Buttigieg calls out Democrats for playing 'identity politics'

[JonLP24]

In a risky speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a major LGBT rights group, Buttigieg warned of a “crisis of belonging in this country.

By Josh Lederman
LAS VEGAS — Pete Buttigieg sought to diffuse weeks of fraught questions about white privilege and his struggles attracting minorities to his campaign by calling out fellow Democrats on Saturday for playing “identity politics” and pitting one group’s grievances against another’s.

In a risky speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a major LGBT rights group, Buttigieg warned of a “crisis of belonging in this country,” arguing it was exacerbated by “so-called identity politics” that emphasize how one person hasn’t walked in another’s shoes — “something that is true, but it doesn’t get us very far.”

He drew a direct line between the obstacles faced by a black, trans woman excluded by mainstream society and an out-of-work auto worker excluded by the new economy.

“What I worry about is not the president’s fantasy wall on the Mexican border that’s not going to get built anyway,” Buttigieg said. “What I worry about are the very real walls that we are putting up between us as we get divided and carved up

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1004706

To be clear I'm not the Sanders supporter that complains about 'identity politics'. I support civil & equal rights for all.

[madaboutharry]

1. Every time I hear from Pete Buttigieg

I love him more. He is right. Democrats have to stop isolating themselves from each other and come together to achieve common goals. It is the only way we can win.

[Laelth]

40. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[KPN]

2. Courageous but wise comments ... that may

well hurt him. But I applaud his courage and commitment to good.

[JI7]

3. the trans woman is more likely to face unemployment and be discriminated from getting a job

in the first place.

who puts up that wall to separate her from the unemployed coal worker ? would most unemployed coal miners identify with her in the area of facing unemployment ?

[marylandblue]

14. The walls are put up by wealthy elites.

Who want the coal to think he is losing out to the trans woman, rather than blame the economic decisions of the wealthy elite.

[bloom]

18. No, I don't see it that way (blaming the wealthy elite)

I've lived in small cities, small towns and rural areas, and I've seen the 'good old boys' network, etc.

Mayor Pete may not think he has benefitted from being a white male with professor parents - but I'm sure he has more than he knows.

I recognize that he wants sympathy for white men who have lost the manufacturing jobs that used to be plentiful - but if he doesn't recognize that blacks can still have it worse - then he is blind to problems he needs to wake up to.

[marylandblue]

21. He definitely sees he has certain advantages due to his parents,

But the racial divide in this country is a deliberate strategy goes back to the beginning of slavery. African slaves were originally chosen because their skin color made them stand out. They worked side by side with poor white workers and indentured servants. To prevent white workers from making common cause with the slaves working next to them, they gave them advantages over the slaves and taught them that bring white put them in the master class, not the worker class. Which made the white workers less likely to complain.

This continued in various forms throughout American history and is still going on today. If white workers understood how racism hurts them, it would be the end of racism in America.

[JI7]

33. no, that isn't true and actually the real quote says something different

than what was in the OP.

[crazytown]

31. Here's the actual quote:

Last edited Sun May 12, 2019, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

“We are told we have to choose between supporting an auto worker and a trans woman of color, without stopping to think about the fact that sometimes the auto worker is a trans woman of color, and she definitely needs all the security she can get.”

[JI7]

32. ok, that's a lot different than what was in the OP

[JI7]

4. isn't it mostly right wing white men who are passing all the anti woman bills across the country ?

[Honeycombe8]

9. And the RW white women who vote them in.

I think they're both to blame. It's just that the RW white male doesn't like RW white women to hold positions of power in Congress. So just because they're not seated at the table doesn't mean they are not also responsible, since they voted for the RW white males at the table.

[femmedem]

5. The headline and opening paragraph seem to put an inflammatory spin on his remarks.

It's fair to argue about his take on identity politics, but it doesn't seem to me as if his remarks were primarily about Democrats.

"...Buttigieg also called out Trump on several occasions, saying that many of the objections to identity politics “come from the right, which is ironic at this time because the current administration has mastered the practice of the most divisive form of such politics, which is white identity politics, designed to drive apart people with common interests.”

