Should the Democratic Party disavow identity politics?

[TDantuono]

Should the Democratic Party disavow racialist/identity politics? IE 'white privilege'? Or should we embrace it more?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes. Fortunately the national Democratic party hasn't talked about "white privilege" yet, but if they ever do the country will be voting like MS & AL.

[ApatheticAustrian]

since "minority-friendly" politics are called like that today, ofc they should not.

the republicans would love to see minority support for Dems shrink, i am sure.

[Frodo]

Only if you don't have a problem throwing women and minorities under the bus in some misguided and morally bankrupt attempt to attract the WWC.

[TDantuono]

Only if you don't have a problem throwing women and minorities under the bus in some misguided and morally bankrupt attempt to attract the WWC.

It's less 'throw minorities and women under the bus' and more 'don't totally alienate the WWC.' I know many Dems who voted for Trump this year, after voting for Obama, who felt the Democratic Party had abandoned them.

[Frodo]

Only if you don't have a problem throwing women and minorities under the bus in some misguided and morally bankrupt attempt to attract the WWC.

It's less 'throw minorities and women under the bus' and more 'don't totally alienate the WWC.' I know many Dems who voted for Trump this year, after voting for Obama, who felt the Democratic Party had abandoned them.

Nominating a white male isn't going to bring them back.  And we have had white males in the White House (and as our nominees) for all but eight years, so I'm really not seeing why they feel they need someone to represent them when they have had a monopoly on our politics for like forever.

[ApatheticAustrian]

It's less 'throw minorities and women under the bus' and more 'don't totally alienate the WWC.' I know many Dems who voted for Trump this year, after voting for Obama, who felt the Democratic Party had abandoned them.

this has more to do with a global movement (ironically) and trump's message that alienation.

i still would bet that generic rich religious republican 274347 would have gotten crushed by generic liberal dem.

[Blair]

Is it identity

Only if you don't have a problem throwing women and minorities under the bus in some misguided and morally bankrupt attempt to attract the WWC.

This; the majority of centre left/democrats I know embrace 'identity politics' because of a genuine desire to ensure that black/lgbtq/latino people have equal rights, and equal access to opportunity

[ApatheticAustrian]

Nominating a white male isn't going to bring them back.  And we have had white males in the White House (and as our nominees) for all but eight years, so I'm really not seeing why they feel they need someone to represent them when they have had a monopoly on our politics for like forever.

well, it's the absolute majority of the country, so this is ...not very surprising.

otherwise:

it was quite easy to make progress regarding respect for gays and making live for latinos a little bit better....

..... breaking the struggles of late-industrial rust belt cities in decline is something else.

[TDantuono]

Only if you don't have a problem throwing women and minorities under the bus in some misguided and morally bankrupt attempt to attract the WWC.

It's less 'throw minorities and women under the bus' and more 'don't totally alienate the WWC.' I know many Dems who voted for Trump this year, after voting for Obama, who felt the Democratic Party had abandoned them.

Nominating a white male isn't going to bring them back.  And we have had white males in the White House (and as our nominees) for all but eight years, so I'm really not seeing why they feel they need someone to represent them when they have had a monopoly on our politics for like forever.

It's not about the race of the candidate. Hillary was white. They just felt she abandoned their interests. Even a young lesbian married couple I know from PA were staunch Trump supporters who shifted party. They felt with the identity politics of the last year or so that the left 'hated (them) for being white' to take a direct quote.

Hillary had but one staffer assigned to the rust belt. I'm talking about equal inclusion. Where the Democratic Party should embrace transracial class consciousness over racialism. Class unifies people of different backgrounds.

[Cashew]

since "minority-friendly" politics are called like that today, ofc they should not.

the republicans would love to see minority support for Dems shrink, i am sure.

You mean like how Trump got more minority support than Romney?

[ApatheticAustrian]

You mean like how Trump got more minority support than Romney?

could still be worse for trump than for obama, if the absolute numbers increase.

[Person Man]

I will say that they will if by disavow, you mean the same policies said without being offensive to people we are offended by.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I will say that they will if by disavow, you mean the same policies said without being offensive to people we are offended by.

This. You can build up one group without tearing down another.

[TDantuono]

Ideally, race would be eliminated completely except on a case by case basis. For example, if there is a racially motivated shooting, address it. But at the same time, don't blame all whites/all cops/all blacks for the problem.

The issue of wealth inequality transcends racial boundaries. I would like to see the Democratic Party become the voice for all the little guys - whether said guy is a poor white in Appalchia; or whether said little guy is a black man living in an inner city. This election seemed like the party said 'we don't need that white guy from Appalachia. He's a deplorable, irredeemable person who has white privilege.' In this sound bite culture, that's what that guy heard via the media, and so voted Trump. I want a more Socialistic Democratic Party that is a 'rainbow coalition' at heart, whose values economically range somewhere from Eisenhower to FDR. I don't want Lena Dunham, who gleefully talked about 'the extinction of white males' having any place in the party.

Continuing down the 'Demonize Whites' path is only going to give the GOP more free votes, and create a more divided country.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I will say that they will if by disavow, you mean the same policies said without being offensive to people we are offended by.

