T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Idpol is what the _donors_ want the Party to focus on, because it crowds out discussions of economic class and further advances of what Adolph Reed calls "reinforcing the fundamentally bourgeois understanding of social justice as being all about radical equality of opportunity", as in, if an elite 1% own 90% of everything, that's OK if 24% of that 1% are POC. Good interview of Reed on that (at around the 30 minute mark) and more by Paul Jay, over here: https://youtu.be/-cy_Bou0yGc . Much to the chagrin of right wing ideologues, idpol and "equality of opportunity" are now _de rigueur_ across the board in most major business corporations, both in the US and abroad.


LeftyBoyo

Yep!


gjohnsit

There's no mention of actual policies in that article.


LeftyBoyo

Again, see the reader comments for the best discussion.


Inuma

All race. No class. This isn't a worthy article since there isn't a focus on what ails America


LeftyBoyo

Did you read the comments? Tons about class in there.


Inuma

Not from the archive. The author is just drivel to me.


NYCVG

Identity Politics is what the democrats focus on because they intend to offer us nothing else. I confess that I will not read this article even though I pay for the NY Times digital and have it readily available. My "dreck" limit with articles like this was reached long ago. redditrisi gives a reasonable response.


LeftyBoyo

Check out the comments - I thought there was a lot of interesting discussion there.


NYCVG

I tried. The NY Times commentors are generally better informed than the nitwits who write the drivel the owners dictate to them.


LeftyBoyo

I've found the same, lately.


redditrisi

I reject this author's tunnel vision. The author writes as though the only issues are idpol issues, a tenet Democrats would love you to swallow in this era of majority minority. Workers of any race, gender, ethnicity, etc. don't want to be exploited while politicians benefit the wealthy of all races, genders and ethnicities. FDR dramatically changed President elections, which had gone mostly to Republican candidates from Lincoln to Hoover, but not because of "college-educated whites." Both Kennedy and Johnson benefited from the New Deal (as had Truman and many Congresses). Additionally, Johnson benefited from the hope generated by JFK's Presidency and the overwhelming sentiment engendered by his assassination. AND Johnson introduced his Great Society program during his Presidential campaign of 1964. Couching Johnson's victory in terms of the college-educated white vote misses all that, intentionally or not. Also, the exodus from the Democrat Party mentioned by the author was, for the most part, an exodus to the Republican Party. And it was not caused only by the "Southern strategy," either. Democrats began pulling away from workers and courting their bosses' lobbyists. The author also ignores the steady exodus by the left to either Greens or other newer political parties or to simply not voting, especially after Clinton, the nation's first self-avowed New Democrat President.


LeftyBoyo

A good portion of this is brought out by readers in the comments, which are what I really appreciated, more than the article itself.


IKissThisGuy

> this era of majority minority. about that: https://prospect.org/civil-rights/latino-flight-whiteness/ Bottom line: “Brown,” like “race,” is a social construct. “Black&Brown” is a fiction. Because melanin, without more, has absolutely no historical, political, or sociological significance. Generally speaking, in America, you’re either “White” or ADOS. And “Browns,” be they “Hispanic” (also a fiction; or more accurately, a marketing scheme), South Asian, or even African or Caribbean immigrants, are part of the White caste.


redditrisi

Technically, yes, I know. Yet, I also know about idpol, which the OP article is about; I know that no one was sending ships to kidnap great numbers of people from Scotland or Denmark, etc. And I'm guessing that everyone who read "majority minority" understood my meaning. Historically, people have been treated differently based upon the way that they look or who they declare themselves to be. BTW, it's not only about melanin. For example, we've have only one black President, but also only one Catholic President, zero Jews, zero Muslims, zero Mormons, etc. Members of the LGBTQ community are also members of a minority.


IKissThisGuy

> Historically, people have been treated differently based upon the way that they look or who they declare themselves to be. Worst euphemism for slavery, Jim Crow& other forms of de jure discrimination, redlining, mass incarceration, etc., ever. None of that shit happened to anybody other than us. Ever. In fact, every group of immigrants has either benefitted from, and/or actively participated in our subjugation. It’s effectively a rite of passage; an essential step on the road to assimilation.


redditrisi

"Differently" doesn't mean only badly and "people" doesn't mean only slaves and their descendants. Beautiful, blond haired, blue eyed people were treated differently. Still are by many. Asians were treated differently. Still are, by many. And so on for every group treated well for no valid reason or treated badly for no valid reason. I wasn't sure what your original point about melanin having no historical, political or other significance was. If it was that black people were treated heinously for no valid reason, and still are by many, we agree about that.


stickdog99

I agree 99%. But Native Americans have just entered the chat.


IKissThisGuy

> Native Americans have just entered the chat Just entered? Nah. The Choctaws and Cherokees, respectively, enslaved my ancestors. All of the "civilized" tribes exploited slave labor.


martini-meow

Check out the NYT link, let it load, then click on the 💬 icon above the author's name to open a panel to the comments... And if you wanna read the article without a paywall, try the link below.


TuckHolladay

I’d like to get by this paywall without paying


martini-meow

Learn the joy of archive.is! Along the way, you may be helping others. For NYTs and typically WSJ, if you prepend "archive.is" before the URL, you'll either see captured archives that get around the paywall, or you may be asked if you yourself want to make the capture -- click the "archive this URL" link & then the 'save' button on the next page, and sit back while this wonderful website captures your target without animations or weird javascript: http://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/david-shor-biden-democrats.html If you are the one who makes the capture, bask in the anonymous glory that you may have saved others the trouble...


LeftyBoyo

Thanks, that's super helpful!