Indeed. Include me!
The party does that too, in general (the Democratic party is highly flawed in practice, but in the policies they/we generally advocate for, is on the right track, and would generally benefit all Americans but the absolute wealthiest, IMO). But there are specific challenges and obstacles related to race, and the party must not ignore those. It seems like you’re advocating that the party ought to ignore those specific challenges faced by black, brown, Native, LGBTQ, etc., Americans. If not, then what are you saying?
As examples – universal health care, a higher minimum wage, stronger labor protections, better environmental protections, and much more, would benefit Americans of every race, ethnicity, etc.
Agreed. So let’s address what’s below:
To my mind, the Democratic Party platform directly speaks to what you’re asking.
What I believe you’re objecting to are some of the more progressive voices that are part of the Democratic Party, often the same voices that are well left of the stated party platform. So in a sense, you are reacting to individuals who do not represent the majority of middle of the road Democrats and most Independents who vote in line with Democrats (like me, for example).
So is it me that you object to when I say that I would like to see the 2nd A repealed, or the Democratic Party platform that says nothing of the kind?
Is it the often obnoxiously woke liberals that you object to when it comes to identity politics or is it the Democratic Party platform that says nothing at all about identity politics except talk about working towards a more just society?
What fringe groups do you object to? How is the Democratic Party catering to them exactly?
It seem to me that you are doing a piss poor job separating the wheat from the chaff and choosing to blame the Democratic Party for things it’s not advocating for, at all. If your goal is to find an excuse not to vote for Democrats, then feel free to continue to focus on the left wing rabble-rousers. They are certainly loud enough if you make it a point to listen to them at the exclusion of where the majority of Democrats actually are socio- and econo-politically. FFS, they nominated Biden, not Bernie or Liz. How much more fucking proof do you need of the tepidness with which Democrats approach your hot button issues of guns and identity politics?
Here’s the thing. I grew up in a very white community. I think that there were 3 black kids in my graduating class.
I have done and said things out of ignorance or even just laziness that were racist.
That doesn’t make me a racist.
If someone says that something that you have said or done is racist, that doesn’t make you a racist.
Sometimes, you may support a policy that is racially discriminatory, and you may be called out for supporting a racist policy. That doesn’t make you a racist.
And sometimes, buttholes on the internet will call someone who has done or said or supported things a racist. Sometimes assholes will call someone they disagree with a racist, for no reason other than that they disagree and can’t form an argument.
When I’ve been called out for doing or saying racist things, it did make me defensive. And in the past, I would have had trouble distinguishing between being called out for having done or said something racist, and being called a racist.
So, my recommendation would be to treat the assholes like the assholes that they are, but not smear everyone else because of their behavior. Listen to the actual policies and ideas that have traction, not the ones that are advocated by some fringe.
Don’t get defensive in the face of criticism. Doing or saying a thing does not define who you are. If you support a policy that is racially biased, point out how the benefits to society outweigh the damage to the minority.
Most of the rest on your list is stuff that is already supported by mainstream democrats. Though I’m not sure what you mean by “silence the overt gun grabbers”, there will always be some who think that we should go door to door and take everyone’s guns, and I can’t think of a way to silence them that doesn’t involves some pretty serious government intervention in censorship.
I agree entirely with bringing back earmarks (pork barrel politics), because that was the grease that allowed people to work across the aisle. It was claimed that it was gotten rid under the claim of fiscal responsibility, but it made up a tiny fraction of the budget, and really did help prevent the gridlock we have experienced since it was removed.
How do you want to pay for things?
Personally, I don’t mind going back to the taxes that we had back in the 60s and 70s. That’s when America did some pretty great things, without going into serious debt.
I’m going to echo other posters on this one in particular.
I genuinely don’t know where you’re getting this from the Dems.
Which is what we do, and people call it “identity politics.”
It is less the party, and more the very vocal other groups who do shape the direction of the Democratic agenda, regardless of platform.
You for example, I find myself agreeing more than I disagree on some issues. iiandyiii and k9, I don’t think I have agreed with much of anything with, primarily because they focus so hard on the identity part of identity politics.
Understood. I sometimes find myself irritated in a similar way. I’m learning to look past it and focus on the message instead of the messengers and how it’s delivered.
I’m saying go back to the idea of not judging people by their skin colour, rather than treating everyone as a member of a group. And stop condemning anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot. It’s scary how much groupthink seems to be taking over.
Sounds good to me! I’ve never been in favor of those things.
If you think I’ve done these things, I invite you to show me those posts in which you think I have.
See, this is where we have to disagree.
I don’t see myself focusing on identity politics at all. I do see problems that need fixing, and propose and advocate for ideas that could lead to fixing them.
Sometimes I see a particular group that is being attacked unfairly, and I voice my support against them being attacked.
But, I’m a white heterosexual cis-male. I do not have a college degree, and have spent most of my life at the bottom of the pay scale. I am now a business owner.
My “identity” is that, given all of that, I should be a conservative, I should be a republican, I should even be a Trump supporter.
I see the accusation of “identity politics” as just another term to disparage another’s argument without addressing it.
I spent some time as a lifeguard in my youth. Would it be identity politics to concentrate on the needs of a swimmer in distress and ignore a guest that wants another cushion on their lawn chair?
There are a lot of problems that need fixing, they all cost money so have to have a way of ranking need. In order to rank need, you must first make sure its a problem that needs outside (and not just outside, but governmental) help.
Otherwise you spend all your time in the water pulling out distressed (but not drowning) swimmers as others go under.
Besides the fact I haven’t exactly mastered the search function on Discourse yet, this attitude is not something easily encapsulated in a single comment.
The impression I’ve got from reading your posts is that you’re one of those people who says we ought to listen to what minorities say, and take it on board. And you do. But you’ve got no interest in what non-minorities have to say. If straight white whatevers complain about their problems, you accuse them of whining or lying or being racists. Their job is to shut up and let their ‘betters’ tell them what to do, because you know best. If they disagree they need to be reeducated or bullied into silence. Is that what you believe?
No, not remotely. There are tons of straight white people who have very difficult lives, and plenty to reasonably complain about. I’m very interested in their opinions about how public policy can make their chances at a decent life better.
Perhaps I’m instinctively harsh on the rich. If so, that’s what they deserve (and I say this as a relatively affluent person myself). The system is just massively, overwhelmingly tilted towards making things easy for rich people. Being naturally skeptical of the rich is very healthy and appropriate, at least until we have a remotely fair and decent society.
Identity politics: swimmers wearing green have been denied lifebelts and swimming lessons and many are in distress. Let’s help swimmers wearing green.
Not identity politics: let’s help swimmers in distress. Most of those helped will indeed be wearing green, for the above reasons, but not all.
And if they say that eg less immigration would make their lives better? Or higher tariffs and less free trade?
Meanwhile, swimmers in green continue to drown at higher rates than other swimmers, because trying to address the question of why green swimmers in particular aren’t given lifebelts and are denied swimming lessons is “identity politics.”