It’s a perfect illustration of why the debate over “identity politics” in the 2016 election has been so maddening. Sanders’s comments represent a flank of the Democratic party that partly blames Clinton’s loss on her strong embrace of race and gender issues, which could have turned off white male voters in particular. Meanwhile, the marginalized groups who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats fear being thrown under the bus, as they have many times before, so that the party can curry more favor with white Americans. [...]
But to people who actually practice “identity politics,” Sanders is presenting a straw man. He’s describing tokenism — the idea that you need a certain quota of “token” members of marginalized groups for the sake of “diversity,” regardless of whether those members are actually qualified or actually represent their group’s interests. [...]
Generally speaking, identity politics is about recognizing and acting on the fact that different groups can have different interests, goals, and policy needs. It doesn’t require pitting those groups against each other, although it’s often presented that way. Rather, it’s about acknowledging that American politics tends to treat the “white male” identity as the default — and every other identity as some sort of optional bonus feature. [...]
What Sanders doesn’t seem to understand, though, is that these issues are at the heart of “identity politics.” He gives identity-focused progressives much too little credit for their willingness to support other progressive issues — and also gives himself too little permission to champion identity issues without the “yes, but” qualification.
No comments:
Post a Comment