Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 13, 2018

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton's potential status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders.

One of the dominant themes that emerged in Democratic Party discourse from the 2016 election is that it is critically important to support female candidates and candidates of color, and that a failure or refusal to support such candidates when they present a credible campaign is suggestive evidence of underlying bigotry.

But all of these stalwart, bedrock imperatives of identity politics seem strangely absent from the 2018 election cycle. These professed beliefs, in fact, seem to have vanished from Democratic Party politics almost entirely.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party structures have united behind straight, white male candidates (including ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible and progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or people of color. Clinton herself has led the way.

Across the country, the Democratic establishment has united behind white males at the expense of their female challengers and candidates of color.

It is possible, of course, to argue that uniting behind a white male against challengers who are female or people are color is justified by ideological, policy, and strategic preferences. And there's likely a great deal of truth to that in these cases: The candidates challenging Cuomo, Crowley, Menendez, and Ashford are running to their left. They are advocating things like abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "Medicare for All," an end to the war on terror, and a far higher minimum wage.

The Democratic establishment tends to despise progressive platforms like that -- such views, after all, are a direct threat to the interests of the corporate, Wall Street, and weapons manufacturing funding base that sustains the party -- and so it's not just plausible but likely that their opposition to those candidates really is driven by ideology, rather than demographic preferences or bigotry.

But that's not the ethos or philosophy that the Democratic establishment embraces when it's their centrist, pro-status-quo candidates who are women, LGBT people, or people of color, at which point it becomes a moral obligation to support them and evidence of bigotry if one refuses to do so. Indeed, supporters of Sanders throughout 2015 and 2016 endlessly and vocally insisted that their preference was due to ideology, not misogyny, yet they still had the label "Bernie bro" affixed to their forehead.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

To me, this is the crux of the article

"Identity politics" does not mean that one should automatically support a woman or person of color over a white male. That's the right wing's caricature of the theory. (Though it's also quite arguably the theory advanced by Clinton supporters in 2016 against Sanders supporters.)

What it does mean in its most convincing rendition, though, is that gender, race, sexual orientation, and other demographic factors should be a significant factor in evaluating competing candidates on the ground that diversity is inherently good and also a better guarantor of actual representation:

At the very least, in light of all this seemingly conflicting conduct in the 2018 election cycle, real clarification is needed for what Democrats believe about these matters.

Otherwise, people may start suspecting that the Democratic Party establishment does not have any genuine belief in these lofty principles of diversity and identity politics it likes to invoke. It may start to appear that party leaders instead only cynically and opportunistically embrace these precepts when doing so helps their preferred candidates, only to ignore and violate them when they want to rally behind centrist white men like Cuomo and Crowley, at the expense of more leftist challengers like Nixon and Ocasio-Cortez.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-13 11:05 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

WHat ever happened to the best person for the job why is that so foreign to the left?

#2 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-06-13 02:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

RoC and Glenn Greenwald... two pees in a pod.

But Greenwald offers himself up to hugs from rwingers when he still hasn't gotten over the Dem primary and still insists that the candidate that holds his own policy positions, you know, the correct ones, should be supported by the DNC rather than candidates that hold progressive policy positions and could also win.

He still prefers being absolutely correct to winning and being mostly correct.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-13 02:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"But all of these stalwart, bedrock imperatives of identity politics seem strangely absent from the 2018 election cycle. These professed beliefs, in fact, seem to have vanished from Democratic Party politics almost entirely."

So?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-13 02:30 PM | Reply

"Otherwise, people may start suspecting that the Democratic Party establishment does not have any genuine belief in these lofty principles of diversity and identity politics it likes to invoke"

Start suspecting?

You already believe the Democrats only give lip service to diversity. In fact it's one of your core beliefs about Democrats.

So there's not really any risk of you, or the approximately sixty million Trump voters like you, suddenly having the epiphany you're talking about.

Especially after the Democrats actually ran a woman, which did in fact live up to the ideal you see as mere lip service.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-13 02:34 PM | Reply

#3

It's funny how the Angry Aging Hippy loved him some Glen Greenwald until he dared point out the flaws that aborted Hillary's coronation.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-13 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

- loved him some Glen Greenwald

You make your idiocy complete. I've never been a Greenwald fan around here, ask anyone.

And you managed to do it without making an argument to what I said, just another lame caricature.

You know, there's prolly a 12 Step Shysters Anonymous meeting somewhere near you.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-13 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've never been a Greenwald fan around here, ask anyone.

LMAO, when he agrees with you, you love him, ask anyone.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-06-13 03:52 PM | Reply

You are just lying again. But hey, lawyer, so that's just a professional talent.

And still... no argument to what I said.

I disagreed with him on Snowden, on Clinton, and on not taking Bernie's advice in the gen election... and just about anything else he's been quoted here on.

The left has far better provocateurs in Hedges and Chomsky, among others.

But keep proving my point. It's fascinating how well you do it.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2018-06-13 04:01 PM | Reply

I make it a point to ignore Glenn Greenwald.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-14 09:51 AM | Reply

#9

I could listen to Chomsky for hours on end. His expertise & genius on such a wide range of topics, and how eloquently he puts things into perspective is a wonderful thing to behold. It is a shame tho, that so many cite him yet, obviously, do not adhere to some of his very important & relevant teachings. If more truly did, it could mean such significant & positive change for the entire world, beginning with the US.

I just grabbed these from Wikipedia, and I believe if more of us would emulate his intellectual honesty, on these views alone, we'd take a huge step towards true liberty & justice. Views I consider as truth's, btw.

"He (Chomsky) characterizes the U.S. as a de facto one-party state, viewing both the Republican Party and Democratic Party as manifestations of a single "Business Party" controlled by corporate and financial interests."

"In addition to his continued scholarly research, he remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, neo-liberalism and contemporary state capitalism, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mainstream news media."

#11 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-06-14 11:46 AM | Reply

twitter.com

#12 | Posted by Tor at 2018-06-15 08:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort