Identity is the nominal glue that holds the Democratic Party together - tenuous as the glue is. The fundamental identity of Democrats is not any of those listed by Abrams - women, blacks, LGBTQ. The fundamental identity is non-white, with a caveat. Whites are tolerated in Democrats' inclusivity - Pelosi, Schumer, etc - because they need the body count.
But, as ethno-demography eventually renders whites an insignificant sliver of US population, even the Pelosi's and Schumer's of the Party will be ostracized and cannabilized.
Then what? With the fundamental binding agent of the left's so-called diversity and inclusivity non-existent, what group will replace whites as the demons of democrazy?
The inherent balkanization of identity was on display in the deterioration of the recent Women's March. There are other examples, and there will be many more.
Identity currently produces some winners - Mr. Bouie is an example - but in the long run, Identity is a losing strategy for America.
A pyrrhic victory, to use an old, white phrase.
9
Stacey Abrams is a great candidate for president, senate, whatever she chooses. If only millions of black men who can vote would bother to vote and show enthusiasm for a qualified and inspiring woman candidate. It would be great to see them work with millions of progressives of all identities to make sure that everyone in progressive working-class communities can and will vote for Stacey Abrams and other wonderful candidates who need support, instead of letting their sexism and cynicism get the better of them. Otherwise, we will get more horrors like Trump from the violent, racist, and mean-spirited GOP.
2
Ignore the white working class at your peril !
8
Instead of Make America Gangsta Again like Mafia Donnie, maybe "Be Real" would be a better slogan.
She knocked me out last night because she's real.
It was like, "Trump, who?." "Let me tell you my story and America's story."
She didn't have to go after any "basket of deplorables." They have always and will always be among us.
Instead, it was like, "This is what we're about. Get with the program. Or, get out of the way." She was fabulous.
And, by the way, Democratic Presidential wannabes, you get real or get out of the way.
No awkward beers from the fridge or "American Indian" bar cards. And, Liz, you still got time to get real, but girl, please, get real or get out of the way.
3
Stacey Abrams is a black woman with important ideas about the governance of this country. But why does she need to hide or de-emphasize the “black woman” part? Bernie Sanders brags about being the “son of a Polish immigrant” endlessly. Bill Clinton loved to show off his Southern twang. Donald Trump loves to pretend he was “working class” by eating buckets of KFC (when he was born the son of a millionaire real estate mogul.) Joe Biden loves to play up his steel country connections? Aren’t all these white men playing “identity politics? - i.e. making who they are part of their political narrative?
Why is it that only when the candidate is some racial or religious minority, or LGBT, or a woman, or whatever else, that the candidate has to “tone that down?” Isn’t a black woman who Stacey Abrams is? It’s a reality of her life, which informs her experiences and perspective. Why does she have to hide it when all the good old boys flaunt it? Wouldn’t she be a more authentic candidate if she were up front about who she is? Or are we just saying Democrats can score more votes if they pander a bit more to racist and sexist attitudes?
2
It is interesting to see how the appearance of a strong intelligent black female affects old white man. Obviously, some of them are very cautious in their evaluation of her intelligence and ability. Stacy Abrams is obviously an incredibly intelligent, well-educated and successful politician. She has obtained national prominence. This is very disturbing to old white men.
Perhaps the best way for them to understand their inability to appreciate her intelligence is for them to try and conceptualize the difference between their great-grandparent’s appreciation of their slaves on the plantation and their appreciation of black people in our community. There is a great generational change. These old people will never understand what’s going on, but their children and grandchildren will.
America is becoming a multicultural multiracial society. This is been going on for 200 years. It is not going to stop now. The best and brightest will come to the top. They won’t now be stopped because of their skin color or their sex. This is because of changes in occupation, healthcare, education, and communication. All these things tend to diminish the prominence of white landowners.
It’s tough for those old guys to figure it out. But their grandchildren will.
The Democratic response to that hour and twenty minutes of lies and demagoguery must have been a success: coverage of it has been scant, under-the-fold, and relegated to op-eds. If it had consisted of a misstatement about her history, an overly enthusiastic vocalization, a prematurely hyperbolic characterization of the "president," the msm wouldn't be able to withhold the 24/7 "day two of 'response-gate!'."
1
Abrams is intelligent, articulate and clear in her views -- I love that she addresses the horrific material death rate of black women in this country, voter suppression, the right of women to have control of their bodies. I would vote for her joyously. And with hope...something I have not felt for quite some time.
1
She belongs on “The Real” tv show, not in government.
1
Jamelle Bouie seems to suggest that the Democrats should abandon white working class male voters in favour of a coalition of minorities and college educated white women (I'm guessing here as it is not that clear). If so, that would be a mistake.
White working class voters are a natural constituency for the Democrats, especially on economics. The problem is that progressives have a series of litmus tests on issues of conscience that excludes many people; any dissent on these views leads to condemnation as some kind of neo-nazi. Schumer and Pelosi back a big tent, but the PC zealots' views seem to be in the ascendancy right now.
7
Why didn't Democrats pick a winner? Somebody that won in a Red state or a Red District?
6
If this is the face of the Democratic party then get ready for six more years of Trump. White men are not going to vote for somebody who looks like this. You can't win the White House without white men. She said nothing to attract them.
5
"This is another part of Abrams’s brilliance: a recognition that Democrats need to build power at all levels of government, not just in Washington."
Are you listening Beto and a host of the other DEM wannbees????
Her speech was a big nothing burger...an omage to identity politics.
10
So why did Jamie Bouelle back Sanders last election when all he does is decry "identity politics", meaning appealing to anyone other than white guys? Men are flaky.
1
Bow much do we know about how she appealed to the country at large?
1
Stacey Abrams had no choice in her identity as a black African American brown hued woman. Her physical identifiable caste made her kind enslaved and separate and unequal in America for centuries. No human being chooses their parents nor ancestry.
The notions of " identity politics" and " playing the race card" and "political correctness" are evil white supremacist nationalist plots to excuse continuing immoral inhumane bigotry in deed and word. You cannot identify any white persons ethnicity nor national origin nor faith. But their privilege and power is innate.
This silly stupidity reaches it's zenith when being colorblind to the bigotry of color is conflated literally with being colorblind. Neither the trifling condescending paternalistic pity of white liberals nor the troubling condescending paternalistic contempt of white conservatives accepts the diverse equal individual humanity of blacks as divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life.
Pretending that racism and white supremacy are things of the past is delusional, ludicrous and naive. Because their lives and livelihoods depend upon knowing what white people really think and feel blacks have never been misled by what people say or write. By action and inaction it is clear that a majority of whites still accept the myths of white superiority and black inferiority. And a minority are racist bigots.
Despite his half-white nature and all white nurture Barack Obama was only black.
2
The Democratic party clearly needs to steer away from all male and white candidates. If we only run black women we will avoid both embarrassing yearbook photos and sexual assault allegations. And we'll win every time, just like Stacey.
4
"Happy New Lunar Year" was the dumbest opening ever, and I am a lifelong Democrat. Take away this incredibly stupid opening to the nation, and she would have incredibly powerful talent. Such a stupid opening remark. As thought she went into a room to ask, "What is the most esoteric, outlier, anti-red county mentality, anti-not college educated, elitist, "lunar" statement I can make?" And there it was. "Happy New Lunar Year"
5
#Sanders/Abrams 2020! #O’rourke/Abrams 2020! #Harris/Abrams 2020! #Biden/Abrams 2020! All winning combinations to derail Trumps treasonous train. Notice the one constant? #Stacey any way we can get her 2020!
I heard Ms. Abram's speech.
.
I thought it was at once boring and banal.
8
She was great and deserves to be elevated for
highest office, vs. what's going on with Virginia democrats...Its surreal, two black faces and one sexual harassment.
Just utter rot and chaos.
1
If the Democrats want to run on and celebrate identity politics then they deserve to lose to the worst president America has ever had... That is how stupid and backwards identity politics is.
12
Yup...keep up the identity politics and see how that works out for you. Identity politics is the left's version of racism.
14
Identity politics will fail against Trump in the 2020 election. Stacey Abrams is living in a bubble as surely as white-men-only voters are in a bubble. This country has gone so far so fast that the result is the election of a moron of a white man. Why can't women and blacks run for office and be elected for their qualifications--which in most cases are at least as good as white men? I believe we are at the point that they can win if they are the best candidate (Barack Obama anyone??) and that most people have a fighting chance even if they don't play identity politics, which Obama didn't. Is that the only reason we should support Ms. Abrams? That she is a minority? Not good enough for me!
4
Whether this has nationwide appeal has yet to be demonstrated. There really are two styles of identity politics, one inclusionary, which could work, and one exclusionary, which won't. I note with no small amount of consternation that there's a small cottage industry of attacking Bernie Sanders for also hosting his own response after Abrams' response. The tone is one of "white men should shut up." It's extremely hard to keep significant numbers of a demographic in your base if you choose a tactic of vilifying them to rally your base. Democrats have never put together a winning coalition that hasn't included a lot of white liberals. Cut them out and that's the margin of victory. If that's the message the Democratic party sends, then it shouldn't surprise that even liberal white men defect, stay home, or decline to volunteer. If that happens, Democrats will lose, and will probably deserve to.
Instead, one should look to expand the conversation to address new issues, but without vilifying or denigrating anybody. I'd recommend that certain parts of the Democratic coalition look actually to the inclusive example of Stacey Abrams and Jamelle Bouie for how to expand the conversation without excluding others. The rest of the Democrats run a risk of losing because one vocal component of the coalition seems hell bent on pushing another component of the base fully out of the coalition.
1
Way to go Stacey!
Guess who she helps become president?
Kamala,
she gets voters (more) used to the idea of black female leadership.
I don't get it. Why does a woman who lost a governor's race get a rebuttal to POTUS? Please earn it a little more.
9
Yes indeed. America isn’t changing. It has changed. And the only way the white-old-GOP can win is by cheating. Mitch McConnell basically admitted it this week when he called proposals to make Election Day a holiday a “power grab”.
And that’s the thing.
Republicans don’t even bother to hide it anymore. Russians? Sure! Gerrymandering? Amen! Close polling places where minorities vote? Why not? Drop people from the rolls? Yes!
But here’s the other thing. Even with the cheating their days are numbered. And they know it. They tied their ship to bigotry, cheating and corruption. But that won’t save them from demographic change.
So instead of Grand Old Party, I say it’s Goodbye Old Pal.
If you live in a big city, you get to see the human race every day. If you live in this city, you get to see us in all our crazy, unique, stupefying variety in every aspect of our manifestation from newborn to old crone. Unless you walk around with a bag on your head, you eventually confront some of those people close up on the subway, the bus, in countless lines, in restaurants, at performance venues and sports games. Mostly other people do their thing while you do yours. You learn, over time, that how they look and what they wear doesn't harm you, it doesn't really tell you much about who they are. You can't tell if they speak English or another language. You can't tell much at all except that they are human.
If, however, you live in a small town and the only other people you see are white and they sound the same and look the same as you, your view of humanity is skewed and you don't even know it. The other people, who are not like you, are unknowns and the unknowns are frightening. Trump gets that.
The future belongs to the world that is not white, male, privileged and smug. The Brent Kavanaugh's have little in common with a man whose family came from India and who owns a small cleaning business in Queens or a woman from Trinidad who has raised two children, works as a housekeeper, and volunteers at her church. Brava to Ms. Abrams and what she represents. Yes to all the changes from a white, 69 year old female! YES!
1
She doesn't represent anything other than a sore loser. She has nor more national appeal than any other angry demagogue.
4
I was a straight-Democrat voter for decades until this election. From the party that used to stand for the middle & working class of any race, it has now become the party of upper class/insider intellectual, almost entirely white (based on data, not my feelings), who firmly believe they can tell everyone else what to say, how to behave & what group they belong to. What's more, their quasi-religion is that these groups fall on a Victim hierarchy they alone decide on.
As a Brown Jew who has never identified as "white", I've been informed many times the last two years that I am White--by upper class white people. When I object, I'm told I am blind to my privilege & anyway, Judaism is a religion. The keepers of the gate firmly believe they are the priestly caste without God but with plenty of sin, damnation, hypocrisy, & sanctimoniousness that is ironically so Western-centric they really believe that White people are responsible for all the evil in the world, & they are on the throne of the world---thereby keeping their power without having to change their economic privilege or do a single righteous thing. All they need to do is wear a button & tweet occasionally. Their kids can still go to privates, they land insider internships, they live behind segregated walls, & they delusionally believe they're righteous.
If I object, I'm evil or stupid.
If the Dems continue this stuff, they will lose again.
4
You could not be more wrong about identity politics. It's poison for all of us. You imagine you are girding your loins for war. In fact, you are setting yourself up for the kill in the unfolding culture war. The whole mentation of identity politics leads to division, then fragmentation, then atomization. You need look no further than the Balkans, and its dreary, horrible history, to see that identity politics leads no where except to weakness, poverty, anguish, war and permanent backwardness. Beware!
6
Identity politics on the long term is a dead end.Blacks voting for Blacks Whites voting for Whites.Women for women is crazzy.How about voting for the best person for the job.
3
Identity politics divide our country and needs to end. We are Americans. No hyphen required.
6
La de da. Marshmellows and campfires. Sack races and apple bobbing. This maternal sort of progressive-ism is thin gruel and doomed to a close second at best on the Left. Just like it’s odd couple, Stacey and Beto. Nope. It’s going to be populism with an edge. Either the kind that punishes the pale and the wealthy, a la South Africa, or the kind that punishes the elite, thieves and social justice warriors, a la what is coming to France. Harps and oboes are not the instruments. Timpani and crash cymbals are more like it.
