Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Presumably in 2024 the Democrats will run somebody openly gay for President?

2008 - 2016 for the black guy, 2016 - 2024 for women (Clinton and/or Warren, or even Gillibrand), 2024 - 2032 with ______?* Seems like the logical endpoint of the identity politics grift the Democrats are running so successfully.

And certainly many historical and present-day injustices would be remedied, at least symbolically, with giant cartoon figures of Presidential candidates held aloft before cheering crowds. But ask yourself:

If the country as a whole in 2024 is like it is now, but even moreso, will identity politics really have been the best approach?

And is there any reason to think the country won't be that way?

If [Clinton/Warren (Gillibrand)] turns out to be as good for women as Obama was for blacks, wouldn't that mean we're totally fucked?

Personally, I'd vote for anybody who promised to throw the banksters in jail. Even a Jew!

NOTE * The oddly unmarried and girlfriend-free Corey Booker, clearly being groomed for stardom, but equally clearly not up to the job?

0
No votes yet

Comments

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Greenwald addressed this in his GQ interview the other day:

In an interview with GQ Magazine, journalist Glenn Greenwald warns that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, criticism of her policies will be labeled “misogynistic,” just as criticism of Obama has been characterized as racist.

Greenwald also warns, “They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing,” an interesting remark given the fact that Greenwald himself is openly gay.

Greenwald also addressed "dynasty"--another concern of mine.

So I share the stated concern.

In my case, the biggest concern is that the Democratic Party "uses" identity politics to distract from their social welfare, economic and "war" policies.

And then they often don't do much of anything [or very little] to help the very people that they purport to support.

IOW--everybody loses!

As a Party, the Dems need to learn how to "walk and chew gum" at the same time.

They can start by actually lending meaningful support to groups through enacting legislation. Then, Dem Party Leaders need to put aside their corporatist social welfare, economic and foreign policies.

Maybe Greenwald's concern is unfounded--time will tell.

BTW, Greenwald was on the third segment of Washington Journal this morning--May 14, 2014.

Barmitt O'Bamney's picture
Submitted by Barmitt O'Bamney on

And that openly gay politician, man or woman, would undoubtedly be a scorched earth austerity advocate and Neoliberal free trader. We're talking about the Democrats, after all. My gay vote will go to someone else in that case. Or else it will just stay home. I could have absolutely no attraction to a gay Democrat who screws unions and other working people over, caters to big corporate interests, helps them loot ordinary people with the help of the law, gets into bed with the omni-voyeuristic Police State, and sports a woodie for the American Empire and its military domination of lands far distant from our shores. The fact that such a politician was gay, and still pursued these despicable aims, would only intensify my rejection of them.

But I think it is more likely that you will see a Hispanic Democratic nominee ten years hence, after she's had "her turn". Or else, the Democrat BM / WF "Eyewitness News At Six Team" formula will repeat indefinitely. Openly gay President of the United States? Lots of people are happy to have gays on their team - that is so long as we understand that our acceptance is conditioned on being relegated to supporting roles for people whose lives and views really matter. Being prepared to follow an openly gay person as the "star" or "leader of the team" or "head of the family" is something altogether different from accepting the presence of gay people who can perform specialized, auxiliary functions in society, and who can help fill out the numbers of a dinner or political party. By openly gay I mean someone who is actively living a gay life, with known partners, whose political charisma is related to, consonant with, and in some way integral to their sexuality. I do not mean a celibate person who forgoes sexual relationships and lives their life as a sacrifice and service for others. The latter class are asexual "saints", even though their (not acted upon) orientation may be a matter of public knowledge. Like nuns or monks, they may do much good in denying themselves to devote themselves to others, but they are doing only limited good for acceptance of sexual minorities.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

...the present body politic still droning on about either party? Especially democrats.
They could run God, Buddha, Mohamed, or Arjuna for president and I would not vote the democratic party, period.
Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice shame on you; foll me a third time? Fuck all, get me something different.
Truly, I don't get this 2 party mentality. Just what's it going to take to break the paradigm?

And, if you've really got this kind of energy; put it someplace that makes a difference, no?

Submitted by lambert on

Why?

1) I think identity politics is destructive and so I wish to oppose it

2) Know your enemy

3) Corrente readership likes it

Submitted by lambert on

I am explaining why I post this topic as I do. You, as a Corrente reader, not only have full commenting privileges, but full posting privileges. Pushback is not at all the same as STFU. If you want me to give STFU examples, I can do so!

nihil obstet's picture
Submitted by nihil obstet on

to the economic justice demands of the 60s. There are cultural inequities that should disappear, but the main issue in politics is how the system works for most people. The glaring domination of the white boys demonstrated that the system works through privilege. So rather than extending equality, the leaders of all groups agreed that the solution was to have equal representation of each group in each level of society. So in contemporary terms, if the 1% has adequate representations of blacks, women, gays, hispanics, et al., then we have a fair society. Identity politics focuses on having every individual identify with a group and work for the princes of that group rather than working for equality for everybody.

The only groups that are carefully expunged from identity politics are economic classes.

marxmarv's picture
Submitted by marxmarv on

Just had a thought.... the overturning of DOMA was a sort of Rapture for neoliberals, wasn't it? Why, the Rapture comes every two years, as long as your politics are correct.