Gay ice skater Adam Rippon Wants You to Vote Democrat this November

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQc_S1UGnRg[/YOUTUBE]



I do not know the ins and outs of American elections or this one in particular. I'm temporarily presuming that voting for LGTBQ candidates would not dilute a Democrat vote in the sense that it would not take votes away from a more prominent (as in likely to win) candidate on the same voting card.

Basically, what I'm asking is (and this particular case may or may not be a good example of it) is promoting 'minority groups' (of all kinds) a good idea for the Democrats, given the sometimes aired-in-the-media reservations (and hand-wringing) about what is called Identity Politics?

I had not heard of this supposed 'identity politics problem' for the Democrats until I came to this forum. Nor am I familiar with something similar here, though I may have merely missed it.

Personally, I can't decide (from afar) whether this issue actually is a significant problem for the Democrats, or whether it is merely claimed or felt to be, either by Republicans or by Democrats and other liberals disappointed by losing the presidential election (to Trump).

My natural instincts would be to say that Democrats should continue to promote such things, albeit cotton on to not sidelining the common (non-minority) voter in doing so, because it seems Trump cashed in on that demographic big time (even though I personally doubt he was particularly sincere).

Looking at things in the round, a Democrat president had just had two terms, in the midst of economic woes, and he was black. As such, was it really surprising that a white Republican got in? It's not as if it wasn't quite a close thing, as I understand it. As such, is the identity politics problem being overstated in the search for explanations?

 

[Toni]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQc_S1UGnRg[/YOUTUBE]



I do not know the ins and outs of American elections or this one in particular. I'm temporarily presuming that voting for LGTBQ candidates would not dilute a Democrat vote in the sense that it would not take votes away from a more prominent (as in likely to win) candidate on the same voting card.

Basically, what I'm asking is (and this particular case may or may not be a good example of it) is promoting 'minority groups' (of all kinds) a good idea for the Democrats, given the sometimes aired-in-the-media reservations (and hand-wringing) about what is called Identity Politics?

I had not heard of this supposed 'identity politics problem' for the Democrats until I came to this forum. Nor am I familiar with something similar here, though I may have merely missed it.

Personally, I can't decide (from afar) whether this issue actually is a significant problem for the Democrats, or whether it is merely claimed or felt to be, either by Republicans or by Democrats and other liberals disappointed by losing the presidential election (to Trump).

My natural instincts would be to say that Democrats should continue to promote such things, albeit cotton on to not sidelining the common (non-minority) voter in doing so, because it seems Trump cashed in on that demographic big time (even though I personally doubt he was particularly sincere).

Looking at things in the round, a Democrat president had just had two terms, in the midst of economic woes, and he was black. As such, was it really surprising that a white Republican got in? It's not as if it wasn't quite a close thing, as I understand it. As such, is the identity politics problem being overstated in the search for explanations?

“Identity Politics” is a term used by people who believe that the concerns of cis straight white Christian males are the concerns that matter.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Voting for/against someone just because they are gay is indeed identity politics, and is indeed very wrong and a real problem. Whether it is politically advantageous is an open question. There are plenty of homosexual people who don't agree on their politics, some will be resentful of being told that being gay means holding a particular political view or supporting a particular party. Many who are not gay will likewise be offended by such prejudice. But there will also be some illiberals as well as some conservatives who are identitarians and who will love making homosexuality the reason to vote for or against somebody.

Same goes for the lady who famously said "There is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton", the "I'm with HER" (with emphasis on the HER - which wasn't everyone's emphasis), and her going on and on about being the first female president. I do think that cost her. And I contrast it to Obama, who did all he could to not push that he was the first black president, though the identitarians on both sides still pushed it hard. Many believe identity politics was the core of the Republican campaign against him.

 

[untermensche]

Identity politics is another meaningless phrase from the Republicans.

There is absolutely no difference between what the Republicans call "Identity Politics" and just plain politics.

Politics is all about convincing people your causes are the causes that matter and you are the person who will deal with them.

Claiming we need a wall to protect us from the evil Mexicans is identity politics.

It is also just politics.

 

[fast]

Identity politics is another meaningless phrase from the Republicans.

There is absolutely no difference between what the Republicans call "Identity Politics" and just plain politics.

Politics is all about convincing people your causes are the causes that matter and you are the person who will deal with them.

Claiming we need a wall to protect us from the evil Mexicans is identity politics.

It is also just politics.

There's almost always a difference between something and something else. Sometimes it's subtle. Sometimes it might be negligible. Although in many contexts, there is virtually no difference between something and its synonym, it's those other contexts where the difference shines.

 

[untermensche]

Identity politics is another meaningless phrase from the Republicans.

There is absolutely no difference between what the Republicans call "Identity Politics" and just plain politics.

Politics is all about convincing people your causes are the causes that matter and you are the person who will deal with them.

Claiming we need a wall to protect us from the evil Mexicans is identity politics.