4
Hillary Clinton played the identity politics card and lost. Now Stacy Adams doubles down on it.
Have the democrats learned nothing?
11
Her reply was pablum that could be canned and redelivered as boring boilerplate.
It was Sanders succinct, detailed, and beautifully complete reply. OVERLOOKED by this paper, that was materially important. It's ironic, the identity nonsense group must torpedo a man because of his identity! Who cares what Sanders said, he's White!
You carry on this identity nonsense and it's four more years of Trump.
7
Why is a columnist for the NYT embracing identity politics, which represents the worst of America? And he misses a very big point here: Abrams with a huge campaign chest from out-of-state donors and massive, positive media attention LOST the Georgia election to a very unlikeable Republican with lots of baggage. I voted for Abrams, but I'm not sure she is what the Democratic Party needs going forward.
9
She was all puppy dogs and bunnies. No real or new policy ideas, No taking Trump to task over specific lying, no response to Triumps assertion that unemployment for blacks and women is down. No specifics on anything, really. Just a vague claim of moral superiority. If the Democrats think that they can win on that, they deserve another four years of Trump.
2
Boy her fans are out... But if truth be told her speech was dull. She merely regurgitated the Dem Party line. Nothing wrong with that but we heard it all before. Nothing new. Nothing really personal from her point of view. Dems have to do better to bet Trump.
6
Stacy Abrams gave a good speech, but Bernie Sanders gave scathing and specific rebuttal to trump’s speech and aggressively pushed the Progressive Democratic agenda.
Unfortunately, the NYT has elected to ignore his response.
4
Dear NYT:
Brilliance? Please. Ms. Abrams does have a great political back story but her post-SOTU performance was jittery, shrill and cliche-ridden, with no memorable unifying lines.
Worse, she delivered this verbal splat against a backdrop that looked like a PBS station fundraiser, backed by ranks of multi-hued volunteers waiting for the phone to ring.
It did not ring.
Moreover, her big applause line -- rallying against alleged black voter suppression -- is not a winning issue, particularly because most Southern states have a higher black turnout than the liberal coasts, and continue to take great pains to expand voting opportunities, and even allow black voters to be bused on Sundays to the polls from black churches. Requiring an ID is not necessarily suppression.
If Abrams is the new queen of identity politics, the Ds are are trouble.
How about building a bigger tent for all Americans, regardless of race, gender or admixtures thereof? How about accepting individual Americans as they are, with respect and tolerance? What is wrong with old fashioned liberalism?
Arguably, it is this loud push for intersectional victim-focused identity politics that got Trump elected. Bigotry on the left creates bigotry on the right, and vice versa.
All this hate mongering against white men only results in more hatred, and less understanding.
7
"(to) give viewers a sense of what the party really looks like". The Democrat party is now, and actually has been for some time, a chocolate cake with an ever thinning layer of white frosting what little of which still remains being merely decorative. How well the Democrats can do in the future as the "Black Party", the party of the disaffected, the party of the free lunch for the 'deserving', remains to be seen, but it's certainly time they came out of the closet.
2
This is folly. She might be an admirable woman, but if the Democrats want to lose in 2020 then run on the issue of "identity." .
Maybe the Democrats haven't noticed, but America remains racist. Realism matters.
3
The problem is that the democratic party's identity politics is just token window dressing. This is just replacing the old black elite with a new black elite while ignoring the masses of black people who historically have put Democrats in office. Even President Obama issued executive orders that did more to help illegal immigrants than the black voters who put him in office. On top of it the democratic party is pushing a former AG who upheld police brutality.
Black voters are tired of hearing about a big tent and inclusion when they are the ones asked to vote and yet get very little of the spoils after victory. It was this issue that prevented Abrams from winning and an issue Democrats to deal. Window dressing isn't enough.
1
Identity politics is killing liberalism and will give us a second Trump term. I'll stand with MLK and judge somebody not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
3
A Conservative wrote a book about how the Republican Party became the insanity party. Similarly, if the Democratic party adopts the ideology of the radical left , like identity politics, somebody would write a book about how the Democratic Party became stupid party. In Europe identity politics is the ideology of the nationalists parties that may destroy the EU; they are based on the prejudices of ethnic identity. To compare the problems of women and LGBT people with that of blacks is ridiculous.
False Choice.
False choice rhetoric and, indeed, thinking, has become perhaps the most dominant force in our national politics. And it's a cancer.
Pundits interested in Democratic party strategy (and many candidates and operatives) seem to believe you're either 'for-or-against' "identity politics." The belief is that must laser-target your message at specific demographics: either a panoply of colors, ethnicities and backgrounds; or take those reliable-Dem votes for granted and pander to working class whites who seem to be retreating from the Democratic party, at least in part due to racism or an inability to accept our country's multi-cultural reality.
This black/white, either/or view of strategic options available to the Dems is misguided at best, idiotic and divisive at worst. It's possible to stand up for immigrants, Native Americans, LGBTQ individuals and groups, and other historically disenfranchised or disadvantaged groups while also advocating for and speaking on behalf of white voters who--justifiably or not--share a similar sense of disenfranchisement in modern america.
The Dem who wins (not saying it's a sure thing) won't do it by ignoring white voters, or pandering to racists. They won't do it by blindly going hard left economically without paying due mind to economic realities. They won't win by embracing the false choices that permeate our politics. They win by making an inclusive argument of a vision intended to serve all Americans. Such a path exists.
1
The home run that Stacey Abrams hit—for me—was “we don’t want the president to fail; we want him to tell us the truth.”
With that single declaration, Ms. Abrams gave the lie to (one of) the president’s many surly, sulky , snarky references to the perceived notion that he is under siege from the left; from the “deep state;” from, broadly, Democrats.
The narrow loser to Brian Kemp in still-Jim Crow Georgia demonstrated a maturity beyond anything that Donald Trump could possibly command. She reminded this observer of President Obama’s generous welcome to the White House after the president-elect stunned (most of) America in 2016. A disappointed Mr. Obama put aside his personal feelings and got to work, showing the interloper how the presidency works in real time.
But Ms. Abrams never forgot to speak truth to power. In remonstrating the president about the importance of truth, she slyly pulled the rug out from any of his attempts at building a consensus—she knew that as soon as the SOTU ended, the spoken words would melt into the night, largely forgotten.
The Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi, are making the party over—empowering women. It would seem that male Democrats are willing to make way for their voices to be heard—and to be on the point for their acceptance—local or national—without grumbling about the emerging demographics.
It was a masterstroke for Ms. Abrams to weave together the threads that tie neighborhoods and towns and cities long ago abandoned by Republicans.
1
Identity-How to divide a nation. Is this what The Democrats really believe in? Seriously? Something tells me there's a hole in the bucket dear........
Sounds like there are a few people not buying into the nonsense minority argument any longer and particularly not the identity politics. The minority is the unprotected class!
327,167,434 US Population
Protected Classes
43,840,436 African American Population (13.4%)
49,217,306 Hispanic American Population (18.1%)
18,975,711 Asian American Population (5.8%)
4,253,177 Native American Population (1.3%)
100,884,041 White Female American Population (30.8%)
22,599,268 White Males under 18 (6.9%)
11,609,624 LGBTG Males over 18 (3.5%)
261,379,563 US Population Protected classes (79.8%)
65,787,871 US Population not protected class (20.1%)
Who is this unprotected overwhelming all powerful class? Are the Democrats saying that 20% of some stratification of the population controls the entire country? Newsflash for everyone, Its about the policies not identity politics!
If you argue that 80% of the population agrees versus the 20%, who is the minority and who is the majority.
The Mathematics always tells the truth. The American public is a whole lot smarter than the people in Washington and the media think. Don't ever discount the power of one versus a divided opposition.
This is about goofy ideas and more important rejected ideas.
2
Before you can become a statesman you have to win the election. Coming close counts in hand grenades and horseshoes, not in elections. Moral victories may be noble, but in elections and sports these is just another way of saying "losing." Too bad the Democrats could not have chosen one of their diverse victors to deliver the message.
6
The Abrams campaign spent $27,367,398.27.
That doesn't include the tens of millions in independent expenditures/SuperPAC money that was expended on her behalf.
The vast majority of her contributions came from outside of GA - she's a darling of the coasts and DC.
5
Even the most put-upon members of society must confront the fact that just dwelling on injustices of the past gets you only so far. Beyond a certain point, those who want to succeed must shoulder their sometimes unequal share of the burdens and injustices that exist in every society -- a lot less so in ours than in others. And to achieve success in doing so, individuals must do the best they can under the circumstances, even as they confront injustices along the way.
One cannot solve a large social problem by strident demands and cries of "racism!" at every turn, even though there is racism and anti-Semitism out there that needs to be dealt with. One still has to chip away at it, and build on initially modest achievements of previous generations. That has always been the American way to success. It still is. And to do that one has to be able to pursue education, not indoctrination by leftist college faculties, and above all, one must be able to to talk about it.
No one gives away success and power -- they have to be won and earned by socially acceptable means. A minority cannot force the majority of a democratic society to yield to its strident demands for "change!" -- doing so is the way to civil strife, not progress.
10
To paraphrase and correct the subtitle of this article...
Stacy Abrams represents a repudiation of the idea that Democrats understand that playing up "identity" is a losing strategy in the country at large.
Ms. Abrams seemed like a perfectly nice person and came across very well. But, what she actually said struck me (a Republican) as just as delusional and untrue as the way she and most Democrats must perceive President Trump when he speaks.
Mr. Bouie is viewing Ms. Abrams through a very refracted lens. While she may look like a revolution to him, to those on the other side, she is just more of the same thing Democrats have been trying and trying to push since President Obama's first campaign.
Obama won because the alternative was anathema to more people than not. Trump won because Hillary Clinton was anathema to more people than not.
Abrams will not win, unless her opponent is more repugnant than her. Again, she seems to be a nice person. But, her ideas are old, tired, and a blueprint for losing any national election.
Lipstick (i.e. Ms. Abrams) on a pig (i.e. the Democratic party's endless hammering of divisive "identity" politics) is still lipstick on a pig.
If Ms. Abrams or the Democrats come up with something new, please let us know. In the meantime, there's no there there. Just more of the tired same ol' same ol'. And, it ain't gonna win.
Worst case? It'll get Trump reelected. Is that what the Democrats want? It must be, because they're the ones doing it!
40
@Elfego You're right, she won't win. I didn't see that as the point here unless I missed that sentence. Rather it's about not being reactionary and instead sticking to the ideals the party wants to stand for but fails regularly. I agree that if they want to start winning elections, they have to be progressive rather than centrist and they should happily support and appeal to the nonwhite population of our country. The non-racist, white progressives will support this and the Democrats will appeal to a majority, win elections, and help move us forward with a healthy agenda.
5
@Elfego Trump won the gerrymandered Electoral College Votes. More people found him to be anathema by 3 million actual votes.
The Senate is controlled by Republicans only because of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
The Democrat running in 2016 was for many, the lesser of two horrible choices and got MORE votes.
13
@Elfego -- Gee ... "as delusional and untrue as the way she and most Democrats must perceive President Trump when he speaks" --
This is a shining example of Republican denial of reality. Go look at Stacey Abrams' file at Politifact:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/stacey-abrams/
5 entries: 4 Half-True and one Mostly True.
Do I need to tell you about Trump's? Liar of the year award and now the reason to create a new category of lie: endlessly repeated.
You have a video of Stacy bragging about grabbing women by the _____?
How about any equivalent of 'Trump University?'
Paying off sex partners to stay quiet about adulteries?
What is your problem, that you compare Stacey Abrams to Trump?
4
I like Stacey Abrams and I like what the Democratic Party is pretending to be. To be honest, I'm not sure it will sell in Middle America, but we'll see.
Now, in my mind, the Dems need to back up some of their lofty talk with action. It's not enough just to 'have' women and people of different races and ethnicties, and genders in the party. Now the party needs to start serving them too.
They've (we've) trotted out the trick ponies, now how do we care for them when they aren't performing?
Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, not a historian.
Abrams for Senate! She will someday become Senate Majority Leader........
Yep, I spelled it correctly: majority leader.
No sir. Stacey Abrams is just brilliant. Put identity politics to rest.
1
Stacey Abrams has a bright future in the Democratic Party but choosing her to run against Donald Trump in 2 years would be insane. The country cannot afford to take a chance at this point in history. And giving a pre-recorded speech written by speechwriters and read with the aid of a teleprompter tells us nothing about her. Experience matters. It seems clear from recent experience that a President who knows nothing about the presidency or the Constitution cannot tweet himself to a successful presidency. On the other hand, a politically experienced woman of a certain age can bring the people of her own party together and having coped with 5 children and 9 grandchildren can deal with the tantrums of a toddler-in-chief. Let Ms. Abrams run for a lower office first and see how she can handle it before we anoint her for the presidency.
1
I looked for headlines that Stacey Abrams had devastated Trump in her State of the Union follow up. To my surprise, it was hard to find even a mention of her on such anti-Trump websites as CNN, for example. Truth is, as far as SOTU follow ups, Abrams was the Democratic answer to Bobby Jindal.
1
Vox article on Stacey Abrams essay “IDENTITY POLITICS STRENGTHENS DEMOCRACY” for Foreign Affairs Journal Feb 1---- "Abrams is a rare politicians willing to directly defend identity politics in compelling ways, showing her as a rising political star."
She challenges "Francis Fukuyama’s essay. He blasts the 'left-wing' for dividing America with appeals to race and gender....Democrats should focus on class to win back blue-collar Trump voters.”