This. You can build up one group without tearing down another.

i think it's not even about tearing down as much as "show that you care".

like we know, the people around podesta have been sure, that "those people" either hate democrats anyway and are gone (rurals) or would vote democrat anyway cause of the other guys. (obama --> trump switchers)

[Frodo]

Ideally, race would be eliminated completely except on a case by case basis. For example, if there is a racially motivated shooting, address it. But at the same time, don't blame all whites/all cops/all blacks for the problem.

The issue of wealth inequality transcends racial boundaries. I would like to see the Democratic Party become the voice for all the little guys - whether said guy is a poor white in Appalchia; or whether said little guy is a black man living in an inner city. This election seemed like the party said 'we don't need that white guy from Appalachia. He's a deplorable, irredeemable person who has white privilege.' In this sound bite culture, that's what that guy heard via the media, and so voted Trump. I want a more Socialistic Democratic Party that is a 'rainbow coalition' at heart, whose values economically range somewhere from Eisenhower to FDR. I don't want Lena Dunham, who gleefully talked about 'the extinction of white males' having any place in the party.

Continuing down the 'Demonize Whites' path is only going to give the GOP more free votes, and create a more divided country.

I agree we shouldn't demonize white voters, but let's not blame our nominee's background (whether it's gender, race, religion, or whatever) for our misfortune with the WWC.

Of course, if it turns out that that a WWC voter was bigoted enough to vote against our nominee because of his or her background, I'm not about to bend over backwards for them.

[Figueira]

No, the Democrats need to give minorities a reason to vote for them.

[JA]

So, in an attempt to appeal to the white working class, the Democratic Party should abandon all discussion of minority-centered issues, thereby practically eliminating any national voice for underpriviliged communities. What I'm hearing is that, unless the discussion revolves around white people and their issues, then it should not be discussed for the sake of not offending white sensibilities. What could possibly be wrong with that?

[Cashew]

No, the Democrats need to give minorities a reason to vote for them.

Actually no, you don't.

Blacks shifted support to the democratic party during the election of FDR, in spite of his silence on civil rights and being in the same party as southern democrats. why?
The new deal, and expansion of the welfare state. This claim that minority support will somehow collapse is nonsensical.

[TDantuono]

So, in an attempt to appeal to the white working class, the Democratic Party should abandon all discussion of minority-centered issues, thereby practically eliminating any national voice for underpriviliged communities. What I'm hearing is that, unless the discussion revolves around white people and their issues, then it should not be discussed for the sake of not offending white sensibilities. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I think your hearing is being a bit selective.
The poor, working, and middle class highly outnumber the wealthy. An attempt should be made to look at things through a non-racial class lens, rather than viewing it through racially charged lenses. No group, white or non-white, gets special preferences or consideration. The idea is to mobilize the middle and lowered classes to vote in their interest. This can be done without any focus on race or catering to any racial group. The idea is that we are all Americans and a 'rising tide lifts every boat.'

[Cashew]

So, in an attempt to appeal to the white working class, the Democratic Party should abandon all discussion of minority-centered issues, thereby practically eliminating any national voice for underpriviliged communities. What I'm hearing is that, unless the discussion revolves around white people and their issues, then it should not be discussed for the sake of not offending white sensibilities. What could possibly be wrong with that?

This might come as a surprise to you, but the American political system is biased in favor of rural whites.

You might be fine with Dems being permanently locked out of legislatures, and having the United States vote like mississippi, but the rest of us are not.

[hopper]

Only if you don't have a problem throwing women and minorities under the bus in some misguided and morally bankrupt attempt to attract the WWC.

It's less 'throw minorities and women under the bus' and more 'don't totally alienate the WWC.' I know many Dems who voted for Trump this year, after voting for Obama, who felt the Democratic Party had abandoned them.

Nominating a white male isn't going to bring them back.  And we have had white males in the White House (and as our nominees) for all but eight years, so I'm really not seeing why they feel they need someone to represent them when they have had a monopoly on our politics for like forever.

It's not about the race of the candidate. Hillary was white. They just felt she abandoned their interests. Even a young lesbian married couple I know from PA were staunch Trump supporters who shifted party. They felt with the identity politics of the last year or so that the left 'hated (them) for being white' to take a direct quote.

Hillary had but one staffer assigned to the rust belt. I'm talking about equal inclusion. Where the Democratic Party should embrace transracial class consciousness over racialism. Class unifies people of different backgrounds.

Were they "lipstick Lesbians". I'm just curious?

[Figueira]

No, the Democrats need to give minorities a reason to vote for them.

Actually no, you don't.

Blacks shifted support to the democratic party during the election of FDR, in spite of his silence on civil rights and being in the same party as southern democrats. why?
The new deal, and expansion of the welfare state. This claim that minority support will somehow collapse is nonsensical.

Minority support did collapse in 2016. They didn't suddenly switch to the Republicans, but they voted in lower numbers.

[TDantuono]

No, one is ex-military and has short hair and dresses very masculine. Her wife is very feminine.