I can only conclude, based on the results of the last election and the continued support of Trump, that the identity of bigotry is more important to a significantly large population than the identity of the Democratic Party platform which is more encompassing across multiple areas of socio-economic, global and environmental objectives.
I honestly think that the of identity politics that have come from both parties, the GOP has sold the catering of the Democratic Party has been sold as an attack on the identity of the majority of the GOP.
Attacks require defense.
IMO, if the Democrats wanted to increase support for their side , they need to figure out how to be more inclusive.
There comes a point where a political party has to decide if it will stand for something right/good/just or try to cater to every flavor and stripe of bigotry and feel good lie. I don’t know which current Democratic Party platform principle I would be willing to jettison in order to court a fickle vote on the right, especially one that voted for Trump. Maybe you can suggest one that Democrats should compromise on, as an example, and why?
I don’t think they need to jettison anyone or anything to capture people like me, other than what is seen as an attack on MY identity.
I’ve been called a racist and a bigot even though I disagree with both assessments simply because the way I would wish to help those who don’t have as much differs from how they would help them. But racism has become the easy out, for anyone to criticize anything. It is currently overused as are the excuses that stem from that accusation.
I classify myself as fiscally conservative, socially liberal.
So, catering to the identity politics of the white, straight, christian male is a great idea.
But acknowledging those who are left out when only catering to that group is a bad thing.
Sadly, it is quite possible that the American populace is selfish and self absorbed enough that, politically speaking, you may be right.
We’ll find out this November, I suppose.
Especially when they are encouraged to do so by those who benefit from saying, “Lets you and him fight”.
As I stated, and you mis-attributed again (surprise surprise). I stated with no uncertainty, that they would simply need to stop attacking and include me, not cater to me.
I don’t agree that there are any attacks on your identity. I really don’t get this idea that what other people do over there is attacking what you are doing over here.
Does SSM threaten your marriage?
I see this all the time. When someone says that a policy that you support is racially biased, and that supporting it is supporting a racist policy, people turn it around and call it an attack on themselves. That being told that a policy that they support is racist means that they are being accused of racism.
I’m sure that someone somewhere has called you a racist or a bigot. People sometimes use insults when they can’t form arguments. But, I’m also sure that you have felt that you have been called a racist of bigot more often than you actually have.
And then there are the times when I might call someone else a racist, and because you have some similarity to them, you think that I’m calling you one as well. If I say that republicans who support the KKK are racist, then many republicans who do not support the KKK are told that I am talking about them too. See Clinton’s deplorable comment, where she specified exactly what traits made one deplorable, but all they took from that was Trump supporters.
Especially when we have media outlets that are created specifically for the purpose of riling people up. They are there to tell people how to feel and how to react. They are there to explain that when you said that you were against a certain policy, those who criticized you were calling you racist.
Given how you keep accusing me of attacking you and mis-attributing you, when I am doing nothing of the sort, when I was in fact agreeing with you, I don’t know if it is possible to do anything that would make you think that you are no longer under attack.
And I don’t know how it is possible to “include” you without catering to you.
What exactly is it that you want?
Same question as k9…: What do you need to feel included by the Dems?
To vote with them? I thought that was the entire point.
Are we now going to argue whether or not politics used to be more inclusive?
What specifically would the democrats have to start doing or stop doing to make you feel included.
I think you read @QuickSilver’s question as “Why do you need to feel included by the Dems?”, rather than “What do you need to feel included by the Dems?”
I think a few things:
Support realistic second amendment gun regulations, silence the overt gun grabbers
Be the fiscally prudent and responsible “conservative” party
Stop with the identity politics where everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a racist (this is probably the single biggest issue right now)
Some of the other things aren’t really party affiliated but they would also help me vote for more across the aisles types of things like bring back pork and the ability to give more than a single winner on issues.
SSM, trans stuff, abortion (I’m fine with where it is now), all of the liberal social issues I have no problem with, except for how to pay for things.
To be honest, doing the things on my list would likely involve you stopping the catering to some of the more fringe groups so it might not be a trade off you are willing to make, but I can assure you there are a lot of folks like me.
But this is mostly made up. Sure, it’s what Rush Limbaugh (and Donald Trump, for that matter) want you to believe, but it’s bullshit.
And you are right, I did
This is the type of attitude that just loses me. It isn’t made up to me. Period. And I am the only one that matters regarding what I think or feel. I don’t listen to Rush or Fox, or Trump.
So you can either listen, or keep trying to pigeonhole me.
I’m ok with either.
I’m listening. But when you’ve made the case before, what you’ve attributed to the Democrats at large, with regards to supposedly calling white men racist or anyone who disagrees with them racist, you’ve generally failed to provide good evidence IMO. You’ve lumped in nuanced criticisms or challenging discussions into very simplistic (and inaccurate) attacks on white men who disagree, based on my memory of these discussions. I challenge you to reconsider this notion you have, and open yourself to reasonable and challenging discussion about these challenging topics. It may not be comfortable, but rarely will it be insulting.
I’d say that identity politics is a bad thing when practised by either party, but it’s a worse electoral strategy to cater to minority identities rather than majority ones.
Trump didn’t try to capture everyone, but he did abandon some longstanding Republican policies like free trade in order to appeal to Democratic voters.
If fair and decent policies for black, brown, and other people of color is “catering to minorities”, then the Democrats would lose many, many voters like me if they stopped advocating this. This is, rightly, fundamental to the modern Democratic party.
Just advocate fair and decent policies for everyone.