Identity Politics as a Crutch and Cudgel.
The Crockett v Talarico primary and the surrounding discourse has been on my mind for weeks now. I think it highlighted some of the best and worst aspects of the Democratic base, as well as the party more broadly. Most people seem to have made up their minds based on how the two looked and sounded, without ever examining their stated policy positions, record, or messaging. They are really close on policy and baggage, with most of the differences coming down to perception and style.
Identity politics is an important feature of a heterogenous democracy, this shouldn't be controversial. We need advocacy groups for different segments of the population, because they have different needs and cultures. As a country boy, I do not understand the unique challenges city folk experience, but the opposite is also true. This continues to be true every possible group of people. Advocating for the needs of our own groups, while respecting the needs of others is what allows a pluralistic society to thrive.
The problem is that identity politics is very easy to weaponize, particularly in our heavily siloed society. It is very easy to only consume content made by folks like ourselves, with specific target audiences. That is one of the best aspects of the internet, the ability to connect with people who have shared interests, values, and experiences. It is also one of the worst, it facilitates the spread of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and hate, while preventing us from hearing differing viewpoints.
We can point to all of the ways that conservatives weaponize it, but that would just be preaching to the choir. I think it is probably more productive to focus on how it is used amongst those of us to the left of Reagan. I think it is important to first recognize that there is a very real white supremacy and patriarchal problem in all of American life, denying this is silly. A lot of electability discussion is just identity politics being used as a cudgel.
This is particularly true around race and gender, but you also see it with professional background and political identity. So many women get dismissed out of hand simply because of their gender, look at any discussion around 2028 POTUS potentials right now. Lots of generic ass white dudes will have massive amount of support just because they are vaguely charismatic. Buttigieg, Kelly, and Newsom get far more support than any of them deserve, but when pressed nobody can give a policy forward argument why they would be good candidates. Many will say the quiet part out loud and say it is because America will only elect white men. The moment AOC is brought up though, everyone suddenly becomes a policy expert, pointing out minor gaffes or perceived failures as reasoning for why she is unelectable. This is all in spite of her consistent popularity among the base. Talarico is currently being attacked largely based on color of his skin, his gender, and his open faith, without anyone really looking at his policy. Granted, he also benefits from these electability discussions, he is privilegemaxxing as a white, cis-het, christian male.
There is another side to this coin though, and that is using identity politics as a crutch to avoid actual accountability. When people talk about Clinton and Harris losing to Trump it is always because they are 'highly qualified' women, ignoring that they are also both technocratic, pro-corporate, war hawks. Cori Bush never received this kind of defense, AOC doesn't receive this, neither does Tlaib or Pressley.
It is absolutely important to recognize that women do have to work harder, that people of color have to face more scrutiny, but reducing every loss to race and gender, while applying that defense selectively hurts us all. It seems obvious to me that this is fundamentally toxic. Establishment Dems weaponizing electability arguments against progressives, while using it as an excuse for centrists is one of the most divisive points I see online.
We desperately need a way to include identity into politics without relying on it as a sole defining feature. Diversity is the path forward, but it must be genuine diversity. We cannot afford to weaponize our identities against each other the way we have for so long. Doing so only benefits the homogenous, white nationalists making up the GOP.
I would argue that Mamdani is the perfect example of someone overcoming one of the most extreme versions of identity politics being used as a cudgel in recent memory, without shying away from who he is. Cuomo, while running as a Democrat, ran nakedly Islamophobic ads against him, darkening his beard, showing Mamdani eating rice with his hands, and using phrases like "Jihad on NYC". The sheer volume of Democrats that were nakedly attacking his race and religion is disgusting. Still, Mamdani didn't shy away from who he is, even when it was a bit cringe to see him rapping as Young Cardamom. He wore his identity on his sleeve, with no shame, and this authenticity paid off.
He did all of this while running a campaign that focused on the policies most salient in NYC. He remained laser focused on affordability and making the most wealthy pay their fair share, and he did it with a smile. He should be emulated in genuine ways, because if a socialist can win in NYC, a progressive populist can win anywhere. It just requires them to care about the people they aim to represent, while remaining true to themselves.
Our identities matter, but policy is the backbone of politics. Vibe voting isn't going to fix the very real structural issues we face today. Wealth inequality is worse now than in the gilded age. The American dream is rotting in a landfill. Climate change is accelerating. AI is gutting white collar and service jobs. Data centers are harming our health. We have multiple ongoing genocides. Toxic bullshit isn't going to fix that, at some point we need to find a way to provide representation while solving real problems. I hope that we can get there before it is too late.