"But Abrams says identity politics is the assertion of historically marginalized groups’ interests, and right to participate as equals in any society marked by social oppression.
....The marginalized did not create identity politics: Their identities have been forced on them by dominant groups, and politics is the most effective method of revolt.”
“What Fukuyama laments as ‘fracturing’ is in reality the result of marginalized groups finally overcoming centuries-long efforts to erase them from the American polity — activism that will strengthen democratic rule, not threaten it.
Messages based on class vs identity being in conflict are part of the problem."
The GOP and conservatives blame ‘identity politics’ for our divisions. But this is how they distract. They practice their own ‘identity politics’ --- giving excessive power to corporate privilege and wealthy mega donors who subsidize their elections, while they ignore and condescend to millions of Americans beset by increased economic inequality.
That’s what’s un-American.
1
Sorry, but identity politics has been a disaster and continues to be a disaster.
The idea that having a collection of diverse individuals of mostly women sitting in the background is so compelling, or that chatting about select minority groups is so emotionally searing that "the reception to Abrams’s rebuttal from national Democrats was unbridled enthusiasm" is absurd. Like most things I find with media, it's more an attempt to direct a response.
Here's the view from the street: "Why does she keep smiling during the rebuttal, kinda distracting". "Ok, when is she going to say something substantial...oh, finally." "Well, thank God she doesn't look like the "Pelosi-Shumer" American Gothic response or Bobby Jindal's human "I'm a human puppet" response." No one cheering, no one claiming she should run for President or "unbridled enthusiasm".
5
It's hard for me to consider Abrams a star until the people have spoken and I see how she responds in high office. While both she and Beto came impressively close against long odds, they didn't win, so it's hard for me to consider them anything other than "hopeful." AOC is the new gold standard. She is in the trenches, speaking truth and fighting the good fight, even against her own party when necessary. At this point, we don't know that we can really expect the same from Abrams. While she might make a good president someday, calling for her to run at this point is ridiculous.
I had a different take on the carefully culled crowd they gathered behind Abrams last night. Can't we speak to the needs of women and minorities without signaling that white men aren't fully welcome under the big tent? The Democratic party seem determined to keep shooting themselves in the foot in the name of "inclusion," which, they keep making very clear, isn't fully inclusive.
27
Although I live in Canada, I can trace my ancestry to a ship that came from an area of Belgium called Wallonia - and the people of that area are called Walloons.
The most famous Walloon is Adolphe Sax, who invented the saxophone - which was culturally appropriated by black jazz musicians who have not properly given credit where credit was due, by thanking Walloons (and Mr. Sax) each time they play the saxophone.
Group Identity is the single, most important value in a society and must be screamed from each rooftop. Or, maybe not. Maybe ideas matter more - especially good ideas (or inventions like the saxophone). Maybe Mr. Sax would agree that the best musicians, regardless of background or color, should play the sax, not necessarily just Walloons, though that might seem to be a loony way to think.
Ideas, like inventions, don't "belong" to any group or tribe. Identity politics are a crazy notion - and it's beyond time for the NY Times to puncture the balloon of this narrow thinking.
4
How ironic and disappointing.
"Identity politics" prejudges individuals based on their "identity' whether based on race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.
Endorsing "identity politics" is, by definition, prejudicial and biased.
The Democrats political rhetoric that " white men" are the enemy is divisive and malicious.
Most Americans have loved ones, family members and friends who are "white men" and are offended by this political tactic which damages all Americans..
8
I disagree with Ms. Abrams on all accounts. Identity politics is the same as playing the race card; it only serves to divide rather than to unite the nation. As far as I am concerned the Democrats chose the wrong person to give their rebuttal to Trump's State of the Union address; they would have done better to pick a winner, not a loser. The problem with Abrams is that she is still smarting over her loss to Brian Kemp, who as the Attorney General of Georgia, cleaned up the list of registered voters by removing those who had not voted routinely in past national elections, to which she claimed voter fraud. Here in Tennessee if one does not vote in two consecutive national elections then their name is wiped from the list of eligible voters. And that's how it should be. If one does not exercise their right to vote, then remove them from this list of eligible voters. Their laziness to get up and go to the ballot box must not be rewarded. If Abrams runs for president, for which some have expressed hope as in an Abrams/Beto ticket (good grief!) in the comments, then I wish her all the luck in the world because she does not stand a chance. Thank you.
6
I disagree with the tone of this conversation while being in broad agreement that we need to diversify the political conversation and engagement. The tone should not be around how white men are being ditched by the Democratic party or that they need to be bypassed.
That kind of tone will take us down the very rabbit hole we are trying to avoid - how to claw back from the stereotyping of people that has become the centerpiece of the current political climate.
Be more Mandela and less Mugabe. Be more Gandhi and less Churchill.
Our vast and diverse country still has hundreds of millions of white people many of whom are just as mired in social regress as many in the minority. Every single one of them regardless of race, creed or color needs our assistance. Figure out how to engage them, not how to bypass them. Many feel neglected. Engage them along with others. Engagement should not be based on the needs of the day. It should be based on an intent to engender genuine improvement.
For example, I recoil in horror when many in the so called progressive community think nothing of Harvard and Yale openly practicing bias against Asian students ostensibly because they don't fit the framework of the downtrodden and low income. It makes me think that many of you are nothing more than bigots in a different skin.
Inclusive engagement is what makes it a truly democratic process. Not some shallow show and tell designed to appeal to some and inflame others.
25
Revolution huh?
She couldn’t even win in the election in our own state with all the momentum of anti-trump fervor behind her, I don’t think she’s starting any revolution, sorry
What she should do is start paying off her student loan debt,
7
I love, love, love Stacey. I lived her before Oprah introduced her at her campaign rally. She’s authentic. She’s prepared. She’s strategic. Go Stacey Abrams!
1
Hold the center and push left democrats. Class struggle is something that can unify all identities. Class first, identity second.
"Beshear, an older white man, was seated in a diner in Lexington, Ky., among an almost entirely white group of patrons. He was dressed casually. Several of the men in the background looked like they did factory work or another form of manual labor. You didn’t need to listen to anything Mr. Beshear said to get the obvious message"
Is there a way of reading that paragraph that doesn't inflect it with bigotry?
2
Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time. There’s nothing that complicated about improving prospects and lives across the country, while at the same time saying that police officers should not kill people for no good reason.
1
@Maureen Kennedy LEOs have a right to protect their own lives, whether you think so or not.
1
The 1944 State of the Union address is as relevant today as it was more than 70 years ago--"regardless of station, race, or creed":
https://www.thenation.com/article/seventy-years-let-us-renew-fdrs-struggle-economic-bill-rights/
May we renew and double our efforts to achieve what FDR envisioned so long ago.
2
I am just a guy who has worked hard my entire life-which group do I belong to?
5
I don't know? I would assume that protecting Social Security and Medicare is extremely important to you.
1
After a bad trade, either you quit and cut your losses, or you double-down. Democrats have chosen to double-down, I am doubtful that their strategy will work.
4
Hey, go for it. I tend to think that the "identity" Dems should be talking about is the difference between those with overwhelming power and wealth and those without. But if you think highlighting one's race or one's gender or one's sexual preference will get you to where you want to go then ... well, like I say, go for it.
But isn't that kinda like what Trump did?
Identity warfare here we come.
23
Identity politics is a loser, but since at bottom it is tribal and tribalism is evolutionarily hardwired into us....I don't suppose there is much that can be done now that the Jeannie is out of the bottle, and what difference would it make, Man would just latch onto some other idea of folly.
"“The world’s a stage and life’s a toy,” as one Greek poet later wrote, bleakly: Dress up and play your part; Put every serious thought away Or risk a broken heart. "
2
Argh... Dems are so going to lose again in 2020.
6
If humans are still around in 200 years, someone might find this column and the accompanying comments in an archive somewhere, read them, and conclude that democracy was one of the most lunatic ideas of all time.
Electing Stacey Abrams president would not be a revolution as much as just a changing of the guard. If America is to move forward, and if humans are to survive as a species, we need a real revolution - a paradigm shift in human thought around the world.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a linguistic "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
The rebuttal was a good way to get Trump to reelected. A long list
Of complaints with no solutions
except spend some else’s money. Let’s hear realistic solutions and the cost needed to pay for them. And let’s be honest if we expect to implement something like Medicare for all it will
mean we ALL pay more and we ALL get less choice. That might be ok but please let’s start being honest about these things. And stop harping on white people! I never saw anything like it. White privilege, white insensitivity. Start talking about people and leave all the categorization baggage behind! For this white guy does not want 4 more years of Trump!
5
Anyone notice that the CBS post-SOTU poll showed 82% approval for Trump's speech from Independents and 30% among Dems? I suggest Dems reconsider this suicidal pro-Socialist agenda before we get landslided by an unpopular President with a 40% approval rating in 2020.
5
The Republican Party is the party of identity politics as it is overwhelmingly white and male and caters to the fears of this demographic.
Thank you, Jamelle Bouie for helping me refocus on democracy.
A real democratic nation invites us all to participate, whether we have been officially chosen for a role, or not.
It is "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."
This is not the US of T, not the United States of Trump, now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Trump fooled the voters, in 2016, with his domination of the daily media cycle. But now, Democrats are waking the people up.
Trump's domination is over, now....
1
Ha. Lose an election amid huge minority turnout, give a milquetoast speech and the clamor as Presidential timber begins! Is this merely a cub reporter’s fantasy or is the whole crowd taking Tim Leary’s advice?
7
I am profoundly disturbed at how many of the comments do not get Stacey Abram's name correct and say "Adams." What does that say about how we listen? Are we listening? Or are we all just yakking over each other in the great vacuum?
The belief that Identity Politics is a positive thing for a united America is laughable. It was wrong when the Democrat whites coalesced as a group in the South against African Americans, and it remains wrong now with virtually every non-Caucasian, feminist and LGBTQ group coalescing now against white males. People can't change the color of their skin, their biological gender or sexual orientation. As such, they shouldn't be rewarded or penalized for it.
5
All this blather from the right and the media about Democrats and their identity politics ... when the right is 1,000% identify politics, the "winners" hands down.
Abrams could not even win in GA which is 31 percent African American with 99% of them voting for her. She can not win red states so this is all just a waste of time and story. Also, Beto is running around the Southwest writing a journal so can we just get real about who can run and win or you win have 6 more years of Trump.
4
An example of her "brilliance"... Democrats want her to run for president but she knows better.
I think that Stacey Abrams was not seeking to represent herself as anything but a person who wants justice and equality to guide American domestic policies, that she is an African American woman just emphasized the universality of these principles.
However, the columnist has sold me that I have it all wrong.
The way to find true respect and equality for all is to exclude white men. White men are the problem. Without them, the world would be free of injustice and ignorance. The Democratic Party needs to exclude white men to achieve purity and the grace of mankind. Send them all to colonize Mars.
This "Rainbown Coaltion" of young people, immigrants, women, Blacks, Latinos, is concentrated in coastal enclaves of liberal elites. We've seen this strategy before. And, the electoral math will work out the same as it did for HRC, come the next general election of 2020.
16
@javelar Please look at the northern Atlanta suburbs where women from a range of backgrounds defeated deeply entrenched Republican incumbents for state and national levels. And I wouldn't count Georgia as among the coastal enclaves of liberal elites. When candidates speak to the concerns of voters, they win. In the case of these Georgia offices where Democrats won, issues were expansion of health care and prevention of gun violence. These were issues that mattered to those voters.
1
In my ideal future America each person who stands before us will become known to all of us on the basis of what is on and in their mind and on how well they can present and implement ideas that each of us, a unique individual, that appeal to us.
Stacy Abrams and columnist Jamelle Bouie have genomes that are more than 99% the same as mine. It is even possible, so genome researchers tell me, that the differences between Bouie's and Abrams' genomes are greater than the difference between either one's and mine.
So some day we will just all be Americans, that is American citizens. Racism in all its forms will still be with us, with one group being discriminated against because of the religion practice by its members, another on the basis of country of birth, another on the basis of some visible marker.
Not in my lifetime, but maybe in yours but only if you, the reader, learn if you do not already know that there is only one race, the human. Ask comment writer Blackmamba or just read his next comment. He is trying to teach you but many of you seem to resist.
Please tell me why.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2
This guy is utterly clueless. One of the reasons the Dems won so convincingly in 2018 was precisely because identity itself was not an issue; if the candidate was a black woman, that was pretty obvious, and it allowed people like Lauren Underwood, a 32 year-old black nurse near Chicago, to beat an incumbent Republican, by staying disciplined on the message of economic inequality, health care, and Trump's corruption.
By making "identity" the end-all and be-all, or even just placing heavy emphasis on it, we make the re-election of Trump more likely. And that, above else, is what we must avoid.
2
She looked like she was posing for a picture at Sears Portrait Studios...with a screen pulled down for a background effect.
Very very poor production quality that took the viewers eyes away from Ms. Abrams and towards the green screen.
Not good...very fake...not a message you want to send when you might run for office someday.
2
"Identity politics" at its core is just a way to personalize issues.
If you think it's a Democratic tactic, don't forget to look over yonder and realize that Mr. Trump won because may people identify as nationalist, or blue collar, or anti-socialist, or christian, and on and on.
The point is that "Identity" does not exclusively mean "race."
With that in mind, I think Ms. Abrams' approach is on the right path. Our identity is vital to who each of us are as an individual, and we need to recognize that. But despite those differences, we all have common problems. Those problems may manifest more frequently in groups of one identity or another, but they exist universally. We as a conglomeration need to embrace all different types of identities - and their varying levels of manifesting difficulties - in order to fix those common problems.
