This is a good piece but I am confused by their advice to Dems on voters with "less progressive attitudes when it comes to race and gender" who, they claim, are "likely to be turned off by the party’s rhetoric on identity politics." /1
nyti.ms/2SXTZa8
nyti.ms/2SXTZa8
The authors don't spell out what they mean by "less progressive attitudes when it comes to race and gender" or by "identity politics." /2
Since, in contrast with the rest of the piece, this paragraph is so vague, it's hard to know what they are suggesting. But one reading is that they are suggesting that winning back Obama-to-Trump voters requires de-emphasizing the issues of Civil Rights and Women's Rights? /3
Or perhaps they are suggesting that such an emphasis might result in some loss of support from what they call "cross-pressured" voters, but not making a recommendation about what the Democrats should do./4
Their main message, which seems to be that Democrats should focus on the popular issues that bind the broadest group of voters, like health care and the economy, makes sense./5
But it seems a mistake (to me, at least) to rely on the label"identity politics" without spelling out what that means. It can be a way of hiving off issues as separate but which, in fact, are interconnected./6
After Reagan's victory in 1980, the Democratic Party underwent similar debates./7
newspapers.com/clip/41792038/
newspapers.com/clip/41792038/
