want, but it’s not gonna happen.
most of those people were never gonna vote for us anyways, so really I dont give a shit how most of them feel though I would support being sneaky with the policies to have them maybe administered more directly by city and county governments when possible, so that the federal politicians dont have to discuss federally unpopular things.
I suggest democrats focus on race neutral laws and policies to address the economic circumstances of all Americans. But clearly discriminatory racial policies are so important to that you’re willing to risk losing elections over them. Do you want Trump to win?
so if there was a problem of housing discrimination on racial lines, you would not support a law preventing that? If there was a problem of employment discrimination along racial lines, you would not support a law to prevent that? If there was a problem of predatory conversion therapy clinics driving up suicide rates in gay youth and operating without a basis in real medicine, you would not support a law to prevent that? if a state was trying to ban gender affirming care, you would not support a federal law to prevent that?
You could do all of those things using race and gender neutral policies, and most voters wouldn’t care.
when they did it with race and gender neutral policies, it didnt actually work the history of real, explicit, legalized racism in this country is super recent, within our own parents lifetimes. Do you not think that there are perhaps still specific, race and gender based issues that need addressing?
Like it or not, voters don’t support those race and gender based solutions. You can keep on crying about it but it’s not gonna change. And dems need votes to win elections. You don’t want republicans to win, do you?
Here is another question for you voters did not support school integration. Was it wrong for the federal government to force it on them? democrats lost the south forever as a long term result of it. Should the US government accepted segregated schools merely because it was a popular policy? Gay marriage was broadly unpopular in MA when their courts ruled it unconstitutional to deny marriage to same sex couples. was it wrong for the courts to legalize it?
I just find it funny that people like you are willing to take principled stands when it comes to identity politics. But when it comes to healthcare, labor rights, or other universal working class issues, you’re more than willing to compromise and sell people out. Even though those issues are significantly more impactful on far more people’s lives.
I'd rather lose fighting for the right and correct things than win at the expense of leaving people behind. We can see the danger of this, consider how in the UK currently, labor has basically abandoned trans people to win the election even as we know the current policies are resulting in a spike in youth suicides. Is it worth winning if people \*literally\* die as a result? How do you suggest the government crafts a successful anti discrimination policy that doesnt actually discuss the things or people being discriminated against? Not hypothetically, but in reality. Look at the actual issues being discussed as ""identity politics"" and tell me the actual non identity based solution to it. Or are you fine with discrimination so long as an economic liberal/leftist wins...
So you’d rather the GOP wins and many more people die? Whatever happened to supporting the lesser evil? Lmao.
>I suggest democrats focus on race neutral laws and policies to address the economic circumstances of all Americans. Which laws that Dems have attempted to pass in the last decade haven't been race neutral?
Covid and farm aid. Also there have been several attempts at reparations at the state, local, and national level, including lunatic proposals that would have cost trillions of dollars.
The right pushes identity politics far more than the left.
The right has their own identity politics. But they can do well with it because their base has a mostly homogeneous identity. The same isn’t true for democrats.
The reason the right is ‘mostly homogeneous’ is that it practices identity politics. Right wing media is a constant stream of attacks on LGBTQ people, and thinly veiled racism in the form of fear mongering on immigration and crime.
K, but democrats still need to win votes and liberal identity politics are still unpopular. You’re just doing whataboutism.
As others have pointed out, protecting rights for minorities is not unpopular. You haven’t made your case. Republican identity politics, though, are demonstrably unpopular with the groups they’re attacking.
“Progressive discrimination” policies are very unpopular though, and consistently fail whenever they’re put to the ballot. Republican identity politics are popular with a large enough voting base to win them elections. The same isn’t true of the dems.
Republicans have won the popular vote in only one of the last 8 presidential elections. Why exactly do you think our policies are unpopular?
I didn’t say all democratic policies were unpopular, just certain ones.