It is also just politics.

There's almost always a difference between something and something else. Sometimes it's subtle. Sometimes it might be negligible. Although in many contexts, there is virtually no difference between something and its synonym, it's those other contexts where the difference shines.

Yes there is a difference between using coded racist language to win elections and using factual statements.

But they are both politics.

There is only politics.

 

[Elixir]

I wouldn't vote against him because he's gay. But I fucking HATE ice skaters!

 

[Toni]

Identity politics is another meaningless phrase from the Republicans.

There is absolutely no difference between what the Republicans call "Identity Politics" and just plain politics.

Politics is all about convincing people your causes are the causes that matter and you are the person who will deal with them.

Claiming we need a wall to protect us from the evil Mexicans is identity politics.

It is also just politics.

There's almost always a difference between something and something else. Sometimes it's subtle. Sometimes it might be negligible. Although in many contexts, there is virtually no difference between something and its synonym, it's those other contexts where the difference shines.

synonym:
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2a : a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (such as a concept or quality)

 

[ruby sparks]

Voting for/against someone just because they are gay is indeed identity politics, and is indeed very wrong and a real problem. Whether it is politically advantageous is an open question. There are plenty of homosexual people who don't agree on their politics, some will be resentful of being told that being gay means holding a particular political view or supporting a particular party. Many who are not gay will likewise be offended by such prejudice. But there will also be some illiberals as well as some conservatives who are identitarians and who will love making homosexuality the reason to vote for or against somebody.

Same goes for the lady who famously said "There is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton", the "I'm with HER" (with emphasis on the HER - which wasn't everyone's emphasis), and her going on and on about being the first female president. I do think that cost her. And I contrast it to Obama, who did all he could to not push that he was the first black president, though the identitarians on both sides still pushed it hard. Many believe identity politics was the core of the Republican campaign against him.

Ok. Well, I can see your point. It would or could indeed be wrong to vote for someone just because you share a certain identity with them.

When it comes to the gay issue though, it would seem reasonable to say that the party which (as I understand it) pushes for more representation by LGTBQ persons (rather than, say, the party who bars some of them from joining the army) is most likely representing a valid self-interest.

- - - Updated - - -

“Identity Politics” is a term used by people who believe that the concerns of cis straight white Christian males are the concerns that matter.

I do admit that I get confused as to what it is supposed to mean. To me it's essentially a valid form of politics, but it seems to have become a pejorative.

 

[fast]

Identity politics is another meaningless phrase from the Republicans.

There is absolutely no difference between what the Republicans call "Identity Politics" and just plain politics.

Politics is all about convincing people your causes are the causes that matter and you are the person who will deal with them.

Claiming we need a wall to protect us from the evil Mexicans is identity politics.

It is also just politics.

There's almost always a difference between something and something else. Sometimes it's subtle. Sometimes it might be negligible. Although in many contexts, there is virtually no difference between something and its synonym, it's those other contexts where the difference shines.

Yes there is a difference between using coded racist language to win elections and using factual statements.

But they are both politics.

There is only politics.

They are both politics, yes, but there is only politics, no.

If I look behind door number 1 and find identity politics, I will find politics (because you can't have the former without the latter), but if I look behind door number 2 and find politics, there may be no identity politics to be found, so while identity politics implies politics, politics does not imply identity politics (because while you can't have the former with the latter, you can have the latter without the former.

Identify politics is a subset of a broader-in-scope politics superset. South Carolina land is US land, but US land is not necessarily South Carolina land. It's like you're denying the subset because you recognize that it's all politics, and that would be like me denying South Carolina land because it's all US land.

 

[untermensche]

Yes there is a difference between using coded racist language to win elections and using factual statements.

But they are both politics.

There is only politics.

They are both politics, yes, but there is only politics, no.

If I look behind door number 1 and find identity politics, I will find politics (because you can't have the former without the latter), but if I look behind door number 2 and find politics, there may be no identity politics to be found, so while identity politics implies politics, politics does not imply identity politics (because while you can't have the former with the latter, you can have the latter without the former.

Identify politics is a subset of a broader-in-scope politics superset. South Carolina land is US land, but US land is not necessarily South Carolina land. It's like you're denying the subset because you recognize that it's all politics, and that would be like me denying South Carolina land because it's all US land.

No such thing as identity politics.

It is a word to stir dogs, a whistle.

It is not a meaningful concept.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is not a meaningful concept.

Yes it is a meaningful concept. It is the core of bigotry. If you oppose racism, sexism, etc, you oppose identity politics at least marginally. What is white nationalism? Identity politics.

 

[untermensche]

It is not a meaningful concept.

Yes it is a meaningful concept. It is the core of bigotry. If you oppose racism, sexism, etc, you oppose identity politics at least marginally. What is white nationalism? Identity politics.

The word has nothing to do with opposing bigotry.

