If the “identity politics” issue is about streamlining the Democratic message into a unifying chant, something that better shows the deeper connections between all the (superficially or seemingly) disparate issues, I think it would be a valuable thing.
I can also see how one feels overlooked if they hear a bunch of issues addressed, but none of the issues seem to apply to them specifically. If that’s what Lilla means by alienated, then I can get behind his point. I have a hard time, though, if he’s suggesting things like BLM are inherently alienating to others because of their subject matter. But then, I’ve never been one to feel alienated by discussions of diversity… Why should I feel alienated by evidence that the law is being applied unequally to people based on their skin color or ethnicity? Why shouldn’t I feel personally affected by a failure of my nation to uphold tenets imbedded in its founding documents and ideals? I can get behind reframing these issues so that others can see their universal relevance. I can get behind ditching ineffective strategies and picking up better ones… But if he’s just saying to abandon all discussion of the issues… I don’t know. How can we garner wider support for these issues if we can’t address them directly?
I think there was also an issue of message “appeal,” of “appeal politics” (if that’s a thing). I’m not sure if this is a part of the identity politics Lilla is talking about or if it’s something different.
But, for example: Although critiques shortly after the election claimed that Hillary never addressed jobs—particularly in struggling manufacturing and mining towns that were credited for pushing Trump over the electoral threshold… she did. But she wasn’t effective at packaging it in an attractive way, or getting it well circulated. When she wanted to go into specifics of her plans (on whatever topic), she would usually say “go to my website and see for yourself,” which I think muddied much of her message, and made her seem more high-handed than well-prepared… although I also think it was something she was told to do, to avoid getting too far into the “boring details.” Those details don’t make headlines, after all, not like Trump’s wild antics. The website is still up, incidentally.
Her solution to working class jobs wasn’t as attractive as Trump’s singular “trust me I can talk tough.” Her plan acknowledged the complexities of the economy, and addressed it with a multi-pronged approach (which made it harder to cover than “simple” “solutions”). She promised to bring some jobs back from overseas, but she also acknowledged that the major culprit of manufacturing and mining job loss was automation (because it is), and that most of the jobs weren’t going to come back (because they aren’t). So, she also proposed things like training and apprenticeship programs, government infrastructure projects, and investments in new industries that would create new jobs (which would, simultaneously, put the US at a competitive advantage in developing technologies… something which isn’t happening now). She struggled to efficiently convey all of this during the election, because the plan’s multi-pronged shape didn’t lend itself to snazzy phrasing.
Trump didn’t have to concern himself about how to best present nuanced solutions to complex issues, because he didn’t credit the issues their actual complexity and he doesn’t do nuance. (Then, later, he says things like “who knew [pick an item] was so complicated?”). You don’t have to agree with Hillary’s positions to recognize that they were far better researched and thought out than Trump’s. They weren’t, however, ever as appealing.
It’s not terribly appealing to say, “Look, overall things are better than they used to be, but not as good as they could be or we want them to be, and many people are still having a hard time. The whole situation is complicated and there isn’t a single cure-all, but here are several different strategies from several different directions we can use simultaneously to make it a bigger dent in the problem,” but it is more honest.
It’s much more appealing to say, “Look, everything’s getting worse. I alone can make it better because I alone can fight the mean people who are deliberately withholding obvious and straightforward solutions to your problems,” but it’s not something the promiser will really be able to back up—it may make an exciting narrative, but it’s not reality.
(I realize I’m oversimplifying the election, but this particular thread of the whole thing bothered me…)
(A lawyer and a showman walk onto a stage…)
I’m sure my “liberal” is bleeding through in spades.
Composing members:
0