Abrams' speech might be "what you would expect", but it's not what you get. Personal. Real. Down here with the rest of us. Accurate. With vision and a path forward. Specific. She said a lot more with a lot fewer words than what came before. My advice to her is: Don't take anybody else's advice. You know who you are. And you're doing a great job.
A revolution will only occur if she wins an election. And that's where "identity politics" runs into problems when a candidate is running for statewide office.
2
As I listened to Stacey Abrams, I was reminded of a politicians I sorely miss, Barbara Jordan. Stacey has that mantel and hope we hear more from her.
1
I really love Stacy Abrams and pray she seeks higher office. The problem is have we all forgotten the fact that she lost? Whatever reason she lost she still lost. The world knows the Democratic Party is a party of diversity but without a message can we win on just being diverse? Is just not being Trump going to defeat Trump? We don’t all have to like each other but we all have common goals. I hope The Left can come up with a message that overrides the message of The Right.
1
We need more people like Stacy Abrams, as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer no longer represent America's Democrats - they've lost their vision decades ago. The newly elected legislators are going to have to remove those tenured politicians who have allowed our legislature to stop functioning and have largely ignored the substantive problems our Country is facing today.
In a state wide or national race against a GOP candidate, Ms Abrams already has the votes from those that are swayed positively by stressing the unfairness inflicted on various "identities".
But the continuous catering to identity politics advocates, even if it is "expansive' identity politics, won't win elections.
3
Stacey Abrams is not playing "identity politics" (IMO). Every time I've heard her speak, she speaks for all Americans or all Georgians, for instance, and represents the Democratic party.
The person who is playing "identity politics" is Jamelle Bouie and all the other pundits, opinion writers, community and non profit leaders, and advocates of various biased and one sided divisive positions.
Just think of those suddenly appeared on every cable TV show - over and over and over again - to demand Northam resign. That is identity politics gone amuck.
2
I was embarrassed by the Democrats' choice of Ms. Adams to rebut Mr. Trump. Her address failed to provide any motivation or specifics, was possibly worse than Trump's (if you ignore his constant boasting and irrelevancies). Another reason why, despite Trump's ridiculous position on Global Warming and questionable focus on 'The Wall,' I will have difficulty voting against him.
4
OK, I didn't see her speech; I didn't see Trump's, as well. But this column is too much like a love letter to be taken seriously. It injects conclusions that are pure projection.
8
In politics, how the message is delivered to the people, its effectiveness in the delivery, goes a long way to how people will hear it and whether or not it will gain traction.
Ronald Reagan was dubbed "the great communicator," and he certainly had that gift. Whether you agree with him or not, when he looked into that camera it was as if he was talking directly to you alone.
Donald Trump is the "Ungreat communicator." He reads the text from the teleprompter with a boring delivery style. They are just words to him, and as such, they have no meaning, no investment. His SOTU addresses, like all of his prepared text speeches, are awful to hear and painful to watch.
Cue Stacey Abrams's rebuttal. The exact opposite of Donald Trump. She has the gift, as did Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. She was speaking directly to me the other night, right there in my living room. Great appeal for sure.
1
@Len Read the text from a teleprompter? Sounds like Obama.
2
Stacey Abrahams spoke as of she was packaging herself to run for another office. There was little indignation at Trump's many lies, no opposing facts given, and counterpunches with no punch.
She was slick and well-spoken and bland. I expected more fire in her rebuttal.
I vote for progressives, and I saw a Democrat playing it sweet and safe, not a champion of the Left.
2
Voter suppression was the most glaring in Georgia. Too bad the state courts have judges that are tilted toward voter suppression; and the Supreme Court can not rule on state election matters.
Stacey should stay in Georgia, and enlarge the voter roll and work against disenfranchisement, as she is doing right now with her new voting organization.
Ummm, voter registration and turnout in Georgia was at an all-time high this past election cycle...
2
Abrams is the one who was denied votes by a corrupt Secretary of State and still stands tall and is back in the game. She is is the example Americans have always admired. If you are defeated in one round, pick yourself up, continue to fight, and win the bout. I see the senate in her future, and who knows what else.
3
I think it is very incisive to see republicans characterize women's issues as identity politics. They are gradually closing their party to all but rich white men. No identity here!
Sure the democrats will win the presidency. If not this time then the next, but what after that? Will the political pendulum take an even greater swing to the right? More revenge, more hate?
1
See the YouTube video of 1993 teen-age Stacey Abrams' impassioned speech (‘Nowthisnews’)
Title:
“Stacey Abrams Made This Speech 26 Years Before the State of the Union Response.”
"Watch the moment Stacey Abrams entered the national stage as a teen activist speaking at the 30th Anniversary March on Washington in 1993……
Abrams has been around in politics for a long time, maybe even longer than President Trump. “
And to say she is much more intelligent, educated, sophisticated, informed, emotionally authentic and decent as a human being than is our current president, is an understatement.
2
Yeah, she’s awesome. She should run for President, because being tone deaf, being anti-American, immersing in identity politics is a winning formula.
She’d win 2 states if she ran as president.
8
As a Dem. I would like to see some accomplishments from the 45 yr. old Abrams. She may be smart but that ain’t enough for me. I need to see some track record and so far far all I see is hype.
10
If elections are just going to be people of different ethnic groups battling each other for money and power, why bother having an election? Why not just fight a violent war and get it over with? This is part of why democracy has failed so badly in the Middle East.
I can't think of a single example of a healthy, functioning democracy where political parties are based on race or religion. It is simply a recipe for a blood bath--look to the Middle East or the Balkans to see how that story ends.
6
This type of rhetoric isn't what America needs. The whole idea of vaulting people to the front because of gender, color or sexual orientation makes no sense and makes America less competitive. I found Stacy's rebuttal disjointed and a little difficult to follow. Granted, Trump was a difficult act to follow last night, but we need language to include everyone and inspire our best and brightest to achieve no matter what they look like. This is how America will win.
6
It's not identity - it's policy and attitude. In Charlotte a divisive, leftist, white female mayor was replaced by an even-handed black female mayor and people in both parties acknowledge the improvement. Practical solutions and an open hand are far superior to ideological policy and statements of moral superiority.
3
When I heard she was giving the response to the SOTU, I found her recent paper published in Foreign Affairs. Well-reasoned, well-written and very impressive. I recommend it. I suffered through the Trump Show to hear her response, and she was indeed, a striking contrast to the inarticulate, hateful bully that is the Embarrassment in Chief to this nation. Democrats, especially younger ones without the sad baggage many older pols carry, should be inspired to stand up and become active. Now is the time to preserve the republic. Abrams shows the way.
1
The most memorable part of Ms. Abrams’ speech was her story about her father’s coat. How much more poignant it would have been if her father had stayed with white man along the rainy road instead of just leaving his jacket, “Because I knew you were coming for both of us.”
Want to know why we love her? Because she's smart, genuine, has a lot of heart, and doesn't seem to be a mean schemer. It's obvious she wants the best for most people.
My reaction, as an older white man, to the rebuttal of Stacey Abrams to Donald Trump’s lengthy State of the Union address was very positive. She did a great job, and my only reservation was that Ms. Abrams may have been overly kind to Trump.
I also thought that in 2017 former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear did well in the same role, using a different approach.
We may have a problem, as a nation, with the use and overuse of the term “identity politics.” Why should it be a negative for people to identify with one or more groups, as long as that identification is not used as a mask to conceal bigotry against those who are members of another group?
President Trump, of course, uses identity politics to spread division. Donald Trump dignifies hatred towards people who are not white or not Christian or not male or not financially comfortable. Trump does so proudly and openly.
1
I was really impressed when the Democrats chose Stacy Abrams to give the rebuttal and she didn't let us down. All the more reason is that she is not running for president in 2020. I believe though, she very well could be president in a few years.
Stacey was warm, honest and empathic. She also must know "Brevity is the soul of wit".
1
Jamelle Bouie correctly notes the emotional chord Stacey Abrams struck in her speech after the State of the Union. I have been reading pieces that have followed suggesting she should run for president. I would caution against the increasingly common reflex of turning inspiring speeches into presidential runs (i.e. just on that basis, many of us don't yet know enough about Stacey Abrams to make that judgment about her). We need a president who can both inspire and have the many other qualifications to help succeed in a complex political system. Let us not forget that one of President Trump's assets is the inspiring speech (and still is, but not to the majority of this newspaper's readership) minus the national/international political experience.
4
Yes, 50 state strategy. My one big disappointment in Obama was that he ignored this: leading to 2010 and losing a united Democratic Congress. Howard Dean should have been kept on as Chairman of the DNC.
2
The effects of the tax cuts pushed by the Republicans are benefitting wealthy Americans. That should be enough to attract working class people back to the Democratic Party.
2
I very much liked Abrams' rebuttal; I disagree with Bouie's characterization of that speech and his views on identity politics. It is important to speak out on issues that specifically impact minorities, but it is not helpful to do so in a way that downplays the struggles of many who are not minorities.
A difficult balance to strike--Stacey's speech did so; Hillary's 2016 campaign, not so much. Her failure to visit Wisconsin and her Michigan and Pennsylvania appearances primarily in inner cities helped create a disconnect between her and the white working class.
The common invocation of "white privilege" by liberals also sends a message of indifference to the struggles of the white working class. One hopes lessons will be learned by liberal Democrats as we move ahead to 2020.
6
Thanks to Trump, anyone thinks they can be elected president—never mind do the job. America does not need a young, inexperienced person who’s “searching for direction,” like Betos, or even one who’s only just found it.
There is great charisma in experience and solid dependability to stand by the principles of America’s founding heritage.
Forget the Betos, Castros and Gillibrands who are too young and/or inexperienced and also, with Gillibrand, mercurial; the Hillaries who are too party establishment; Harris, Adams and Booker, who, unfortunately, on the basis of race alone would incite GOP obstructionism, just as Obama did, not bipartisanship; the Bernies, Bidens, who are too old; and the Warrens, who are abrasive and controversial.
Look, instead, to someone who has demonstrated understanding democracy and the threats it faces; supports, not walks on or ignores the Constitution. Someone unassuming, modest, who knows that he/she works for the Constitution and the people regardless of his office, who has high integrity and is respected, even by many Republicans; someone who would hit the ground running, particularly with respect to America’s security, because, like with, say, Adam Schiff, of his position on the intelligence committee.
Why not look at Schiff? He meets the attributes mentioned and is objectionable to no one’s sensibilities, except extremists—a vast minority.
He’s just what we need after Trump and the destructive inclination to throw away ability for sparkle.
2
@Malcolm Kantzler - Sorry, "Adams," seen in paragraph three, should be "Abrams," for Stacey Abrams.
And before I am accused of racism for the truth of GOP obstruction that would result from race alone with Abrams, Booker, Harris, or any Black candidate, as it did with Obama, this would, of course, not be applicable if Democrats also retake the Senate in large-enough numbers to overcome GOP obstructionism.
Reading these comments and this column, I'm wondering if Democrats are being criticized because they are not demographically like Republicans? Why is it a problem that the Democrats might speak for all of those whom Ms Abrams pointed out in her essay have been excluded from political and economic power: women, Native Americans, persons of color, rural poor, young people, and LGBTQ. It's as if the railing against the Democratic Party's inclusiveness is that it is....inclusive. The most compelling image of the State of the Union Speech was the side by side view of Republican mostly white, mostly males sitting next to that rainbow coalition that was elected to Congress. The inference in criticizing Mr Abrams (e.g., she spoke as a victim, she didn't rebut baseless, mutable lies, she isn't worthy because she's not my candidate, etc.) is that not everyone deserves full citizenship. What Ms Abrams said is what she authentically feels. Does she not deserve to say that? Or can politicians only speak in the discomforting language of the status quo with its buzz words promising no relief for suppressed voting rights and threats to anyone even dreaming that that the great United States of America might legislate fairness?
1
The problem with emphasizing that women and PoC have been left behind in America is that many of them haven’t, and are solid members of the middle class who vote in much higher percentages than the rest.
Hillary was right; focus on America’s working families of all colors and their aspirations for their children. What we need is a candidate who is still aspiring, not ready to be retiring.
2
She authentically feels illegal immigrants should have the right to vote and Georgia should be a sanctuary state.
I can't accept that.
3
'If choosing Beshear symbolized an effort to play on the president’s field and try to win some of his supporters, then choosing Abrams represents the opposite: a rejection of strategies aimed at that slice of white workers and an embrace of the diversity of the Democratic Party'
Let's hope this asserted dichotomy reflects only the impoverished strategic planning of the national Dem Party and not reality. If this is the best they can do, get ready for a second term. For me there is no conflict with taking on board diverse and parochial interests, and at the same time opening the tent in welcome to all. Each of us has hopes and dreams that fit into a shared American identify of justice for all.
3
Jamelle Bouie comes from a different place, and is a difference race than me. He sees validation; I see a smart and tough politician. My friends see rejection. I come from a corner of America that is not doing well, and they see the Democratic Party on a daily basis further turning away from rural whites and blue-collar workers. They hear Ms. Abrams talk about lost votes and think, "Lost jobs." I have nothing against Mr. Bouie and I like Ms. Abrams, but I see something very different in terms of how Americans viewed the Democrats' State of the Union response. Life is messier than spin.
