This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/opinion/who-can-tell-the-future-of-the-democratic-party.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Who Can Tell the Future of the Democratic Party? | Who Can Tell the Future of the Democratic Party? |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Here’s a question very few people expected to be asking this year: Does the Democratic Party have a future? | Here’s a question very few people expected to be asking this year: Does the Democratic Party have a future? |
| The defeat of Hillary Clinton has revived with new intensity the conflict between proponents of identity politics — focusing electoral attention on African-Americans, Hispanics, women and the L.G.B.T. community — and those who advocate what they describe as a more universal strategy. | The defeat of Hillary Clinton has revived with new intensity the conflict between proponents of identity politics — focusing electoral attention on African-Americans, Hispanics, women and the L.G.B.T. community — and those who advocate what they describe as a more universal strategy. |
| This intraparty debate has become bitter, escalating to new levels after Mark Lilla, an intellectual historian at Columbia, published “The End of Identity Liberalism” on these pages two weeks ago. In recent years, Lilla wrote, | This intraparty debate has become bitter, escalating to new levels after Mark Lilla, an intellectual historian at Columbia, published “The End of Identity Liberalism” on these pages two weeks ago. In recent years, Lilla wrote, |
| Lilla called for a “post-identity liberalism” that would | Lilla called for a “post-identity liberalism” that would |
| The reaction was swift and fierce. | The reaction was swift and fierce. |
| On Nov. 21, Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia, published “Making White Supremacy Respectable. Again” in the Los Angeles Review of Books. She does not hold back, going so far as to link Lilla to the fervent white supremacist David Duke: | On Nov. 21, Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia, published “Making White Supremacy Respectable. Again” in the Los Angeles Review of Books. She does not hold back, going so far as to link Lilla to the fervent white supremacist David Duke: |
| Damon Young, the editor in chief of Very Smart Brothas and a columnist for GQ.com and Ebony Magazine, describes Lilla’s essay as “avant garde White obliviousness. He is the Pablo Picasso of performative sobriety. The Frank Lloyd Wright of Whitesplaining.” | Damon Young, the editor in chief of Very Smart Brothas and a columnist for GQ.com and Ebony Magazine, describes Lilla’s essay as “avant garde White obliviousness. He is the Pablo Picasso of performative sobriety. The Frank Lloyd Wright of Whitesplaining.” |
| On the surface, it looks as if there is no way to find common ground between these warring camps. But in fact it is not an either/or choice; it’s really a matter of emphasis. | On the surface, it looks as if there is no way to find common ground between these warring camps. But in fact it is not an either/or choice; it’s really a matter of emphasis. |
| Democrats struggling to find a path to recruiting support from a diverse electorate could profit by taking a look at an unexpected source: Nick Timothy, a British Conservative Party strategist and speechwriter who is the son of a steelworker in Birmingham. | Democrats struggling to find a path to recruiting support from a diverse electorate could profit by taking a look at an unexpected source: Nick Timothy, a British Conservative Party strategist and speechwriter who is the son of a steelworker in Birmingham. |
| Timothy, who is sometimes described as “Theresa May’s brain,” has helped May, Britain’s new Tory Prime Minister, devise rhetoric to appeal both to minority identity groups and to working and middle class voters generally. This is not to suggest that Democrats should look to the substance of May’s policies: she has already begun to renege on some of her promises, including a proposal to require worker representation on corporate boards. | Timothy, who is sometimes described as “Theresa May’s brain,” has helped May, Britain’s new Tory Prime Minister, devise rhetoric to appeal both to minority identity groups and to working and middle class voters generally. This is not to suggest that Democrats should look to the substance of May’s policies: she has already begun to renege on some of her promises, including a proposal to require worker representation on corporate boards. |
| Earlier this year, however, May successfully channeled Nick Timothy’s rhetorical skills, first when she formally accepted her new position and subsequently in a more detailed keynote address. | Earlier this year, however, May successfully channeled Nick Timothy’s rhetorical skills, first when she formally accepted her new position and subsequently in a more detailed keynote address. |
| In her brief public statement at 10 Downing Street on July 13, May broached Britain’s version of identity politics. She declared her commitment to battle “burning injustices”: | In her brief public statement at 10 Downing Street on July 13, May broached Britain’s version of identity politics. She declared her commitment to battle “burning injustices”: |
| While acknowledging the legitimacy of these deep and abiding problems, May made the case that the larger issue facing British society is the struggle of all those trying to make ends meet: | While acknowledging the legitimacy of these deep and abiding problems, May made the case that the larger issue facing British society is the struggle of all those trying to make ends meet: |
