Why we cannot abandon I.D Politics - Yep, another thread about it, because it's critical.

[Uponthegears]

1. Despite the fact that there is no conflict between economic and social justice

I cannot agree more that now is NOT the time to abandon "identity politics."

Indeed, it is my firm conviction that we lost in part because we abandoned "identity politics" during the general election in favor of seeking out issues (mostly AN issue) with more universal appeal. You will pardon me if I now abandon the term "identity politics" and replace it the general statement of principle that our "politics" should be publicly and unashamedly fighting for the oppressed and against their oppressors AND having the courage to say that both exist.

Unfortunately, this fight is hampered by the refusal in some quarters to acknowledge the oppressed, or, for that matter, the oppressors. It is hampered also by the fallacious belief in some quarters that political victory can only be achieved with the aid of the oppressors.

Because the acrimony here on DU (and for you "DU isn't the real world"-ers, even in the "real world" contest for DNC chair) appear tied to the definitions of "oppressed" and "oppressors," there might be the place to start. Hopefully, we can all agree that the descendants of slaves and those who look like them are members of the "oppressed" without having to go through a long discussion of 400+ years of American (in particular Southern Plantation) slavery and its pernicious effects. Hopefully, we can agree that Spanish-speaking immigrants and non-citizen residents (both documented and undocumented) are also among the "oppressed." Hopefully, we can agree that women are among the "oppressed." Particularly in this day and age, one would hope that we can agree that adherents to the tenets of Islam are among the "oppressed." We should also all be able to agree that those who are unable to provide their families with the necessities of life AND hope for a better future are among the "oppressed." Finally, we should all be able to agree that people whose sexual identity and/or sexual orientation do not align with the dominant religious ideology are "oppressed." Obviously this list is not exhaustive, but I offer it to demonstrate the breadth of those who would be our natural constituency under an "oppressed vs. oppressors" (f/k/a "identity politics&quot political ideology.

Of course, if we ran on such an ideology, there would also be people who would vote with us who are not oppressed, but place the needs of the oppressed over their own desire for further privileges.

Who, then, are the oppressors? Basically, they are everyone else. They are the .1%, the holders of the overwhelming majority of the nation's capital. An infinitely small group made even smaller by subtracting out those among them place the needs of the oppressed over their own. They are the people whose dominant social objective is to harm the weak. Hopefully another small group. They are the people who place their own further privilege above the needs of the oppressed. Again, to consciously say "I choose for the oppressed to suffer so that I may have more than my already-satisfying life gives me" requires a level of psychopathology that this group also has to be somewhat limited. Finally, there is a group that exists amid the REALITY, whether they believe it so or not, that their vote does not personally harm them, but believe that it does. They are people who actually have little to gain or lose from voting against the interests of our natural constituency, but have been convinced that they do. That is a large group.

Those are the battle lines in the political ideology of "oppressed vs oppressor." Those of us who truly believe in that ideology (i.e., who truly believe in "identity politics&quot , and I count myself and those other DU members who have espoused "identity politics" among them, believe that there are more people on our side of those battle lines than their are on "theirs" If we are correct, we should be able to go to the oppressed with policies that favor them WITH NO REGARD WHATSOEVER FOR THE OPPRESSORS and say, "We are here for you and no one else," and, because we are the many, drive the kind of turnout that leaves the oppressors' concerns unimportant. We will not say "All lives matter," or "Blue lives matter," We will say "YOUR lives matter." We will not say "Low taxes matter," or "Limiting the size of government matters," or "small businesses matter" We will say "YOUR lives matter."

To those who bemoan the loss of the American ideal of a unified people, the ideal President Obama described with such grace and eloquence, it died on November 8, 2016.

Unless we have a plan for convincing last large group of oppressors I described above that they aren't hurt by equality, by social justice, and by economic justice, and can do that in the next two years when we haven't been able to do it in the last 25 years (and god knows I would love to hear it instead of the watching incessant turf war for the soul of this party),

It is now us, or it is them.