His speech also acknowledged the real threats faced by vulnerable groups:

"...Such "divisive lines of thinking” have entered Democrats’ mindset, Buttigieg said, adding: “Like when we’re told we have to choose between supporting an auto worker and a trans woman of color, without stopping to think about the fact that sometimes the auto worker is a trans woman of color, and she definitely needs all the security she can get.”

Edited to add: I hope a transcript or video of his remarks will become available. I question the article's spin because if he is really objecting to identity politics, he wouldn't be pointing out that many objections to identity politics stem from Trump and white supremacists. I suspect he is acknowledging the disparate opportunities and dangers that some groups experience while simultaneously calling on us to recognize our common interests.

[NewJeffCT]

6. agreed

I'm not supporting anybody, but it does seem like the headline and opening paragraph are intentionally deceptive

[spooky3]

22. Ditto nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

23. See Post #16. There is a link in that post to the video. n/t

[femmedem]

27. Thank you, dear CaliforniaPeggy! n/t

[JI7]

34. thanks for posting this, what he said is much different than what the OP shows

what he said requires audit reading and listening to a larger context.

while some news people just want clickbait slogans.

[Cosmocat]

7. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit

I know the OP used the headline, but the headline was a completely fabricated "hot take."

NOTHING about his quotes either directly, or even in implication was "calling out democrats."

FURTHER, his quotes are absolutely in line with the highly nuanced AND COMPLETELY ACCURATE depictions he makes about these types of issues - frankly, they cut more at conservatives than democrats.

[Kurt V.]

8. Identity politics wasn't created by the groups affected. it was a forced response to

to being marginalized. then named idenity politics by those doing the marginalization.

[brush]

25. Yes, it's almost as if the mayor slept thru Sanders lecturing us on...

identity politics in 2016, which was really code for "stop worrying about the POCs in the party's base and concentrate on getting white, working class voters back who always vote repug. Buttigieg is going at it from a more nuanced, sympathetic way but why even touch such a hot button, divisive phrase?

It's a risky move by the mayor as it's too easy for many to think "here we go again, another white guy with this identity politics disparagement", just as it was risky for Sanders back then who was actually using it as negative criticism of the party

And of course we all know the phrase identity politics was/is a third rail and wasn't successful then so why even go there?

[femmedem]

36. And if you listen to the video, that's exactly what Buttigieg says.

He says the term is used by the right to deflect attention away from marginalized groups whose lived experiences are so different from more privileged groups--and from each others'--that it is as if we are all living in separate countries.

The article quoted in the OP is as misleading as Barr's characterization of the Mueller report.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

10. Our society puts far too many labels on everything.

It's a part of our collective divisive dialog about everything. Some of this emanates from being saturated with commercial advertising for many decades and politicians have long used this trick (I can recall it as far back as Nixon).

Let's get back to discussing people, places and things according to their value to society and the planet rather to some inflammatory label attached to something by people with ill motives.

[Honeycombe8]

11. He's right, IMO. It comes down to the person. We are individuals.

But it's okay to recognize that, all things being equal, to go with a particular demographic in one candidate, to represent that demographic's prominence in the party. The thing is, candidates are never equally likely to win, and none of us has a crystal ball.

As a woman, I've seen way too many women who are not as good on women's issues as some men. There were even women who fought against the right to vote for women. So it comes down to the person, for me.

[pdsimdars]

12. He always gets it right. They're having a new documentary on MSNBC about radicalizing young people

The guy who is doing it was once in those groups and one of his main points is that these young people aren't really radicalized by the ideology, but by a need for a feeling of belonging. Exactly the point Pete makes, the crisis of belonging in the country.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. All politics is identity politics.

[marylandblue]

15. He's talking about a particular style that accentuates divisions rather than heals them.

And it is a difficult thing to talk about because it doesn't have a good name and no matter what you say about it, you are likely to be misinderstood.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

17. Acknowledging that people face different oppressions that must be dismantled in different ways

should not be seen as division, but it often is.

[marylandblue]

19. I think he would agree with that.

I think though we sometimes view people as being in separate communities, rather than see ourselves as one community with certain members who have particular vulnerabilities.