| The core mission of the May government, she promised. would be to lighten the burdens on such “ordinary working class” families: | The core mission of the May government, she promised. would be to lighten the burdens on such “ordinary working class” families: |
| In other words, May attempted to address the specific problems of key identity groups, but emphasized that her top priority would be the concerns of all workers regardless of race, sex or ethnicity. The challenge for Democrats in this country going forward is to self-monitor more assiduously for divergence from the May-Timothy strategy. Successful Democratic candidates have often done just that. | In other words, May attempted to address the specific problems of key identity groups, but emphasized that her top priority would be the concerns of all workers regardless of race, sex or ethnicity. The challenge for Democrats in this country going forward is to self-monitor more assiduously for divergence from the May-Timothy strategy. Successful Democratic candidates have often done just that. |
| May’s speeches are reminiscent of the approach of an American Democratic politician who self-consciously resisted identity politics and defied political correctness 25 years ago, Bill Clinton. I suspect May’s staff read through Bill Clinton’s speeches while preparing her major addresses. On Dec. 12, 1991, two months after formally announcing his bid for the presidency, Clinton famously pointed out that | May’s speeches are reminiscent of the approach of an American Democratic politician who self-consciously resisted identity politics and defied political correctness 25 years ago, Bill Clinton. I suspect May’s staff read through Bill Clinton’s speeches while preparing her major addresses. On Dec. 12, 1991, two months after formally announcing his bid for the presidency, Clinton famously pointed out that |
| On Oct. 5 this year, May told members of her party: | On Oct. 5 this year, May told members of her party: |
| On Oct. 3, 1991, when Bill Clinton declared his candidacy, he said: | On Oct. 3, 1991, when Bill Clinton declared his candidacy, he said: |
| Two and a half decades later, May said: | Two and a half decades later, May said: |
| A random examination of Obama’s speeches during the 2008 campaign reveals his sensitivity to the concerns of the white working class — from which his maternal grandparents, with whom he lived for many years, came. He rarely turned to an explicit “identity politics” strategy. | A random examination of Obama’s speeches during the 2008 campaign reveals his sensitivity to the concerns of the white working class — from which his maternal grandparents, with whom he lived for many years, came. He rarely turned to an explicit “identity politics” strategy. |
| Even when speaking before civil rights and women’s rights groups, Obama took pains to avoid particularistic appeals. | Even when speaking before civil rights and women’s rights groups, Obama took pains to avoid particularistic appeals. |
| At the July 14 NAACP Convention, Obama declared: | At the July 14 NAACP Convention, Obama declared: |
| “Our march is a march for America,” Obama said three weeks later at the Urban League Convention. | “Our march is a march for America,” Obama said three weeks later at the Urban League Convention. |
| Interestingly, Hillary Clinton, in her major speeches, often tried to use language similar to that of Obama or her husband. When she announced her bid for the presidency in June, she told her supporters: | Interestingly, Hillary Clinton, in her major speeches, often tried to use language similar to that of Obama or her husband. When she announced her bid for the presidency in June, she told her supporters: |
| The difference in the rhetorical strategy of Hillary Clinton and Theresa May is one of stress and underscoring. While May made sure her identity group stands were secondary to her pronounced commitment to the working men and women of England generally, Clinton frequently placed her focus on identity groups. | The difference in the rhetorical strategy of Hillary Clinton and Theresa May is one of stress and underscoring. While May made sure her identity group stands were secondary to her pronounced commitment to the working men and women of England generally, Clinton frequently placed her focus on identity groups. |
| Take her speech in Nevada a week before the state’s caucuses in February: | Take her speech in Nevada a week before the state’s caucuses in February: |
| “Not everything is about an economic theory, right?” Clinton told a gathering in Henderson: | “Not everything is about an economic theory, right?” Clinton told a gathering in Henderson: |
| Earlier, at a primary debate on CNN, Anderson Cooper asked her: “Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?” | Earlier, at a primary debate on CNN, Anderson Cooper asked her: “Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?” |
| Clinton replied: | Clinton replied: |
| Clinton’s comments at the debate and in Nevada were accurate but told voters nothing about how a Clinton presidency would improve their lives in ways that the Obama presidency had not. | Clinton’s comments at the debate and in Nevada were accurate but told voters nothing about how a Clinton presidency would improve their lives in ways that the Obama presidency had not. |