If somebody runs saying they will do something about bigotry, first of all they are lying, and second it is just politics. The same politics that has existed since this nation was founded.

It is not this meaningless thing "identity" politics.

Identity politics vs what?

Anonymous politics?

 

[zorq]

It is not a meaningful concept.

Yes it is a meaningful concept. It is the core of bigotry. If you oppose racism, sexism, etc, you oppose identity politics at least marginally. What is white nationalism? Identity politics.

Bigotry racism and sexism have victims. Bigotry, racism, and sexism are often most dangerous when they are embedded into the culture of a society. Is it possible that in order to best help the victims of cultural bigotry, racism, and sexism that we must identify and confirm the aspects of human identity that bigotry, racism and sexism prey upon?

If those interested in helping the victims of cultural bigotry, racism, and sexism insist that we all remain blind to race, sex, sexual orientation, etc., the victims will never get the help that they may need and the culture that victimized them may never face the opposition it needs to reform.

You may acknowledge the cause of the disease, but you can't treat the disease without identifying and addressing it's victims.

 

[Rhea]

the "I'm with HER" (with emphasis on the HER - which wasn't everyone's emphasis), and her going on and on about being the first female president. I do think that cost her.

You demonstrate that you HATED the fact that she used a female pronoun to refer to herself. You bring this up a LOT, how much you hated the word “her” in this campaign ouside of your country and how much you think it alienated people for her to have a slogan that says “her.”

It’s fascinating how often you bring that up as the deep root of the flaw in her campaign.

Many believe identity politics was the core of the Republican campaign against [Obama]

Oh, yes it definitely was. An ugly identity, but yes, that was core.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It’s fascinating how often you bring that up as the deep root of the flaw in her campaign.

It was not the only flaw, nor have I said that it was. It was one of many, including her self-entitlememt (the other part of "I'm with her"), and her "no we cant" contrast to Sanders. All 3 were easily seized on by Trump, and the first two could have easily been avoided without even changing her policy positions.

 

[Rhea]

It was not the only flaw, nor have I said that it was. It was one of many, including her self-entitlememt (the other part of "I'm with her"), and her "no we cant" contrast to Sanders. All 3 were easily seized on by Trump, and the first two could have easily been avoided without even changing her policy positions.

True, that was a significant contrast. Including how much more she got done for actual progressive ideals than Sanders ever did.

As much as I like Sanders’ direction, he was not really a go-getter at all, was he. More of a gadfly; he was very good at that. 40 year in politics with no footprint. I was actually kind of right on board with Clinton, who could get things done, going to the general with the Sanders-adjusted platform. I was with her because she got shit DONE. The Sanders supprters were a great voice for showing how much support she could have going left - in ways she had tried before but not had the support for and got shut down - they woould have given her a mandate to bring all those progressive ideas up again.

Ah well. She should have hidden her femaleness more so as not to offend.

 

[untermensche]

It was not the only flaw, nor have I said that it was. It was one of many, including her self-entitlememt (the other part of "I'm with her"), and her "no we cant" contrast to Sanders. All 3 were easily seized on by Trump, and the first two could have easily been avoided without even changing her policy positions.

True, that was a significant contrast. Including how much more she got done for actual progressive ideals than Sanders ever did.

As much as I like Sanders’ direction, he was not really a go-getter at all, was he. More of a gadfly; he was very good at that. 40 year in politics with no footprint. I was actually kind of right on board with Clinton, who could get things done, going to the general with the Sanders-adjusted platform. I was with her because she got shit DONE. The Sanders supprters were a great voice for showing how much support she could have going left - in ways she had tried before but not had the support for and got shut down - they woould have given her a mandate to bring all those progressive ideas up again.

Ah well. She should have hidden her femaleness more so as not to offend.

Bernie was one guy against both corporate parties.

Of course he couldn't get his agenda into law.

His agenda is not the corporate agenda.

The corporate agenda was Obamacare.

It is not universal health insurance.

A drone assassination program is a corporate agenda.

Obama was a supporter of corporations, not working people.

What did he do for working people without insurance?

He taxed them heavily and the money went to corporations.

 

[Terrell]

"She's with us" might have gone over better than "I'm with her". Would probably work on the "cares about people like me" part of public opinion. "She's with us" sounds more like she's here to make our lives better, "I'm with her" sounds more like the other way around.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is not a meaningful concept.

Yes it is a meaningful concept. It is the core of bigotry. If you oppose racism, sexism, etc, you oppose identity politics at least marginally. What is white nationalism? Identity politics.

And this, I think, is where you give identity politics an unnecessarily bad name. In some cases, it can be the core of bigotry, yes. In other cases, it is the valid identification of and alignment with issues which affect certain groups, and the two are not the same thing. Treating people or incidents as individual has its merits and demerits, but so does treating people as members of groups or incidents as patterns. Both can go awry and a careful, appropriate mixture is probably the best approach. Neither one is bad in and of itself.

Also, what zorq said.