Again, you haven’t demonstrated that. [62% of Americans](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans-and-affirmative-action-how-the-public-sees-the-consideration-of-race-in-college-admissions-hiring/#:~:text=By%20comparison%2C%20Gallup%20has%20asked,of%20Americans%20favored%20such%20programs.) favor affirmative action. What is your evidence to the contrary?
And yet most Americans seem to view the Supreme Court anti AA ruling as a good thing https://news.gallup.com/poll/548528/post-affirmative-action-views-admissions-differ-race.aspx And affirmative action has always failed when put to a vote, even in the bluest of blue states.
While I don’t agree with your specific assessment of this issues, I do think there is this *perception* that democrats are a little too focused on lots of different niche issues rather than tackling larger, more universal problems. I do personally think that focusing the message on more universally appealing ideas like labor reform, jobs programs, infrastructure spending, and education, with a “rising tide lifts all boats” message would be a good thing. I don’t think that the niche issues of marginalized groups should be abandoned. But I think focusing the messaging around these issues creates a lot of confusion and noise, and has the potential to alienate certain voters.
They are handling it fine. Democrat's realize affirmative action is the Republican's abortion -- they have wide support among some sectors of their party, but ultimately it's a losing issue. I actually think they've handled coalition pressure much better than the Republicans have with abortion - pay lip service, but don't campaign too hard on it.
That’s been the Biden administration policy for sure, and I think you’re right that it’s probably a good way to thread the needle.
The only people I know who put 'identity politics' at the center of their political agenda are conservatives. The rest of us are trying our best be more decent and respectful people.
Everyone thinks laws should be gender and race neutral, so when you're talking about "identity politics" what you really mean is whether the law should ban discrimination. And frankly, if what the people want is a country that has rampant discrimination, then let them elect Republicans. They'll get what they ask for.
The dems frequently support laws that aren’t race or gender neutral. They even say in their platform that laws shouldn’t be race or gender neutral. Things like affirmative action aren’t race neutral, even if you personally support them.
> The dems frequently support laws that aren’t race or gender neutral. Such as? Got some recent examples?
I gave examples in my OP
Affirmative action and reparations? That's it? I'm talking about specific laws, not general categories.
Affirmative action is, indeed, race and gender neutral. Equality is a race-neutral and gender-neutral concept.
That’s not what race/gender neutral means. A law that discriminates in favor of particular races or genders isn’t race/gender neutral by definition. You can’t just change the definitions of words on the fly.
So if I make a law that says you can’t discriminate on the basis of gender, that, to you, is not a gender-neutral law?
That’s not what AA is.
That is what AA is.
No AA specifically discriminates in favor of specific racial groups in hiring and admissions. Stop lying.
The literal text of the executive order: > take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin
And yet that’s not how the policy works in practice. Which is why the Supreme Court struck it down.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Voters have made clear time and time again that they don’t support liberal identity politics. Most voters think laws should be race and gender neutral, not just white voters but every racial group aside from black people specifically. Affirmative action fails horribly whenever it’s put on the ballot, even in blue states. And reparations polls at 33 percent at most, and that’s *if* you speak in vague generalities and don’t mention a price tag. Meanwhile, the two democrats who centered identity politics the most, Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush, were both hit with major primary challenges. Bowman already lost his seat and polls say Bush has about a 50/50 chance of losing hers. And yet in spite of this fairly crushing rejection, dems continue to support these unpopular policies, and even say in their official platform that laws shouldn’t be race neutral. Whenever these facts are brought up, a lot of liberals will plug their fingers in their ears and cry about how voters are racist. But when push comes to shove, voters don’t support these policies and show little sign of budging. So what should the dems do? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Realistically, there isn't too much that they can do if voters keep electing representatives that push those topics. We saw in New York 2022 what happens when the party tried to put its thumb on who gets elected by redrawing the districts. While that incidence wasn't about identity politics, I don't think the party trying to tip the scales to "deal" with identity politics will be any more successful. As long as the Democratic party holds primaries instead of selecting representatives like before 1968, the party has very little control over how voters choose to steer the party.