14
@JET
I'd be very interested to hear more about this. I genuinely do not understand why some of your friends would see rejection. Lost jobs are a serious problem in some regions, and indeed, the regional problems are too often completely ignored on the grand stage of national politics. But Stacey Abrams did talk about factories closing, the struggles of the working class, the widespread economic insecurity, and the unfairness of it all. And "lost votes" means many people are completely unrepresented in decision-making that shapes their lives, so surely the issue is important enough to warrant a mention. Why would someone feel rejected by that, as opposed to, say, feeling neglected yet again by the powerful players? I'd really love to hear more about this feeling of rejection.
I do agree that the Democratic party has been focused on the coasts and neglected the labor issues (which are part of economic justice), for decades now. And most progressives on the coasts do not even see that. They say the people of the middle of the country should be left to deal with the consequences of their communities' bad choices.
Someone like FDR would never have said that. Faced with a lot of economic injustice and suffering, FDR travelled through the Dust Bowl, and explicitly rejected the idea that the farming communities should be left to suffer the consequences of their bad agricultural practices. Progressives do not leave masses of people behind, to fend for themselves. Or do they?
2
No one respects a victim, or anyone who appeals to victimhood. While it may provide a temporary salve to some, it is simply uninspiring to most. This is a message that will not defeat Trump. Forewarned is forearmed.
19
I agree. I remember my school mates. Many working class guys, both white and black, rejected learning. Some tormented teachers and laughed. I always assumed that they took on willful ignorance because their families of culture taught them that. The girls seemed more willing to learn. College-bound kids worked harder at the books. I never blamed the individual victims, but their cultures seem unable to change, or unable to help their youngsters get ahead. Perhaps Head Staff's recent scandals (dirty facilities, broken equipment, chaos, poor management, unqualified employees) provide a regrettable example.
2
Ms. Abrams' speech left me thinking it was written by a committee and pre-screened by a focus group. Her stump speech for the governor's race was much more compelling. I honestly can't remember a day later anything she said except the anecdote about her father, something about voting rights and Medicaid expansion. Democrats needed to have a sharper message than she delivered. No, the economy is not working great for everyone, even if unemployment for the moment is low. Wages are still too low for millions to buy a home and a new car and save for retirement. Healthcare is still too expensive, too many still can't afford good insurance and Republicans have no answers to those problems. Climate change is happening and Republicans are doing nothing. Too many Americans are hooked on drugs, too many are in jail and too many are hopeless. Too bad the Democratic response was so tepid.
9
If the Democratic party devolves in a coalition of special interests, "rainbow" or otherwise, expect to see the conservatives dominate politically for a long, long time.
"Even Napoleon's reputation suffered when students came to realise he always fought against coalitions – and therefore against divided counsels and diverse political, economic and military interests" -- General Dwight D Eisenhower
When the working and middles classes are divided along racial lines, rather than united along class lines, they are weaker. "Divide and conquer" is the rule that unifies political history.
Identity politics is the gift that won't stop giving to conservative political interests. Consider what is happening in Virginia. Identity politics is eating itself. That won't change.
18
Our language on this issue is telling. Why does choosing a black woman to speak and having a diverse audience in the background considered "identity politics" and deliberately appealing to white working class men not? Do you really not see the problem with this?
Calling something "identity politics" sounds to me that someone is trying to appeal to a particular identity or group of people. "White working class" is as much an identity as any other, even though some people like to think of it as the "default".
If anything, the Democrats are moving away from identity politics by trying to be more inclusive and appealing to a greater variety of people than "white working-class Trump voters".
5
Which is precisely why Donald Trump one. Leftist identity politics has triggered majority identity politics.
8
There's nothing wrong with "identity politics" as long as you get the identities right.
On the national level we can dismiss women, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and LGBTers as politically appealing identities. Identities which could appeal to voters at the national level would be fathers, mothers, house wives and wanna-be house wives and lastly, hard working husbands and wives and those who aspire to become such.
Find out what they need to have meaningful lives and promise you'll help them get it.
7
You've got it wrong. The operative words are "patchwork" and "diversity", not "identity". Recognition of diversity is only a step toward not having to think about it at all. How nice it would be to belong to the group "humans". As a member of a very small minority (a mix between two other minorities), I knew early on that my "otherness" was something imposed on me by the white majority because of my physical features. But it was never my identity, and never will be. My identity is defined by my thoughts, values and character, not by the accident of who my ancestors were. When we embrace "identity" we have let the racists win, because they always wanted to put us in those boxes. Now we put ourselves there?
I don't criticize minority identity politics out of some sense of false moral equivalency. I make no apology for white racists. No, I am against "identity" politics it because it is a losing strategy, and unfortunately, we will learn that when it is too late.
16
Sorry - I am a Democrat voter and pretty liberal but I think that Ms Abrams appeared to be like a cartoon character and I don't think enough people took her seriously enough to vote Democrat in the next Presidential election. If that is true, it's a losing path to victory.
12
"The visuals were striking."
Yes, they are.
Identity politics took over in this. It isn't enough to say the right thing, one must be the right thing while saying it.
Hence, attacks on Bernie for speaking after her and agreeing with her, just because he was old, male, and white while doing it.
This may be a revolution within the party, but we don't know yet if it will be a revolution in the country.
She didn't win her last election, and was chose in part because she is not a threat to win the Presidential nomination race. That is a real motive for the attack on Bernie's address -- he is a threat to others who seek that nomination, in ways she is not because she's not trying to run.
14
@Mark Thomason The attack on Bernie's address has to do with his irascible and thoughtless decision to steal the spotlight from the history of the first black woman delivering the SOTU rebuttal. There was a time and a place and he never decided to have his say when white men and fellow Democrats have given the address.
Stacey Abrams didn't miss a beat in her SOTU Democratic rebuttal. With unerring grace and logic, she started on the micro level, which was worrisome, but with the adroitness of a seasoned writer and speaker, she extrapolated to universal concerns that arched to national policies and the need for change. She was impressive in her bid for the governorship of Georgia, and she is impressive now. Her qualifications and presence have earned her a seat at the table, but only if the people are smart enough to give her the place. If not, then surely she should be offered a cabinet position. Don't let her slip away.
5
@Snwcp
You watched a different Abrams address than the rest of us did.
She was trite, shrill and a bit shaky. Her multi-hued backdrop looked like a public tv pledge drive.
Her main applause line -- protesting alleged voter suppression -- is not credible given the higher turnout ratio of blacks in the "racist" South than the progressive coasts.
Jamelle may wish to annoint Abrams as the new queen of identity politics, but the politics of victimhood and intersectionality cannot bring us together as a nation, nor allow us to thrive as individuals.
Only by seeing and accepting the individual human being can we empower each of us to grow beyond the racial and gender stereotypes that progressives now want to use to limit and divide us.
4
The United States is a capitalist economy. For capitalism to work efficiently, it must be a total meritocracy. To the extent prejudices, bias and bigotry exclude any groups from participating in this meritocracy, it hurts each and every one of us in America. It’s like a Rolls Royce driving on three good tires and a flat. It’s not operating efficiently and soon the other three tires will be affected.
That is the message Democrats need to convey to voters to win elections, because the truth of it is self-evident. That message is far more powerful because it allows me to see that unfair treatment of you affects me in the long run.
6
I have no comment on Ms. Abrams speech, or for that matter Mr. Trump’s preceding nonsense. I did not bother with either as both will be un-remembered irrelevancies by next work. I am concerned about the author’s promotion of identity politics as a winning strategy for the Democrats. It would be laughable nonsense were it not so dangerous, as both a political strategy as well as a way or theory of governing. It unashamedly promotes the politics of resentment, victimization and division. It is nothing more than pitting the so-called haves against the so-called have nots, assigning all possible blame to the former while depriving the later of any agency or autonomy. The public as a whole, not the small minority of right wing or left wing activists, remain quite centrist and pragmatic. They will not support a far swing to the left where the government simultaneously extracts massive resources and redistributes them on the basis of who did not get what they felt entitled to, or have been told what they are entitled to. As a people we are at our strongest when we adhere to our most basic principles: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and equal justice under the law. There is no equality or fraternity there, that was the French Revolution which led to a military dictatorship and a European war. Our revolution has faired much better, not perfect, but better. Our energies are better spent perfecting our vision and assuring true equal opportunity, not resentment.
T
22
Stacey Abrams is an impressive woman, no question. But, she lost. Her speech last night, although congenial and comfortable to many Democrats, said nothing new and was not inspiring. My possibly off-the-wall sense is that to win in 2020, in a national election with millions of Trump supporters showing no sign of abandoning their man,the Democrats for an even chance against Trump (assuming he remains on the scene) is a candidate in the mold of the late Harold Hughes, a Democratic governor of Iowa and U.S. senator. Hughes was authentic, mature, appealing to all sorts of "political identities," and he won elections.
5
I don't know what part of America Abrams is "coming for" but it definitely isn't the majority of the American populous. She is a flash in the pan being pushed by the pundits who are supporting identity politics. As she is not running for any office in the next 2 years she will soon be forgotten.
She lost a fair and square GA election and it is doubtful she will win the next time she attempts a run. If President Trump is re-elected she will disappear rapidly from the national scene.
12
@Donald. That’s the point..it wasn’t fair and square. Brian Kemp, her opponent and eventual winner, was Secretary of State and overseer of elections.
There were some precincts with lines up to 4 hours long. If you have a job, and you’re trying to vote before you go to work, you can’t stay that long. ( not everyone has a white-collar job where your boss will give you time off to vote).
These waits existed while there were hundreds of voting machines locked in warehouses. The election officers, overseen by Kemp, made these decisions.
Stacey lost by 50,00 votes, in an election with more than 3 million votes counted.
Think she got cheated? I do, and so do many other Georgians.
By the way, I’m hoping Kemp doesn’t fail. Becasue if he does, all of us in Georgia do.
Stacey Abrams was known for her ability to work across the aisle. In fact, many on the GOP side would ask for her take on Bills they were proposing; her knowledge of law, and her just plain brain power, earned her a lot of respect in the Statehouse.
The woman is not a flash in the pan. You’ll be hearing more from her in years to come. I can promise you that.
20
Amen. Kemp cheated. Btw, Stacey Abrams has a great personal story, lots of character. I hope she goes far. I love her.
8
If she didn't like it, then why didn't Abrams - and her party - know and do something to stop the GA legislation that required better identification of voters then?
The Secretary of State has to enforce the laws handed down from the State House. The laws were not set by him.
3
I found her speech to be lacking in substance and policy specifics. She mainly talked about her personal experiences, which may be interesting to some, but personally I just don't really care. I want to know exactly what changes we're going to make to concretely and quickly improve the lives of the millions of people in this country who have a hard time paying for basic needs.
Watch Bernie Sanders' speech and compare: he isn't afraid to discuss the root cause of our high medical costs, which are the for-profit pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
15
Stacey Abrams should wait for 2022, then re-run for governor. There is plenty of time to lay the groundwork, especially the efforts she is leading to ensure that everyone can vote. She'd be a good Senator - but that is just one of a hundred voices, in Washington. She can accomplish far more of what needs done from the governor's mansion. She's not just an inspiring politician, she's a real person with life experience that translates readily to executive office.
Imagine the impact on the USA if Georgia were to break away from all the political patterns of the old Confederacy. Among other things, it would be an opportunity for recalcitrant white folks to see that a Democrat, and Democratic policies (health care, fairer taxes, etc. etc.) can operate in their best interests. As Senator, she could make a significant difference. As Governor, she could change the entire country.
3
@Paul N M
Abrams has a significant history as a Georgia politician, as the minority leader in a Republican House. She has no federal experience. This explains her reluctance to run for Senate.
I thought her speech was "pretty" but more personal than a proper response to the State of the Union, short on specifics and long on platitudes. But the carping about "identity politics" reminds me of Republican baiting against "class warfare" - nothing wrong with either.
1
Intersectionality is just the liberal flavor of the moment.
Promise something of great social significance to each cultural tribe (identity) as a liberal politician might; but, in the full truth of living lives, it's always down to barebones economics that seals the deal to the ballot box.
Bernie Sanders had the right formula to inspire millions of non-voters to show up and be heard; both the young and the flyover disaffected: keep it simple, savvy?
With the admix appeal of populism for hope and change or hate and pain.
5
Feedback I heard on her speech was that it was mostly awful. I’m sure that a Yale JD who is allegedly deeply in debt & in arrears to the IRS has very little to teach me.
15
@ Alan in Pittsburgh Most of her debt was accumulated while supporting one of her parents through a serious illness, I think it was cancer. We're the only developed nation in the world where people accumulate debt because of necessary medical treatment. Be careful to do your research before you make such sweeping statements. Do you have $100K saved away to help your family during a health crisis? Most of us don't.
24
@Leah her dad had cancer and she paid for his treatment..what insurance wouldn’t cover.
To do that, she worked out a deal with The IRS ( which any American can do) to pay her taxes for that year on an installment basis.
Next time you might like to form your own opinion: personal action was one of the elements of her message so clearly you have something to learn from her.
Consider the possibility that you’re putting the cart before the horse. Our rights stem from our common humanity. There’s no good reason I know of to think any race, ethnicity, or gender is overrepresented or underrepresented when it comes to intellectual or emotional intelligence, conscience, or political skill. So with equality, and a desire to be represented in a democracy by people who are best qualified for the job, and a political party that works towards that goal, before too long achieving the goal of having our elected and appointed representatives look like America should take care of itself.
We all have our stories to tell. Sometimes those stories involve hardship or systematic discrimination. I sometimes find myself trusting the judgment of people who have had a harder row to hoe in these regards than I have had.
And if telling your story involves telling me what I really think and feel, and I disagree, consider the possibility that you’re not really telling your story but are purporting to tell mine. Describing your experience or the facts of history, and positing explanations for those facts, are different activities.
