There really is no identity politics quite like white identity politics, is there.
One wonders, reading this, not if Democrats know what unites us, but if David Brooks understands we know what he means by 'us?'
One wonders, reading this, not if Democrats know what unites us, but if David Brooks understands we know what he means by 'us?'
Democrats retook the House.
Remained competitive in the Senate during a historically unfavorable map — in TEXAS
Fielded a remarkably diverse array of candidates, many of whom won in states Trump won
Retook governor's mansions
Fought systemic disenfranchisment
That's a win BUT...
Remained competitive in the Senate during a historically unfavorable map — in TEXAS
Fielded a remarkably diverse array of candidates, many of whom won in states Trump won
Retook governor's mansions
Fought systemic disenfranchisment
That's a win BUT...
Not for David Brooks and his like-minded associates.
To David Brooks, this was a failure. A failure to create a vision that unites us.
Why?
Because they didn't capture that most precious element: white people who don't want to unite with anybody but themselves.
To David Brooks, this was a failure. A failure to create a vision that unites us.
Why?
Because they didn't capture that most precious element: white people who don't want to unite with anybody but themselves.
A remarkably diverse field of candidates isn't "identity politics," David, you feeble-minded sinecure you.
Presuming that the only way to craft a unifying message is by catering primarily and exclusively to white people who demand such prominence as a prerequisite? Is.
Presuming that the only way to craft a unifying message is by catering primarily and exclusively to white people who demand such prominence as a prerequisite? Is.
In an age of hate-driven authoritarian nationalism, a remarkably diverse field of candidates IS a unifying message.
The medium is the message.
If white people don't respond, that says much more about white people and their identity politics than it does about anyone else.
The medium is the message.
If white people don't respond, that says much more about white people and their identity politics than it does about anyone else.
And this passage ... wow.
Trump's blood-and-soil nationalism doesn't "overturn" a pluralistic unifying vision, it proves that this never was the shared vision.
The fact that white people flock to it is the proof.
Think of all the outrage they've had to ignore to flock to it.
Trump's blood-and-soil nationalism doesn't "overturn" a pluralistic unifying vision, it proves that this never was the shared vision.
The fact that white people flock to it is the proof.
Think of all the outrage they've had to ignore to flock to it.
How about this?
Maybe we're *already* unified as a country.
Maybe we *already* have a central narrative, a pluralistic vision.
Maybe we vote in greater numbers, and the only thing that prevents this from being obvious are results tainted by easily-observable unfair advantage.
Maybe we're *already* unified as a country.
Maybe we *already* have a central narrative, a pluralistic vision.
Maybe we vote in greater numbers, and the only thing that prevents this from being obvious are results tainted by easily-observable unfair advantage.
Maybe the only people who aren't on board with the unity we've *already* achieved are those who refuse to enter into it, solely because they refuse to let go of that easily-observable unfair advantage.
Which is their insistence to always be the first and only consideration.
Which is their insistence to always be the first and only consideration.
Maybe we're *already* unified as a country.
Maybe the problem isn't that we aren't unified, but that we can't achieve any unity with those whose only way of unifying is by dominating.
Maybe the problem isn't that we aren't unified, but that we can't achieve any unity with those whose only way of unifying is by dominating.
I say we're not divided. I say we're united in a pluralistic unifying vision of a country that recognizes and cares for all, not just some.
Those that won't join? That's on them.
They say we're divided?
We're united. We're ALREADY united.
They just won't enter the party.
Those that won't join? That's on them.
They say we're divided?
We're united. We're ALREADY united.
They just won't enter the party.
As @realrobbell said recently, "hell is being at the party and refusing to join."
That's exactly what's happening.
You can't be at the party if you need the party to only be about you. You can only ruin the party.
If you can't join, that's on you.
We've got work to do.
That's exactly what's happening.
You can't be at the party if you need the party to only be about you. You can only ruin the party.
If you can't join, that's on you.
We've got work to do.
We ARE united. We HAVE a shared pluralistic vision.
It requires sharing, though.
It requires pluralism.
It requires vision.
Join the party anytime.
It requires sharing, though.
It requires pluralism.
It requires vision.
Join the party anytime.
Here's the central problem, encapsulated:
It's not that a vision of unity isn't being offered. It's that white/conservative/Republicans see what unity looks like, and hate it, and fear it, and fight it, and reject it.
And it's impossible even for unity to 'unify' with that.
It's not that a vision of unity isn't being offered. It's that white/conservative/Republicans see what unity looks like, and hate it, and fear it, and fight it, and reject it.
And it's impossible even for unity to 'unify' with that.
Wrong question.
The right question: Will those of us who refuse to relinquish the easily-observable unfair advantage they gain from our divisions ever join the rest of us, who are working to overcome them?
The right question: Will those of us who refuse to relinquish the easily-observable unfair advantage they gain from our divisions ever join the rest of us, who are working to overcome them?
This is what it looks like when someone scorns the very idea of unity.
Already at the party, he refuses to enter.
Already at the party, he refuses to enter.
