Does the Democratic Party feud show that identity politics is destructive?

[T'Chenka]

This isn't about identity politics, it's about foreign-backed militants seeking to bend a party to the will of a small minority of its base like they did in the UK.

Can you elaborate? I'm interested and intrigued by your post.

[Tartarus Sauce]

And as an addendum to my previous comment, the thing that OP’s question completely misses the point on is that the current feuding within the Democratic Party has little to do with identity politics. It’s internal tension between the progressive wing complaining about the party establishment being too business friendly and the party establishment getting annoyed at the progressive insurgents for being rowdy and uncooperative.

I mean sure, they’ll smack each other over identity issues in the primary, but nobody is going to threaten to stay home because of that come Election Day or switch to voting for Trump. The people with the greatest probability of being alienated by the current party conflict would be anti-establishment progressives who might get upset that the nominee is somebody they consider too corporatist. Not because somebody was “too woke” or not woke enough. Anybody getting triggered by the identity politics of the Democrats has already either left the party or was never a Democrat to begin with. It’s not going to cause any major fissures among current Democratic voters.

[cinyc]

And as an addendum to my previous comment, the thing that OP’s question completely misses the point on is that the current feuding within the Democratic Party has little to do with identity politics. It’s internal tension between the progressive wing complaining about the party establishment being too business friendly and the party establishment getting annoyed at the progressive insurgents for being rowdy and uncooperative.

I mean sure, they’ll smack each other over identity issues in the primary, but nobody is going to threaten to stay home because of that come Election Day or switch to voting for Trump. The people with the greatest probability of being alienated by the current party conflict would be anti-establishment progressives who might get upset that the nominee is somebody they consider too corporatist. Not because somebody was “too woke” or not woke enough. Anybody getting triggered by the identity politics of the Democrats has already either left the party or was never a Democrat to begin with. It’s not going to cause any major fissures among current Democratic voters.

AOC’s chief of staff all but called Sharice Davids racist, the “Squad” hinted that Pelosi is racist, and the official Twitter account of the Democratic party told him to shut up. But there is no feuding in the Democratic party, and it has nothing to do with identity politics.

There are these places called swing districts where people called swing voters vote on many things, including identity politics. Democrats would not hold the House without these districts.

[Tartarus Sauce]

And as an addendum to my previous comment, the thing that OP’s question completely misses the point on is that the current feuding within the Democratic Party has little to do with identity politics. It’s internal tension between the progressive wing complaining about the party establishment being too business friendly and the party establishment getting annoyed at the progressive insurgents for being rowdy and uncooperative.

I mean sure, they’ll smack each other over identity issues in the primary, but nobody is going to threaten to stay home because of that come Election Day or switch to voting for Trump. The people with the greatest probability of being alienated by the current party conflict would be anti-establishment progressives who might get upset that the nominee is somebody they consider too corporatist. Not because somebody was “too woke” or not woke enough. Anybody getting triggered by the identity politics of the Democrats has already either left the party or was never a Democrat to begin with. It’s not going to cause any major fissures among current Democratic voters.

AOC’s chief of staff all but called Sharice Davids racist, the “Squad” hinted that Pelosi is racist, and the official Twitter account of the Democratic party told him to shut up. But there is no feuding in the Democratic party, and it has nothing to do with identity politics.

There are these places called swing districts where people called swing voters vote on many things, including identity politics. Democrats would not hold the House without these districts.

Most Democrats don’t care about those types of dumb feuds that happen over Twitter. I didn’t even know this was what the feud was over and I doubt many other Democrats do either, but the progressive vs. establishment feud is far more salient for your average party voter. 

Pretty much all of the problematic bomb throwers live in safe D districts. Am I supposed to believe that the voters in David’s district are going to punish her for being insulted by AOC’s chief of staff over identity politics? Nobody cares about that kind of garbage other than always online activists.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think Trump's recent bigoted, racist, xenophobic comments may have helped quell this notion. The Democratic party can now, once again, unite against the sort of identity politics that Trump practices.

[Badger]

Oh shut up bronze

[Slander and/or Libel]

No. The GOP are practitioners of destructive, hateful white identity politics, and that's destructive not because of the nature of identity politics more generally, but because they're bigoted eliminationists.