| Every campaign seeks to mobilize specific constituencies. Identity politics are, and have always been, a fact of life. The issue is what takes precedence: those constituency-specific appeals or a sustained emphasis on a more encompassing appeal to a broad economic class. | Every campaign seeks to mobilize specific constituencies. Identity politics are, and have always been, a fact of life. The issue is what takes precedence: those constituency-specific appeals or a sustained emphasis on a more encompassing appeal to a broad economic class. |
| Donald Trump won the presidency on an identity politics counterpunch: the mobilization of angry white voters, most of them men. White men supported Trump over Hillary Clinton 62 percent to 31 percent, while white women supported Trump by a more modest margin, 52 to 43. Clinton’s emphasis on her gender appears to have helped Trump in key battlegrounds. | Donald Trump won the presidency on an identity politics counterpunch: the mobilization of angry white voters, most of them men. White men supported Trump over Hillary Clinton 62 percent to 31 percent, while white women supported Trump by a more modest margin, 52 to 43. Clinton’s emphasis on her gender appears to have helped Trump in key battlegrounds. |
| The approach developed by May and her staff, and by the Obama and Bill Clinton campaigns before her, addresses a question that nags at Democratic strategists: How do you establish a commonweal when everyone is looking to have his or her own concerns ratified? | The approach developed by May and her staff, and by the Obama and Bill Clinton campaigns before her, addresses a question that nags at Democratic strategists: How do you establish a commonweal when everyone is looking to have his or her own concerns ratified? |
| The tried and true way for a politician to market a coalitional regime amid a cacophony of particularistic demands is to forcefully assert the primacy of the whole. This worked for the Obama insurgency in 2008 because his coalition members were willing to temporarily suspend their immediate demands in favor of a more encompassing victory. | The tried and true way for a politician to market a coalitional regime amid a cacophony of particularistic demands is to forcefully assert the primacy of the whole. This worked for the Obama insurgency in 2008 because his coalition members were willing to temporarily suspend their immediate demands in favor of a more encompassing victory. |
| Looking toward the future, Democrats might turn the tables on the Republicans and explicitly demonize Trump and his party as proponents of an exclusionary politics of white male identity. | Looking toward the future, Democrats might turn the tables on the Republicans and explicitly demonize Trump and his party as proponents of an exclusionary politics of white male identity. |
| But it is also legitimate to ask whether the age of identity politics is coming to an end. One lesson of 2016 is that opposition to multiculturalism has become an extraordinarily powerful mobilizing tool for the right. It has spurred the emergence of a white lower- and middle-income Republican party while simultaneously invigorating the formerly insignificant alt-right and white supremacists generally. | But it is also legitimate to ask whether the age of identity politics is coming to an end. One lesson of 2016 is that opposition to multiculturalism has become an extraordinarily powerful mobilizing tool for the right. It has spurred the emergence of a white lower- and middle-income Republican party while simultaneously invigorating the formerly insignificant alt-right and white supremacists generally. |
| It would be simplistic to make identity politics the sole culprit of this year’s Democratic defeat, especially in light of Clinton’s 2.4 million popular vote margin. While universalistic appeals have a certain allure in the face of particularistic clamor, it is unlikely that either identity politics or its hyperactive watchdog, political correctness — the current whipping boys of postelection analysis — will disappear anytime soon. | It would be simplistic to make identity politics the sole culprit of this year’s Democratic defeat, especially in light of Clinton’s 2.4 million popular vote margin. While universalistic appeals have a certain allure in the face of particularistic clamor, it is unlikely that either identity politics or its hyperactive watchdog, political correctness — the current whipping boys of postelection analysis — will disappear anytime soon. |
| Europe has had centuries of nationalistic, identity-based conflict from which to draw lessons, and it is clearly headed back in that direction. Damir Banović of the University of Sarajevo writes on this topic cogently, with clear relevance to the situation that obtains in America: | Europe has had centuries of nationalistic, identity-based conflict from which to draw lessons, and it is clearly headed back in that direction. Damir Banović of the University of Sarajevo writes on this topic cogently, with clear relevance to the situation that obtains in America: |
| This has been such a profound transformation that now the | This has been such a profound transformation that now the |
| Identity as a key aspect of human and thus political behavior is a reality. Should the Democrats strive for more subtle, sophisticated and ingenious appeals to their party’s cross-section of identities, including a revivification of the idea of the commonweal? I would say emphatically yes. Trump’s recent victory notwithstanding, the debate over how to do this needs to move forward on a higher plane, without the name calling, if it is to have any chance of success. |