Dems need a nod to the biggest identity group of all: individuals.

[gulliver]

We need to speak to individuals, because no one else seems to want to. Individuals are a huge voting bloc. Everybody is in that group identity. I don't know why we don't seem to spend any time recognizing them.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I just can't remember the last time I heard any political leaders talk about the fundamental need to respect the individual. I'm not saying we shouldn't very carefully consider and work to resolve unjust, "counter-human" tribal distinctions and interactions. I'm just saying we should add "respect for the individual" to our list of promoted values. That should please everyone (and rightfully so).

[sandensea]

1. The problem is human nature itself.

For too many voters, the easiest way to get their support is, as Hamilton put it, by flattering their prejudices.

This probably explains most of the recent electoral success neo-fascists have been having in different countries (Argentina, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and of course here in the U.S.).

[whathehell]

2. True, unfortunately. n/t

[gulliver]

9. I agree.

Trump not only flatters prejudices. He deliberately lies to create a false foundation for them. He understands and exploits human nature in that way.

[bettyellen]

3. Is a white man not feeling catered to enough?

[TDale313]

4. Bingo. n/t

[bettyellen]

5. We're seeing women come out in droves as activists, candidates and voters. White men are the group

who are literally the most unbothered by Trump. Sorry Dem dudes, the only ones you need to be giving advice to is your independent and GOP leaning brothers. Don’t be giving advice to women and POC until you get your own shit straight.

[gulliver]

7. Can you elaborate on this?

It seems like it could be a useful discussion. Is this intended to be a criticism of individualism, a snark against white men, or? The reason I ask, is that the phrase "a white man not feeling catered to" strikes me as un-useful. But I'm willing to consider what its use might be.

[bettyellen]

10. Your OP is thinly disguised criticism of "identity politics" which is really ballsy considering we

have both our civil rights and any future chance of an equal place in society for women and POC are gravely endangered.
And you do this fully knowing it’s women that are fighting harder and voting smarter against the GOP. But you seem to think we should focus on working toward “everybody” goals and ignore our second class status in that world.

You should be fighting for us, not the other way around. We’re not doing your heavy lifting anymore.

[gulliver]

11. It's really not that for the most part.

Yes, you're right in sensing that I am touching on group-based identity politics. I'm against "too much" identity politics, especially in the absence of due respect being accorded to individualism. What I am saying is that we need to speak to the importance of individualism in addition to "the right amount" of identity politics, not in place of it. What the right amount of group-based identity politics is, I don't know. It's not zero. I'm sure of that. It's not "that's all we should do." I'm sure of that too.

Individualism helps everyone. It should not be left out of the mix. People should in general get to be who they want to be as long as they don't hurt anyone else. It's not a factor to be absolutist about. It's a factor to add to the mix of factors.

I do want to fight for the equal place in society for women and POC, not merely out of empathy, but for what I think are scientific and ethical reasons. Empathy or sentimentality or guilt or a sense of justice? Sure, all those come into play, but those aren't the only arrows in the quiver when fighting for equal status. There are common sense, logical reasons for opening the door to equal status to all. There are selfish reasons for it. All of those reasons count. None should be left out. Anger shouldn't be left out either.

I don't know the data on whether women are "fighting harder and voting smarter against the GOP." (I don't call them the GOP, by the way, I call them followers of Republicanism or "Republicanists." They aren't in any way a "Grand Old Party." ) Saying one group is fighting harder than another against Republicanism is not useful, particularly if there are no metrics to back it up. If there are metrics to back it up, then it's useful. Otherwise it could be perceived as credit grabbing or, worse, taking credit for something that isn't actually happening. Both would work against motivation.

[bettyellen]

15. There are plenty of metrics to back it up. Pics of protesters, stats of lawyers volunteering, the

surge of female candidates, the largest protests in history- as well as their dramatic swing away from supporting the GOP according to recent polls. It appears you have not been paying attention at all these past 18 months.

Aside from that, perhaps you could edit your post to get to the point? I skimmed it twice and can’t find one aside from the erroneous assumption that anyone is just voting on their identity. Which is basically a RW talking point.
Interesting to see this cry for interest in individualism at a time when progressive men need to get their shit together more than ever.

[Squinch]

6. You mean like rugged individuals?

[gulliver]

8. No (sorry if you didn't mean your signature pictures as part of your response)

Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2018, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I thought you were using those pictures as your examples of "rugged individuals," but they appear to be in you signature.

But I don't mean "rugged individuals" anyway. I mean "you get to do you in America" individuals.

[northremembers]

16. Conservatives talk about (not to) individuals all the time

Their rhetoric is inundated with it, but that isn't what they are actually selling. What they are actually selling is less accountability for people with power over others. They just use "rugged individual" for packaging.

Liberals don't use the idea of a free individual very often. Many Democrats target specific demographics in hopes of driving voter turnout. It's not very effective and a very basic idea gets lost that way. What we liberals stand for is the right for EVERY individual to be successful as themselves. Not just the few who are willing to sell their mother (or their country) out to get to the top. It's implied, but not usually said.

You're right. We should be a lot more clear about this message.

[Solly Mack]

12. ...

I couldn't resist. I simply couldn't.

[gulliver]

14. LOL

I'm glad you didn't resist! That's a great movie. I didn't remember that part.

[Hortensis]

13. :) We nod to the individual every day all day long.

But, yes, it wouldn't hurt to point out yet another 330,000,000-strong identity group.

Those of our founding fathers who so earnestly designed our constitutional protections of the individual from the majority would appreciate it if our generations didn't finally fail to protect what they gave us.