Someone asked for a thread on "identity politics." Here goes: The roots of this idea are in a famous 1964 article by political scientist Philip Converse. In that era, the vast majority of voters believed in the "liberal consensus," the New Deal idea that the government... /1
had a role to play in regulating business, protecting social welfare, and promoting infrastructure. So Converse argued that voters did not, generally, vote according to ideology-- they all agreed-- but by "group benefit." Huge news which launched all studies of voter behavior. /2
Republicans put this in practice in 1968, electing Nixon by nailing together a coalition with only a vague storyline, easily manipulated. The next year, GOP operative Kevin Philips wrote "The Emerging Republican Majority," that said GOP candidate would win for a long time.... /3
by leveraging ethnicity and, especially race. (This is the plan behind the "Southern Strategy.") Using this strategy, he said, the GOP would control politics for the foreseeable future. In 1971, VP Spiro Agnew admitted deliberately polarized the electorate to make this happen./4
To combat GOP tactics, Democrats also switched to this slicing and dicing of the electorate. But, of course, they were turning to POC and women as part of their coalition, the same folks the GOP was ignoring as it turned to white men. /5
Over time, GOP came to attack Ds for "identity politics," which they say is voting for POC or a woman just because of their "identity." But the reality is that this is precisely what they were doing with white voters, white evangelicals, etc. That's the strategy's whole point. /6
But voters do not have to be turned into interest groups. A voter can see our nation as a whole, and vote for folks who espouse their worldview. That was politics before 1964, and seems to be rising again among Ds. It is based on a view of what America really stands for. /7
In that system, you won't agree with everything "your" candidate does or says (or is), but you will agree that you are both moving toward the same goal. In that case, the person's "identity" doesn't matter at all. /8
Those of us who study politics generally do the latter, I think, because we see how a vote for a "pure" person in terms of identity (like Nader) gets us a disaster (like Bush instead of Gore). But "protest" votes can move debate, so they also have a time and a place. /END