7
Jamelle Bouie, huh? Never heard of him. I appreciate the clear and concise prose, and look forward to reading more. Glad to see some new names in the Opinion section.
3
Identity politics is fine as long as it's included with proposals and demands for policies and programs that will make life better for every individual and for every group of historically oppressed people.
I would have loved Stacey Abrams' very effective and affecting speech more if she had augmented the standard platitudes with definitive calls for single payer health insurance, living wage or guaranteed income legislation, and an end to our endless wars.
It is not enough to display the moral high ground and to tell your inspirational life story. You have to give the people a reason to come out and vote for Democrats.
5
What we saw last night was a guaranteed sure fire way to get Trump re-elected. Trump stands up, looks reasonable and make a lot of unfounded statements, lies. As a rebuttal Abrams does not contradict or challenge Trump - I'd expected to hear about chaos in the cabinet, ethical lapses, alternative assessments of our wars, etc. Instead we learn from Abrams that her parents only had one car, etc - it's all about identity. In 2016 the Democratic Party lost the presidency to easily the least qualified person to ever run for President in the history of the republic - forget gerrymandering, Russians, etc, it should have been 95% to maybe 5%. Now, with only a little more emphasis on identity and victimhood the Dems can lose by even more. The Dems need ideas, programs, and policies, instead they offer identity and victimhood. No organization is better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than the Democratic Party and they are on that track right now. This is not a hit on Ms Abrams, instead its targeted on the people that wrote and approved her rubuttal - Trump got a free pass.
34
The message was positive and soft. Kamala Harris may have been a better choice for the national stage, but there are too many Dems running for President and they probably chose not to project a leader this early.
2
She was stunning. But then, I remember watching her speak during her recent campaign, and for my money, she is among the best America has to offer. And I wept when she said "Amerca, we are coming for you" because you know what? We are!
7
It’s bizarre that the obvious, inclusionary vision is debated. But it is so wonderfully inspirational.
4
In my comments, I often express a view that seems to strike some other readers as urging Democrats to “downplay” identity. There’s a crucial difference between what some of us are saying and what others are hearing.
My view is that we should be looking for the best candidates *regardless of* biological categories and let the identity checklist take care of itself. As I recently wrote in another comments section, the declared candidates for president who interest me most at present are Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Those are colorblind, sexblind preferences.
I don’t promise that my ultimate colorblind, sexblind choice will be similar. If it turns out that way, I’ll be glad. But I don’t think we can afford to let visions of social milestones dance in our heads as we choose the candidates who are to bear our standard.
6
The extended quote Bouie features is meaningless rhetoric. It is neither wise nor inspiring. Neither is the identity politics Bouie is promoting. On the other hand, I heard some of Abrams towards the end of her campaign for Governor. She did much better than this speech and I was really impressed. It's possible that she is the smartest of the up and coming Democrats. I hope she runs for something. I understand why the Dems want her to run for Senate but the Governor's office is a much better job for a serious person like Abrams. I'd like to see her focus on the inclusive part of her message and do less of the identity politics. But no matter what, she's one of the most interesting (maybe the most interesting) pol out there.
7
A sensible politician emphasizes what he has in common with the general public, and not the ways in which they differ. If your "identity" is not shared by most, emphasize what you have in common, such as a desire for better public services.
15
America is a work in progress.
There is a difference between having a proud identity and identity politics. America's basic problem at the moment is the lack of a collective identity and sense of purpose. We are all in one way or another hyphenated Americans. However, when the primary identity becomes the adjective before the hyphen rather than the noun, American, it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to develope the sense of collective purpose necessary to make real progress for any, let alone all, Americans.
By and large, even in the much more divisive and divided days of the Viet Nam War, people thought of themselves primarily as Americans. and when in the midst of that war our nation first landed people on the moon, there was a genuine sense of American excitement and pride. We need to reclaim that sense of the commonweal, if we are to make things better for any, let alone all, of the identities that comprise America.
Unlike almost every other country, America was not founded on millenium-old ethnic continuity but, rather, by a set of principles largely embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, for the most part, we measure both our successes and failures by the degree to which we are living up to those continually evolving principles.
Yes, America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
13
@Steve Fankuchen There is no America anymore. The "United" States of America does not exist, and I would like to formalize the situation that we are actually in. We are more like the European Union at this point, so why not just make it official? Look at the marijauna issue as an example: it is a federally-declared illegal substance yet in many states - Washington, California, Colorado, Oregon - it is legal, recreationally and medically. In several other states, it is medically legal and it's not difficult at all to get a medical marijauna card. The same case can be made with access to legal, safe abortions, ensuring clean air and water, and many other things. If a woman needs to terminate a pregnancy, she better hope she lives in California, not Mississippi. So, let us peacefully separate and become The American Union, bound together only by economics and a common currency (the dollar). States are already separate entities, willing to enact legislation at a more local level that state residents demand. I am all in for this because I simply no longer wish to live in this toxic partisan environment with people who believe God sent us Trump...perhaps She did but it was as a punishment. "A house divided cannot stand..." so let's call the whole thing off.
If Abrams and Democrats want to stoke identity politics, they had better think long and hard if it means separating themselves from Republicans by promoting extreme late term abortion, demonizing big business and promoting a green policy that will destroy entire industries and displace hundreds of thousands of jobs, as AOC has demanded.
Furthermore, she could not have been more off the mark by trying to get the country to believe that the economy is in the tank because the numbers just don't show it.
Most democrats who hate Trump will believe anything in desperation, but when it comes to voting, they may have another rude awakening come 2020.
9
Aren't we lucky that Stacey Abrams is now a known part of the American experience, the America we know to be good, an American who speaks with passion and care for all to hear. She is who we really are.
12
Ms Abrams gave a good reply to the Trump campaign video shot in the House chamber last night but it was hardly revolutionary. There are any number of others who could have done a good job and many of them managed to win their elections.
If what you advocate is the politics of inclusion it is welcome, but if it is the politics of aggrievement and division, it is not. Time and again in our history the candidate that wins is the one who offers a positive vision for our country- not one that divides.
13
@David Gregory
"If what you advocate is the politics of inclusion it is welcome, but if it is the politics of aggrievement and division, it is not. Time and again in our history the candidate that wins is the one who offers a positive vision for our country- not one that divides."
David, perhaps you slept through the 2016 election..?
2
Abrams is a divider by her own admission
1
"E Pluribus Unum" has been the American motto since 1792!
Stacey Abrams articulates it for the current generation, and serves as a living example.
4
Identity in the way it is now being sold is divisive. I listen to Ms Adams because she has something to say not because she is black or a woman. I am disappointed that we are being exhorted to focus on these attributes for her to be relevant or important.
MLK told us that the content of one’s character is more important that the color of one’s skin! I agree.
22
@Justice Holmes
A polite correction that her name is Abrams, not Adams as you wrote. I disagree with your comments. There was nothing divisive about her rebuttal. And the fact that she was the first African American to give this rebuttal is notable so it is natural that it is discussed.
1
@John I believe Justice Holmes was reacting to Jamelle Bouie's column, not Ms. Abrams' speech.
1
I have heard Stacey Abrams hold forth on more than one occasion. Her mastery of the complex problems we face is impressive enough (though with someone as intellectually gifted as she is, you kind of expect it), but the words she spoke last night were HER words. She was not scripted, she did what few politicians ever do: she wrote her own speech and so spoke from her heart. Moreover, if you listened carefully, there was a lot of meat in that speech for the white working class, because when those who have been left behind, white, black, women, men, see someone who will stand for them, well, who needs false profits like "He that shall not be (and last night was not) named". I so want her to be my president one day, but now, I most want her to be Governor of Georgia. I want the rest of the deep south to look east and see her sitting in the governor's mansion, helping everyone to realize the American Dream she so eloquently and sparingly outlined last night and say: "do you think our state could find a Stacey Abrams?"
16
@G. James: she LOST the race for Georgia Governor. It won't come up again for 6 years.
She has expressed interest in running for SENATOR from Georgia.
1
Identity politics has decisively failed to create an egalitarian society. If anything, it has set back the cause of egalitarian politics, and is a reflection of defeat of the genuinely left vision for America. There is no country on the planet where identity politics of the sort practiced today, and condoned by Bouie, has built an effective and generous social safety net. Nowhere.
If the Democrats double down on "diversity" the only result will be further polarization and discord. Hilary did it, and look at the result...
37
Article is a needed synergy of a unifying vision for all, with a promise of full citizenship for those who have suffered exclusion. Those goals should be complementary, not competing.
2
Mr. Bouie, you speak of the visuals, but who is that man behind the green curtain? The soft-focus background field of constituents was so orchestrated, picked one by one to fill each quota. The chorus was a slick marketing ploy... I felt bamboozled, perhaps you were too. I want honesty, instead I was looking for the looping pattern... no one could sit so still, so upright. I hope I'm so wrong.
10
How can an individual who didn't pay her federal taxes and has defaulted on her debt payments be a true rising star in any party?
16
@ExPitt Her Dad was dying of cancer, and insurance wasn’t covering all his medical bills.
She elected to pay those bills, to save her fathers life. In doing so, she didn’t pay her income taxes that year, but worked out a deal with the IRS ( which any American can do) to pay that year’s taxes on a payment plan. She’s paying them back, with interest.
4
If you’re talking about Trump, he’s a male, and his ascension in the GOP has been remarkable.
How can a man who ran his companies into bankruptcy multiple times, and who knows what all he's paid in taxes be president?
1
"The reception to Abrams’s rebuttal from national Democrats was unbridled enthusiasm". Really? She can speak intelligently (whereas Trump cannot) but what if anything of substance did she actually say, other than how bad things are and some stories about her family? I heard no hard-fact challenges to Trump or the GOP and even worse no actual proposals about how to fix anything. For heaven's sake - if you have a chance to speak to much of the American public, actually use it to say something - to lead.
14
The overpowering issue for Democrats in 2020 is income inequality. Sharing the wealth rather than having most of it go to billionaires is an idea that appeals to a huge percentage of voters including the various groups identified in this essay. This is not socialism as our current president tried to label it in his SOTU speech (no one is talking about nationalizing major industries), it is good old-fashioned progressivism in the mold of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. Identity politics — as it is called these days — is very much a part of the greater goal of lifting the middle class to a higher standard of living and getting rid of poverty. Taxing extreme income and wealth, making it easier for qualified voters to cast their ballots, giving everyone access to good healthcare, improving public education for all students, making higher education affordable, addressing problems in cities and in rural areas, combating drug addiction — issues like these all fit together under the banner of income equality. People are not created equal if one is born in a slum and another is born to an extremely wealthy real estate developer in Queens. To use a baseball analogy, everyone should start in the batter's box, not on third base or a step from home plate.
6
So the top 1% pay about 40% of all personal income taxes already and the top 10% pays about 85% of all personal taxes. How much is enough ? How about state and local taxes as well as property taxes? Government is already to large and unwieldy as it is.
11
The Congressional Budget Office has the top 1% paying an average tax rate of less than 25%. This figure is lower than brackets below it. I don’t feel sorry for Midas. The question is why do you?
6
@FDB
Enough would be a 70% to 90% marginal tax rate on annual income over $10 million. Also an annual tax on wealth as Sen. Warren proposes. And finally a high tax on inheritance above a certain figure. Sen. Bernie Sanders suggests 77% on inheritance above $1 billion. He proposes graduated tax rates beginning with inheritances more than $3.5 million. This all looks good to me.
2
Let’s be honest about Miss Abrams. According to the AJC last year she had 200K in credit card and student loan debt . With a 150K book deal advance her net worth was 120K.
She’s 45, a Yale Law School grad and has zero reason to have high debts and a net worth that would be negative had it not been for her book deal. She can’t even keep her own financial house in order and it’s beyond me why the Democrats would choose her to make any speech especially last nights.
I’m not a Trump fan but Miss Abrams isn’t competent to run for or hold office until she can get her own fiscal house in order.
16
You haven’t done your homework. (You’re not in Georgia, so it’s understandable.) She was involved with a family business that failed during the recession, and she helped cover family medical expenses. These sorts of debts are the kind many Americans can relate to. The man who won the governorship (and who, as secretary of state, oversaw the rigging of his own election) had a much dodgier financial situation, yet the focus remained on Abrams’s books. I wonder why that was.
17
@FDB Harry Truman filed for bankruptcy at one point, and that no longer is held against him.
I'm unsure of my feelings about Ms. Abrams at this point, but I would not hold her debts against her. She takes on big issues with big responsibilities, probably has to travel a lot, has lots of demands on her time, etc. If she lived more simply, she might not accomplish as much as she does. If someone showed me that she was throwing thousands of dollars down slot machines somewhere or partying really big, that would be different, but I doubt that's the case.
3
@FDB Um....and you think Trump's financial house is in order? He is holding office. At least she's transparent. He's a billionaire businessman only in his imagination.
Identity politics is simply pandering said differently. The Democrats selectively pander to get votes. This is in contrast to proposing what’s good and right even if you don’t win votes.
19
If we were a color blind country, a gender blind country, a class blind country there would be no "identity politics." All politicians aim to divide us on some level and then blame us for "identity politics." Trump does this 24/7.
I am a white woman in her late 70s, a life long New Yorker. Class wise I range from working to middle, depending on the economy.
I love Stacey Abrams because she is a woman, she is a smart, she is a WOC which means she has had to fight four times as hard as I have had to in my life. I like her grit and I love her activism. Good choice Democrats.
