7 ms·
> identity politics, where being member of Groups A, B, and C means you must hold Ideas X, Y, and Z That's not what it means. That sounds like a caricature of
by newacct583 6y ago
> identity politics, where being member of Groups A, B, and C means you must hold Ideas X, Y, and Z
That's not what it means. That sounds like a caricature of it you read in libertarian media. "Politics" in its modern meaning is about getting votes, not telling people what to think.
Identity politics is the recognition that people of similar backgrounds tend to have similar political desires, coupled with the fact that people tend to "trust" politicians who have supported those needs in the past. And that's all it means.
So white christians vote republican because of a long history of opposition to abortion rights, black votes have gone to democrats ever since the Civil Rights Act passed, etc... Not everyone, but enough that it makes sense as political strategy to court specific groups via these affiliations.
And they're mutable over time. We didn't used to think of the divide between college-educated whites and non-college whites until the Trump campaign was able to exploit that divide. Men/women is getting larger now too, etc...
- Udik 6y ago> Identity politics is the recognition that people of similar backgrounds tend to have similar political desires I'd call it an assumption more than a recognition, and take it from there.
- newacct583 6y agoIt's not an assumption. You can measure this, it's experimental fact. White christians vote republican, go check some exit polls, etc...
- Udik 6y agoIt's a statistic. It doesn't define or describe individuals.
- newacct583 6y agoStatistics are still facts though! They certainly aren't "assumptions".
- Udik 6y agoTrue. But it's important to remember that, when talking about any specific individual, statistics don't hold any more. Every person is different from any other and each deserves to be judged individually.
- newacct583 6y agoThere is literally no specific individual discussed anywhere in this subthread...
- whatshisface 6y ago>So white christians vote republican because of a long history of opposition to abortion rights, black votes have gone to democrats ever since the Civil Rights Act passed, etc... Not everyone, but enough that it makes sense as political strategy to court specific groups via these affiliations. You're defining identity politics in a way that's so broad that it encompasses all politics and some non-politics (corporate brand loyalty). That makes it a non-useful phrase. Generally it's useful to define phrases in ways that exclude a lot of interpretations.
- newacct583 6y agoThat's the way the term is understood by people trying to understand politics. The definition I was responding to is a partisan smear used only by a particular political demographic[1] who think "identity politics" is a kind of thought control. It's true that the latter is more specific. I don't see how that makes it better. [1] See? Identity politics at work. You don't seriously think no one targets libertarians via the same tricks, do you? You're literally falling for one in this very thread by discounting the discourse of "centrist political scientists" in favor of your in-group's spin. So when your in-group tells you to vote for someone, who are you going to believe? Them or the crazy centrists and their warped understanding of the evils of "identity politics?"
- whatshisface 6y agoInventing meaningless buzzwords is a very common activity in any community. Using the definition you're proposing, I have heard people say things like "all politics is identity politics." Any definition of a word that makes claims like that reasonable, is a non-definition of a non-word. Using words like "quantum," "AI," and "blockchain" as examples, in all of those cases you have one community with a meaningful definition and another community with a meaningless definition. In deciding which definition is "better" one would typically go with the way it's defined in the community that uses it to mean something.
- newacct583 6y ago
- skrebbel 6y agoI don't fully agree but I upvoted you to counter existing downvotes, because I think you make a coherent argument that doesn't deserve to be downvoted into oblivion.
- klyrs 6y ago> Identity politics is the recognition that people of similar backgrounds tend to have similar political desires... You're taking a very short-term view of "identity politics". When the US was founded under the phrase "all men created equal", it was with the clear understanding that "men" meant white landowners, and specifically not women. This was marked progress from previous royalty-based governments where "god" selected some fantastically rich white men to rule. Identity politics are as old as history itself. Only the name is new.