[ancianita]

24. Pete's is the good Democratic Party message: that we have more uniting than dividing us.

I like that he's doing this. His point about a particular political style is important, especially as he shows a political style that heals rather than divides.

Spreading 22 candidates around the country to increase unity in voting can only help the Democrats.

I'm thankful for all their messaging.

[dsc]

16. I watched the speech on Facebook live

and frankly this was a very unfair take. Here is a link to the video. https://www.facebook.com/humanrightscampaign/videos/303814313881191/

He starts a couple of minutes in.

[femmedem]

29. Thank you! As I suspected, the article is nothing like what he said.

He begins by saying the term identity politics is being used primarily by the right as a way of distracting attention from the ways different groups' lived experiences differ.

That article is like opposite world.

[Me.]

26. All White Candidates, Especially Men

Should stay away from those 2 words...it will never help them

[femmedem]

28. Now that I've heard the video, I know the article is about as accurate as Barr's summary of Mueller.

For example, he isn't remotely saying that people shouldn't feel excluded or that different groups' concerns don't matter. Quite the opposite! He says that the term identity politics is being used as a tool to distract attention from the real differences in peoples' lived experiences. He goes on to say that he can't possibly know what it's like to be a trans woman of color, or a dreamer--that in some ways our experiences are so different that we are essentially living in different countries. But he goes on to say that anyone who has experienced a sense of exclusion can use that experience to strengthen their sense of empathy, and that all of these various groups can use that empathy as a basis for solidarity.


The link to the video is in reply 16, and the section on identity politics begins about 18:50 in.

[ismnotwasm]

30. Are we doing this again?

Really? REALLY? This is NOT wise, we are NOT all one people equal ground. Telling people their identity is not worth fighting for in politics is the height of political hubris. Assuming everyone starts from an equal place if we “just” fix our economic system is a naive.

Thank God I’m not doing this again. I remember being so bewildered how anyone could dismiss “identity politics” as some sort of political ploy or worse, an afterthought.

On edit, this is not necessarily directed toward the candidate, I’m see the title was misrepresentative of what he actually said. He is taking political harm from it however.

[femmedem]

35. Please listen to what he actually said rather than relying on the article.

He in no way said we are all one people on equal ground. In fact, he said just the opposite: that the lived experiences of different groups vary so much that it is as if we are living in different countries. And his complaint about identity politics was the term itself, not the practice. He said the term is used--primarily by the right--as a way of deflecting attention from the real differences people face. He then went on to say that although we don't know what it's like to walk in each other's shoes, that he will never know what it's like to be a trans person of color, for example, but we can look to times when we are excluded and use that, not to create a false sense of equivalency, but to strengthen our empathy for different groups and use that as a foundation for solidarity.

The real "Are we doing this again?" should be about falling for divisive, inflammatory, misleading media spin.

The video is in reply #16 and the section on identity politics is about nineteen minutes in.

[ismnotwasm]

38. Saw it

And edited my text. It was not a well thought out comment however, because whatever term describes the ones who are oppressed or suppressed, currently “identity politics”, it’s best just to make your point without degrading the term itself.

[femmedem]

41. I saw your edit. Thanks.

I don't think the term actually describes people, but I do see your point. It's a lightning rod phrase for him to use, almost certain to back fire, given most of our media's inability to write about complex ideas.

[brush]

37. When Sanders pulled this in 2016 IMO it was code for...

the party to stop worrying about concerns of POCs in the base of the party and go after white, working class whites who now vote repug.

Buttigieg hopefully isn't spinning it that way but it's still not smart at all to even touch suck a divisive phrase, especially when he has little minority support as it is.

It's too easy for voters to assume he's doing the same thing Sanders did.

[ismnotwasm]

39. That's the problem right there

With the entire conversation. We still haven’t learned to listen. The people whom for whom
“Identity politics” is code for aren’t going to put up with it.

[brush]

43. Yep, you want your candidates to know enough to not make rookie mistakes.

Isn't he supposed to be so brilliant? The uproar that divisive term caused in 2016 is still fresh in many voters memory.

[NastyRiffraff]

42. He lost me when he defended anti-vaxers

I was looking at him before that, but that was a deal-breaker. This Sanders-like sneering at "identity politics" doesn't change my mind.