The Democratic Party’s Identity Politics Quandary

Back in 2011, the so-called Obama Coalition (i.e, Sailer’s “Coalition of the Fringes” which essentially excludes cisgendered white males) managed to push The Organizer over the finish line toward a successful 2012 re-election.

On the eve of the 2012 election, writing in the NYT, Thomas Edsall began his “The Future of the Obama Coalition” piece with the following:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment “”professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists”” and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

As we are now witnessing, the Democratic Party is reaping what they’ve sown: a circular firing squad, with internal debate on the merits of identity politics squelched by Political Correctness.

Having quadrupled down on identity politics the past 10+ years, the Democratic Party (like the MSM) is now so heavily invested in P.C. identity politics that they can’t tack back to the middle even if they wanted to. Whether it’s within the Democratic Party or on CNN’s panels, the loudest voices in the room are intolerant SJWs cloaked in capes of identity politics, and ready to scream ‘racism!’ and the slightest microaggression. Any exhortations (particularly by white-skinned, male Democrats) to ease off on the BLM-styled rhetoric will immediately expose such white Dems to the usual, hysterical charges of racism and the like.

So, Keith Ellison (who gets double Pokemon points for being both an angry black man and an angry Muslim) is doubly dangerous for white Dems to contest.

Fast forward to this past weekend, with Howard Dean dropping out of contention for head of the DNC. Why did he do this?

Dean, we all know, successfully sold VT-styled populism to many rust belt, downscale whites. It would stand to reason that Dean believes Ellison too radical a figure for the Democratic Party right now, not what the Party needs right now.

But he’ll never say it… for the reasons outlined above.

From FNC:

Dean made clear he considers Ellison’s exit from Congress a requirement. He afterward told MSNBC, “I do not support Keith as long as he has his congressional seat. I do not believe you can do this job and another job in Congress. I don’t support Keith. Maybe I will later.”

But, wait, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz didn’t give up her House seat when she headed the DNC.

Ellison reportedly argued at the meeting last week that he could handle both jobs, especially in a GOP-controlled Congress, just as Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman, did. The argument was not well received.

“I’ll leave that up to you guys to make that determination,” Harrison reportedly said to chortles.

The DNC charter also appears to automatically prohibit Ellison or anyone else from holding both posts, as it stipulates the chairman “shall serve full time.”

However, an allowance seemed to have been made when President Obama personally appointed Wasserman Schultz.

I smell latent strands of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ within the ranks of the Dems!

Beyond concerns about splitting duties, Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is facing criticism about his past remarks on Israel and association with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Whoa! Such criticism is not coming from the likes of Howard Dean. So, who are they coming from?

Cue Jewish liberals, like Alan Dershowitz, who have a built-in ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card on such matters.

“Keith Ellison is, by all accounts, a decent guy,” Alan Dershowitz, a renowned Jewish lawyer and legal scholar who supports Democratic candidates, said in a op-ed. “But it is hard to imagine a worse candidate … Ellison represents the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, just when the party — if it is to win again — must move to the center in order to bring back the voters it lost to (Donald) Trump.”

Dershowitz further suggested that beyond Ellison’s questionable ideology the DNC needs a leader who can reconnect the party with disaffected centrist voters.

“The centrist voters they lost to Trump will only be further alienated by the appointment of a left-­wing ideologue who seems to care more about global issues than jobs in Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan … . Ellison’s sordid past associations with Louis Farrakhan … will hurt him in middle America.”

So, why did Dean drop out?

The 68-year-old Dean, a Clinton supporter, also said last week that he dropped his DNC bid because he thought the party needed a younger face and that he didn’t want to get involved in an “ideological fight” between the party’s establishment and progressive wings.

In other words, Howard Dean doesn’t want to get embroiled in (rational) debate about whether a left-wing, black, Muslim like Ellison is (or is not) what the Democratic Party needs right now.

It’s better to just leave the party (pun intended) rather than get ‘racism’ cake thrown at you.

This entry was posted in Democrat Party, Identity Politics, Political Correctness. Bookmark the permalink.