From Wisconsin Conservative James Wigderson:
One of the 10 Democratic candidates for Wisconsin Governor admitted that his party is “pickled in identity politics.” Former Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Matt Flynn made the comments Monday to WHBY Appleton talk radio host Josh Dukelow.
Dukelow told Flynn he believes the Democratic Party focus has shifted to “identity politics” since the time Flynn chaired the state party in the 1980s. Dukelow then asked Flynn if he agreed with that characterization and, referring to Flynn, asked if the Democratic Party will elect an “old white guy” (Flynn is 70). Flynn was candid to the extreme in his answer:
“Our party right now, and I’m probably the only one who says this, is pickled in identity politics and victimology. And when I was at the convention recently, in Oshkosh there were multiple caucuses of, there were all these subgroups, and there is no assimilation of the party anymore. When I was the chairman there were no caucuses. And I’m of the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy. That’s the legacy…A lot of these other people. They are very, very nice people, but they scurry around with these various identities, and so on, and I think that sets me apart as well. So my own belief is that we should get rid of the caucuses in the Democratic Party and come together again. There were no caucuses under Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, and John F. Kennedy, and they won’t be under Matt Flynn if he’s the governor.”
According to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin website, the party has the following caucuses:
This again?
Representing and uniting certain varied groups is “identity politics”.
Meanwhile pandering to Southern Evangelicals, White nationalists, economic elites, and Wall Street isn’t “identity politics”.
That’s how they operate.
I’m all for criticizing Democrats on the matter of identity politics, but this is quite weak. The existence of these caucuses does not matter much; what harm they actually cause does.
As for acknowledging some groups and leaving out others, that’s hardly restricted to Democrats. In fact, Republicans often go further than leaving out: they actively exclude. All an atheist has to do is look at the Republican platform or listen to Republican politicians to find out that he’s not really welcome. If he’s also gay, it’s simply out of the question. But I’m not at all hurt that Clinton didn’t call out to me for being white or straight or physically able, as I recognize that these characteristics are not under assault and that their continued political presence, whatever that may mean, is safe accordingly. Those who would vote for Democrats if only they would explicitly acknowledge whiteness or Christianity or heterosexuality are not reliable voters, but I doubt that they are numerous anyway, so I’m not concerned that Clinton lost many votes over what she did.