8
False dichotomy. Identity politics AND (white) labor can be appealed to. Democrats need to keep beating the "Fairness" drum, in all its rainbow manifestations.
134
@Steven Skaggs Where do you get the sense that Bouie is suggesting that we have to choose? He's saying precisely the opposite.
7
@Steven Skaggs
I saw some Fox anchors opining it's a shame "fairness" isn't taught in school anymore. This was, of course, during a discussion of unfairness by Democrats.
2
@Steven Skaggs You might want to read NYU Professor Jonathan Haidt's book called The Righteous Mind.
You can beat the Fairness drum all you want..and the Ending Oppression drum all you want as well.
it's not going to change the hearts or minds of a soul on earth.
This is because your morality is drawn largely from seeking Fairness and ending Oppression, whereas conservatives and libertarians and moderates believe in seeking Fairness (once you can define fairness..let me know..we're stlll waiting) and ending oppression (are Obama's kids' so oppressed they need a 350 point bump on their SAT scores when applying to Harvard?).
Your challenge..if you choose to accept it..is that because you draw your morality from such a small basis...you don't understand why sanctity, tradition, loyalty, respect for institutional authority (you know..the things that made America America?) are big drivers as well for conservatives and libertarians.
In essence, you don't understand our language and the language of 100,000,000 working men and women in America who made this country great. You don't understand the reasons they go to Church regularly and pray that their children grow up to achieve the American Dream.
You're focused on sins of the past instead of opportunities that lie ahead of us. Your focus on the past means your hope for the future is wrapped in an Utopian vision and sadly...us conservatives know all too well that if you leave your house unlocked..it will be robbed
The Democrats shouldn't run from the coalitions they've assembled, but it would be a mistake to try to pander to each demographic as they have in the past, rather than focusing on the things they have in common. And the biggest thing they share is they've been taken advantage of economically for decades, (in the case of women and minorities, centuries). Economic equality underlies all other forms of equality and can be the unifying thread to binds these disparate groups together, and I believe Ms. Abrams understands this. She doesn't make it all about her race or gender, she goes beyond those limiting definitions and speaks as a smart, able, visionary PERSON. I hope we see more of her, and more candidates like her.
7
@Kingfish52 I hope you are correct, because the momentum seems (to me) to be going to be going 100% the other way: We're devolving into competing rival victim groups, each of which demands perfect pandering.
Warren, who has supported all disadvantaged people since Day One, infuriates Native Americans because she states that she is partly descended from them. Sanders, who always has done likewise, was simply Too White for African-Americans. Virginia's governor made himself up to look like Michael Jackson at a time before about half of living Americans were born (never any complaints about his treatment of Black patients or his racial politics in succeeding decades) and he's all but hounded out of the country. Every group has its litmus tests.
If you want My vote, you come to My church, you tell Me that I'm important, and you show Me that you've earned My vote. That's what matters, not whether you have a clue about the history of the places we send troops to, or have any ideas what our coastal cities might do when the oceans rise, or have a plan for the nations to our south who are overrun by American-financed drug gangs, or a proposal to slow down the killing of the oceans with plastic trash. It's Me, Me, Me.
I'm in my 70's. I've identified with progressive politics for over half a century. I've campaigned, I've donated, I've demonstrated, I've been arrested, I've made career sacrifices. But what I see now is enough to make me wonder if any of it was worth it.
8
@Joe: Well I could be wrong. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, fueled by the same disappointment and frustration you expressed. But with candidates like Ms. Abrams, AOC, and the growing realization that people like Sanders and Warren have been right about the common enemy we face: those who have rigged the system to take advantage of the majority, I'm feeling more hopeful than I have in decades.
Yes, tribalism is tearing us apart, but there seems to be an awakening that more us share a tribe than we thought. In the end, if we can't find any reason for hope, then how do we go forward?
I heard the words of truth. I saw a liberal, and one who fights. I am ready for the democrats to stop kowtowing to the imaginary centrists. They would do better to attract the liberals who have given up on politics all together rather than try to appeal to centrists who are really just republicans who don't like the racist rhetoric to be too overt, but are fine with their privilege.
4
From feminist theory comes the concept of "intersectionality." The marginalized do not belong only to one race, gender, orientation, or social class. They come from all these. Intersectionality is a new step—an inclusive and unifying principal.
Abrams knows how to unify: "...the ways in which they intersect."
1
Sorry, but intersectionality and identity politics do not appeal to the country at large. Wishful thinking will not win a national election in 2020.
21
Kudos to all the commenters and the editors who are overseeing this piece. This is the first time in easy memory that I have read an article and then turned to intelligent, thought-provoking reaction, as opposed to comments choked with sarcasm, mockery and vitriol. Sort of gives me a tiny glimmer of hope that Americans can get back to actual discourse again. Whatever you're doing, keep it up!
4
What an absolute pleasure listening to Stacey Abrams speak.
There is still hope for America!
6
She is fresh-air in this era of politicians contorting themselves into "performers" until we voters have zero idea who they really are. She is really Stacey Abrams -- a smart, accomplished, progressive, activist. Bring it on, Stacey!
3
Stacey Abrams is an exemplary model of Civil resistance against Uncivil governance.
Thank you, Ms. Abrams, for your thoughtful, decent voice on behalf of all thoughtful, decent Americans.
Against Trump's putrid callousness, you are a beacon for positive change.
5
she failed. The democrats once stood for the working class people and she should have said that and more importantly should have given specific policies and laws her party needs to fight for. She did not attack any of the lies and horrid philosophy Trump promoted minutes earlier.
Bernie came on later, on his own, and did just that. Many points of Trumps "speech" need to be refuted point by point with specific solutions. That's what Bernie did.
She failed and it is pathetic that the dems do not put up a more powerful person with better skills for doing that.
14
@Frank " The democrats once stood for the working class people..." Exactly! Working class people, NOT "white" working class people.
1
Democrats missed a huge opportunity by selecting an electoral loser for the SOTU response vs. a 2018 winner and fierce wall opponent Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. She could have dramatically signed her order pulling the state's ational Guard troops from the Mexico border during her remarks last night instead of waiting until today.
3
Best rebuttal I’ve ever seen.
1
I really hope we've hit peak identity politics.
I'm all for being inclusive and letting the best person win in politics, but is it weird that I'm losing patience with insinuations that addressing current issues of a white demographic as a negative, while those of any other demographic is positive?
Is the rationale history, history, history?
If so note that there's a big difference between paying attention to those who have been ignored and ignoring people who have not.
If the Dems tell white working poor that they will not pay attention to them, via articles like this, don't you think they'll turn to someone who they feel will (aka Trump).
This article is a celebration treading on divisive, not a thoughtful article about identity politics and its role.
24
I agree. It's been decades since the Dems had any credible message for white working class voters, who I suspect many Dems look down upon. They need to stop the identity politics and find a message for all of their natural supporters--i.e., those who want a fair economy and who don't want billionaires running our country.
17
If identity politics is a "revolution," it's a pretty stale one. Not to mention incredibly destructive, as the Democratic Party should be learning (but won't be) from the Virginia debacle.
20
I thought she said it well, was convincing, earnest, compassionate and commanding. I just don’t remember what she said. Sorry.
12
I generally steer clear of politics and don't normally listen or watch these speeches; but, flipping through I caught the beginning of her speech and listened until the end. I was captured and felt optimistic after hearing Stacy's message.
I like this woman - she seems genuine and I want to learn more about her.
5
I have been talking up Warren/Abrams for the past month. But if Warren goes down I am all-in on Abrams/Beto 2020. The media would have no clue how do deal with this next generation of change. It would suck all attention away from Individual 1.
52
No offense but I’m assuming your joking about the Abrams / Beto ticket. Neither one have the experience, neither does Warren for that matter , and Abrams debt load and financial issues should preclude any 45 year old Yale Law School grad from being taken seriously as a political candidate for statewide or national office.
16
@Greg
I really disagree with the rationale of the sibling comment here by @FDB but I agree with some of the conclusions and wanted to state their point a bit more sanely.
Abrams looks pretty good as a politician but she's in the same position as AOC where she lacks enough of a track record to speak definitively, we've repeatedly seen politicians that talk a big progressive game and then compromise their morals quickly. Beto is already rather tainted, he ended up breaking his no oil/gas pledge - additionally his performance in the debates against Ted Cruz was terrible, he didn't stick to his policies and present them with clarity, either because he was convinced to move into a more centrist position or because his initial progressive ideas weren't held by him and were popularized just to get attention.
Also, the sibling comment is being silly about Warren. Warren has some issues but is within my top few favorites for 2020, she has a clear policy vision and she's show that she can stand up to outside influences.
I'm a youngerish voter and my primary concern is how much I can trust the candidate, both in terms of their dedication to policy & ideals (which can change over time, I don't hold policy evolution against people) and in terms of actual trusting... which is a bit new. Prior generations of politicians used snaky words to lie in a retractable manner, but apparently in the 45 era we have to deal with pure delusion or outright dishonesty.
10
@Alex I agree Abrams is a great force at the state level - not quite ready for prime time. I'd argue that one of the reasons Obama was not as effective was due to his inexperience the first term (along with all the other obstacles) We need someone with the ability to manage the govt effectively. I'd like to see a more seasoned politician more progressive with a younger VP.
8
Is Mr. Bouie secretly a member of the Re-elect Doald Trump campaign?
28
Stacey Abrams' repudiation of Trump's nationalism based on ethnicity, even religion, to promote true patriotism, where our democratic values, based on morals, must be affirmed. This, within the richness of our diversity and the need to work cooperatively in a communitarian, and solidarian, way that seems foreing to our current vulgar bully in-chief...and his acolytes, the republican party. I strongly believe she has the wherewithal to unite us all, and restore trust in our institutions. The fact that capitalism has escaped the ethical constraints so it may help those left behind, and allow free rein to greed and selfishness, does not mean we ought not fight to restore it's value ( risking capital, which includes creative destruction, the competition needed to make progress and lift all boats, is inherent in what makes the U.S. society tick). And Ms Abrams seems the right messenger to imbue a mere transactional business 'a la Trump' with a sense of purpose.
Yea good luck winning with diversity politics. The democrats will never ever win the midwest states with that, hence Trump will be re-elected.
23
I may move to Atlanta so I can vote for her if she runs for the Senate.
4
@Fiffie you’re used to crazy traffic, so you’ll feel right at home.....
The Dems cannot escape the identify politics trap. Will they ever learn? Apparently not. We are not going to vote for someone because of their skin tone or their selection of a same sex mate.
21
I voted for Stacey because I think Georgia needs real criminal justice reform. But if she wants to go down the identity politics rabbit hole, I will never vote for her again. As a straight, white man, I am tired of being told that I am responsible for all the evil in the universe.
21
She wants to make Georgia a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants - we do NOT need or want that kind of "reform".
1
While Trump talked with Americans concerned about their financial future Hillary danced with Beyonce. The WH will be won by winning among the centrist Americans. If the Democrats push a far left democratic socialist agenda then Trump will be a two term President.
11
nope. Not going to ever work to say that identity is celebrated for people of color, but whites are racist to have an identity.
29
@bx
Tell that to the Congressional White Caucus.
Wait, there isn't one.
1
Totally 200% disagree with you.
Running on identity obsession was fatal to Hillary. It gave us the ego maniac demagogue Trump. Thanks Hillary.
Unless you are a right wing white bigot or the other extreme a Neo feminist, Americans hate identity obsession.
Americans voted the House democrat not because of identity obsession because they get sick of Trump and not because they wanted a Neo feminist in the WH.
Obama was elected to two terms because of his enlightened view that you must govern for all Americans and put identity aside.
Even if Trump is gone before 2020, if the democrats keep up with identity obsession they will be handing Trump or a more moderate conservative republican a second term in the WH.
Don't make the same mistake twice.
21
@Paul Did I miss something? HRC ran on identity politics? I never knew with what or whom she identified.
As to my views of the charlatan-in-chief's so-called "speech", I won't even discuss it. Suffice it to say that the rambling mixture of platitudes and hyperbole entertained for about 3 minutes, then descended into total boredom and monotony. With that in mind I hoped to find inspiration in the Democratic response. I don't know much about Stacey Abrams, but was optimistic that I might hear some stirring and concrete thoughts about how we could get on a path leading us out of the mire we're bogged down in. Alas, I found no such inspiration. Her speech sounded like she was running for office, extolling her personal achievements and talking about her time in Georgia, working with her colleagues of both parties, that seemed to make us want to believe that the Peach Tree State was Nirvana. Why didn't I ever know that before?! Bottom line is that I hate political speeches filled with platitudes. It was fine that her dad gave his coat to a homeless man and walked in the rain, alone, until his family picked him up but there are millions of unsung acts of kindness taking place around the world all the time. The person who can step over the homeless sleeping on the street shouldn't find comfort in hearing Abrams' story because charity starts in the heart and is not transferable like a coat from one person to another. My point is that I heard nothing concrete about issues affecting our daily lives, and that is what I expect from politicians. Leave the sermons to the churches.
7
@ManhattanWilliam
You are asking a lot from a ten minute speech. What Ms. Abrams was stressing was the need for this nation to create a climate in which all of us can participate in addressing those issues that concern you and the rest of us. The current administration favors a policy and practice of exclusion where the President governs by decree through tweeted lies and intimidation. The issues must be resolved by hard work and honest dialogue and all of us must be included. It's the place to start to get things done.
1
Excellent. Now win an election.
4
SHE has my Vote. And Money. Those that moan about “ identity
Politics “ are almost always white males.
Seriously.