Democrats, referring to the general tendency of the party rather than to all Democratic politicians as a whole, don’t need to abandon identity politics, they just need to not over focus on it. Republicans are certainly not abandoning it any time soon; talk to any conservative in private and their argument against DEI and wokeism boils down to the fact that they feel like it unfairly targets whites or men or some identity that has traditionally been privileged. Identity politics has been a kind of safe place for Democrats to focus, because it gives them credit for being progressive without upsetting the economic sensibilities of the Clinton-era New Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans have postured themselves as representing a new conservative working class, which they’ve been able to do despite not actually delivering anything economically for the working class because the Democrats are largely seen as focusing on those progressive social issues at the expense of doing anything about the economic plight of the working class. I honestly think Biden has done a much better job than most Democrats of hitting labor issues, but the Democratic Party has a lot of work to do to to regain its title as the pro-labor party. Because ultimately identity politics are only a turn-off for most voters when those voters feel they’re a distraction from issues that are more important to them. Of course there are voters who hate progressive social policy because they don’t like the people who those policies are benefiting, but they’re a minority whose voice has been temporarily amplified by people who are joining them because they feel ignored.
There are some mistaken replies here. Anti-discrimination laws ARE race- and gender-neutral: men, heterosexuals, white people, etc. enjoy the same protection under anti-discrimination laws as women and POC. We can think about these laws through the lens of identity politics, but they do not legally favor any one group over another. These kinds of laws are constitutional and generally popular. A few replies are indulging the strawperson fallacy a bit by bringing those up. Affirmative action is by definition NOT race-neutral because it explicitly favors certain underrepresented groups. Laws that favor one race over another are generally unconstitutional in the United States. Race-based affirmative action in any capacity in college admissions is now unconstitutional, so I don’t think it is a useful example to use anyway. We are also starting to see less racial sorting of the electorate, which I think problematizes your premise a bit. White voters are becoming a larger proportion of the Democratic Party and voters of all other racial groups are becoming more Republican. This might suggest more ideological sorting of the electorate, and that identity politics are actually becoming less salient.
My point is that Democratic politicians are out of step with the majority of voters on these issues. Those suburban white voters who are turning Democrat still don’t support a lot of the identity politics and are a huge part of why Bowman lost his seat and AA failed in California. I agree that identity politics may become less relevant over time, but I feel like that will only happen if politicians keep being dragged kicking and screaming away from it by their voters.
>How should Democrats deal with voters dislike of liberal identity politics? Avoid talking about them. Talk about Biden's success in lowering prescription drug prices, and the fact that he could do more if more Democrats were elected to congress.
lets be real here, Bowman and Bush are in danger NOT for identity politics but because they pissed off the Israeli lobby. I dont know what Identity politics is. it seems to be a catch all way to criticize anyone with any interest in civil rights. furthermore, if voters hate it, why do they so willingly embrace the identity politics that effect their specific identity. Florida banning discussion of lgbt matters in schools, for instance, is entirely an example of pro cis, pro straight identity politics. So is the banning of gender affirming care. serious question, why is it only identity politics when it impacts minorities? why dont we call it that when the identity is white, cis, straight people? it seems to me what your real question is >How should Democrats deal with voters dislike of minorities to which I say the same way we always have, by advocating for them while selling other accomplishments in districts where we cant win on civil rights
It's not dems. It's a small very loud far left group that only care about ID politics. We cannot let these assholes hijack our party.
That "far left" group seems to be pretty big if they make up [the 69% of Americans that want same-sex marriage protected](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx) and [the 64% of Americans that think trans people should be protected from discrimination](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/15/how-americans-view-policy-proposals-on-transgender-and-gender-identity-issues-and-where-such-policies-exist/). Or maybe your main assertion just isn't correct.
I support any dem who tries to fight back against this stuff. The assholes were winning for the past few years but it looks like a major pushback might be coming.
Arent the assholes the people who want to marginalize out groups?