6
@Phyliss Dalmatian
So? Can we not recognize the injustices of minority treatment while also seeing that medicare for ALL and education reform for ALL and criminal justice reform for ALL doesn't have to be constantly labeled by identity?
-White Male
1
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Yeah, but those "white males" vote -- as do their admiring mothers and their loving wives and their grateful children.
1
@Phyliss Dalmatian
If you think you can win back the federal government by being dismissive and insulting to white men, give that a shot. It won't end well.
1
Not sure what century the writer lives in; my neighborhood is full of female and gay home/property owners.
10
Stacey Adams was chosen to give the rebuttal to Mr. Trump's state of the union speech for a number of reasons, an important one of which is that she apparently has no intention of running for president in 2020; she is clearly an intelligent, articulate individual with a bright political future; on the other hand, I would have rather heard from Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard or one of the other individuals who is either already seeking or is likely to seek the Democratic nomination for president.
22
@Mathman314 Do your calculations include the possibility of a white male - say, Sherrod Brown or Joe Biden?
10
@C. Richard Absolutely - I would like to have heard from Governor Jay Inslee, Governor Anthony Cuomo (who says he's not running for president), or even Al Gore.
5
@Mathman314 I'd prefer Obama, Gore, or some senior leader who isn't running for President now. An Adult in the Room, who has some ability to speak for the Democrats as a whole and to appeal to what little common ground is left among Americans. Someone whose primary interest isn't in pushing aside all his/her rivals for the nomination.
Unfortunately, Rep. Pelosi probably wouldn't do well in this forum; I'm less sure about Sen. Schumer.
From this viewpoint, Ms. Abrams may not have been the worst choice, but I don't think she carries the gravitas that a senior leader would. (Also, the delivery and visuals weren't good; very poor production.)
8
Abrams is a compelling figure but honestly I wasn't impressed with her speech. It was a hard thing to do to rebut a State of the Union address. What did she say of substance? Mainly, a short list of liberal tropes about the self sacrifice of her parents, the neediness of many Americans, opportunity blah, blah, blah. Well, a list of general complaints about how unfair society is and the alleged callousness of the administration didn't quite inspire me. It sounded like victimology, which too many Democrats seem to lean on. I'm not sure if you can a federal election with just that.
132
@Yankelnevich
Stacy Abrams did not directly counter President Trump's points; instead she tried to describe problems that are destroying our democracy, highlighting what needs to be fixed. It is too bad she omitted how the Citizens' United decision has been undermining our democracy.
27
@Yankelnevich "Victimology"? I often read that as "I cannot listen, nor do I want to, to women of color." And if you cannot really listen, then there are few ways we can talk together.
37
@Yankelnevich
Her speech sounded pre-recorded and written, and a bit poorly at that. There were a number of points where I'd like to have seen her call out lies or a response to some of his more illogical policy positions - it'd be nice to have heard something closer to Sanders' response that actually addressed what had been brought up in the SOTU.
9
Oh, I disagree. Stacy Abrams' message was compelling because she did not pander to small group identity politics -- she took her family's experiences and her wishes for America and made them feel universal. Her strong plea was something struggling whites as well as blacks and Latinos could empathize with. She was much closer to Obama than the divide-and-rule pundits on the left.
132
@Chris Gray
"Stacy Abrams' message was compelling because she did not pander to small group identity politics -- she took her family's experiences and her wishes for America and made them feel universal."
But that's what identity politics is -- taking the experiences of your group and making the larger community empathize and care about it!
12
@Jason The group she focused on was working class and middle class families. Of the family experiences she chose to highlight, most were class-based experiences, and she mostly emphasized the needs of working class and middle class families. Those class identities are shared by millions of Americans. How is that polarizing? Shouldn't a political party understand the needs of ordinary families? Doesn't seem like identity politics to me.
13
@Leah
I agree! My point is that "identity politics" shouldn't be polarizing at all -- it's about building empathy and community, making others realize that we have shared experiences and shared goals, and deserve shared fair treatment and shared dignity. The fact that a woman of color gave this address, linking the experiences and needs of minority communities with the experiences and needs of working-class and middle-class families in general, is significant and welcomed. She didn't erase her own identity or avoid "identity politics" to make this point; she was simply herself, and in doing so joined her identity with the larger community.
12
An expansive “identity politics” is fine, provided it is expansive enough to include white middle and working-class men. America's demographics are indeed changing but not rapidly enough for Democrats to shed any more white male votes, not for a generation yet. And that's too long to wait. Trump is proof of what damage can be done in the meantime. The fact is that "including" men in any "intersectionality" is not that hard to do, because men, even white men, are not a separate species and they are not all rich. They are husbands, sons, brothers, co-workers and co-worshipers, part of the family, part of the community, and they ever will be. It's just a matter of including, not excluding, them in one's vision of all that is to be gained from a better, less-discriminatory America. To put it crudely: If my wife got equal pay for equal work, I'd have more money. Some Democratic politicians know how to do that; others fear losing their "triangulating" hold on other constituencies if they do. The Democrat who can beat Trump is the one who can speak to all best in speaking as themselves. That's what Stacey Abrams's message showed.
5
I was proud to vote for Stacey for governor and I will be proud to support her in her next political endeavor. She is the future of Democrats in this country. A strong woman who is not afraid to speak up for truth and for those who have been silenced in the past. The age of the “good old boy” politician is ending and as a 56 year old white man I say it’s about time.
212
@Gregory H Johnson
She was suppose to critique the SOU. Instead she promoted herself and voting issues. Schumer made a mistake.
@Gregory H Johnson
As a 68 year white man I agree!!!
1
Stacey Abrams would be an incredible senator for this state. She speaks authentically about a range of experiences which come from an African American background as well as one which many white people share.
She is soft spoken but formidable in her unswerving sense of justice and concern for ordinary people and their issues such as healthcare as well as to women, those with educations, and those whose backgrounds span from economic difficulties to professional careers.
As minority leader in the Georgia General Assembly with 10 years of government service, she would campaign for the Senate with a full knowledge of the needs of Georgians in both rural and urban areas. Her Yale law degree also prepares her well for a legislative role.
There will always be criticisms of women candidates, those of color, and those with different backgrounds. But we have grown too accustomed to wealthy white businessmen or politicians who have never struggled, never experienced what the majority of women or others have.
Living in Georgia, I have frequently seen two societies side-by-side. Many times it is also as though no one but deep red Republicans, Bible Belt Baptists, and NRA members even exist. People assume that you share their views on politics and religion. That has never been true. With a suburban, youth and female revolution slowly happening, no one's vote should be taken for granted. Stacey Abrams has a real chance.
178
@SMB That woman is impressive! No if's and's or but's. I know she's good for Georgia, but she's good for the rest of us too. She is a sterling example of our brighest and our best.
3
@SMB How can you vote for someone to lead our state or elect them into congress when they can’t get their finances in order?
Stacey Abrams has a special gift- she is believable and forceful but in such a pleasant way.She is so authentic and has a soothing manner.So many political voices are harsh sounding and thinly disguise their urgency and anger.I just love to hear Ms.Abrams speak because she makes important points in a collegial and convincing way.I like to hear her speak, just the way I enjoyed hearing Barrack Obama.
139
It’s becoming clearer everyday that Americans simply don’t know how to address race. Some of us acknowledge the need for a “national conversation” but there’s no clue for any of how to do it productively. We end up faulting each other for “identity politicking” while real issues stay unaddressed - even by those who want to do better.
As a white person growing up in the Midwest my race education amounted essentially to “black people are people too, k thx bye”. I’ve had relationships and experiences over the years broaden and deepen that to something I now feel is meaningful understanding or at least empathy/awareness. But how to get there for someone who wasn’t exposed to those things? I don’t know, but I don’t think we’ll really move forward without somehow figuring it out.
55
@Sarah, I was educated in rural Virginia, where not one but two capitals of the confederacy were based. At my middle school, we did Black History month in every class, every day. We watched all of the Eyes on the Prize series. We had competitions about trivia related to black achievements. We ate, slept, and breathed it. In my recollection, whole days were spent educating us about our racial history. I remember seeing the photograph of Emmett Till after his death when I was 11. It was gut wrenching in a way that I will never forget. I am not a person with perfect racial understanding, but I know that education changed my life because it showed me both the history of violence against blacks, and introduced me to many forms of black excellence. Racial change and understanding starts with a basic understanding of humanity, and a specific understanding of the lives of others. We need to talk about race and read about it and watch entertainment about it and yes, attempt the risky practices of difficult conversations and self-reflection. Moreover, we need to educate children early and often. You sound like you have done a lot. Find ways to help our children's generation do even more.
7
@Sarah
Actually, I believe the opposite is true, that America is always having a conversation about race. The problem is, the conversation by both parties simply involves race baiting for political gain.
As a member of the 'minority', I can say that my one-one experiences with others who are "different" mirror yours; leads to a deeper understanding of the other as the bonds of our common humanity were stronger than the politics of race.
Politics heightens the racial divide as each group seeks to gather a collection of grievances rather than solve a problem at hand. While the issues of race, rules, and rights are always intertwined, I wonder if the problem of race is as bad as politicians state, or whether its a useful wedge issue.
For example, Barack Obama won the Presidency twice. Votes included those who later voted for Trump, a birther. Are we to believe most Trump voters are 'racists'? I question 'polls' which state that the majority of Republicans believe Obama was born in Kenya. I could be wrong, but that is not my personal experience talking to people. (Keep in mind, someone created the birther idea and passed it around. It wasn't an organic idea.) This is not to say that racist people don't exist, I'm certain they do, but the majority of our race conversation is due to the actions of both political parties for the sake of expediency.
2
@Tim
I think we can begin the conversation by majority groups (whites) owning up to the dysfunction of racism. All forms of prejudice are delusional.
1
Abrams certainly poses a nice counterpoint to the whiteness of the Trump MAGA nation. It's a winning strategy when the focus is on the ignorance of Trump and his supporters. But what happens when the GOP moves on and cultivates minority candidates of their own? There is no shortage of minorities that are socially conservative and or favor more "business friendly" government policies. And as this article exemplifies, we here a lot about Abrams and what she represents, in terms of being a black woman, but we rarely hear about what policies she represents. This kind of superficial coverage will give her a short-term pick-up and may lead us to think identity politics is back in vogue, but when we dig deeper will there be anything left?
4
Identity politics failed for the Democrats in 2016, it failed for Stacey Abrams in Georgia in 2018, and it will fail again for the Dems in 2020. What will win is a program that favors equality of opportunity over social justice equity, African-Americans and Native Americans over illegal immigrants, and a stated goal that our country is aiming for a goal when race and national origin are as important to national policy -- not individual identity, nation policy -- as a person's shoe size. Of yes. Affirming that there are two genders instead of 51 would help make believe that the Democrats have some common sense, too.
9
Identity has informed and conditioned political participation in this country since its founding. It’s not like minorities in America went and created a politics out of their identities for themselves, just to be different—they were systematically pushed out of political and civic life based on identities that for the most part white, wealthy men invented for them. I don’t think Bouie is calling for the party to embrace identity politics in an irresponsible way, he just wants the full scope of the party to be represented. Yes, the Democratic Party is a big tent party—we make room for a lot of folks, many of whom have been disenfranchised in the past.
4
Premature. She won't represent it until she wins an office.
Do not misunderstand: I do think she was robbed in GA.
But she now has to win another office to show that was more than a one off. (And I hope she does it!)
1
@Democracy / Plutocracy,
Our current president hadn't won an elected office before serving so why should the Democrats be restricted in promoting a standard bearer with the same record?
1
Right! Let's emphasize our identity, and the usual us and them! Rather than our common Americanism and humanity! While you are young Mr. Bouie, we have, though it's getting to be more like, we had an American motto of E Pluribus Unum, that most of us adhered to and brought us together! Undercut that, along with our current President of the United States, who has been doing his best to divide us, and I further dread for our future!
3
America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
There is a difference between having a proud identity and identity politics. America's basic problem at the moment is the lack of a collective identity and sense of purpose. We are all in one way or another hyphenated Americans. However, when the primary identity becomes the adjective before the hyphen rather than the noun, American, it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to develope the sense of collective purpose necessary to make real progress for any, let alone all, Americans.
By and large, even in the much more divisive and divided days of the Viet Nam War, people thought of themselves primarily as Americans. and when in the midst of that war our nation first landed people on the moon, there was a genuine sense of American excitement and pride. We need to reclaim that sense of the commonweal, if we are to make things better for any, let alone all, of the identities that comprise America.
After all, unlike almost every other country, ours was not founded on millenium-old ethnic continuity but, rather, by a set of principles largely embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, for the most part, we measure both our successes and failures by the degree we are living up to those continually evolving principles.
Yes, America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
4
@Steve Fankuchen
Yes, America is one grand experiment as is the human species. And each of us is also an experiment in ourselves. Last night we saw all of those experiments on display.
Can you tell which ones are failing? The grand evolutionary one where we see climate change, and nuclear weapons indicating that experiment is not going well. Our country, with vast wealth disparity, where democracy is becoming weaker in the area of voting rights and who really does the electing (donors)? Capitalism is not working and many very wise people have told us is won't (e.g. Plato, Marx ). Then look at yourself and ask about the last experiment?
1
Stacy Adams is an important voice in the democratic party (as is AOC) and I hope she wins her next statewide election. Identity politics, however, is not the way to the presidency in 2020. In order to govern, one must be first elected. The dems pivot to the left threatens their appeal to all working men and women.
2
@Frank Baudino "Identity politics" is not inherently more leftist than a focus on economics. They are different strategies. I would argue that Bernie Sanders and is far more leftist and he is focused on working class issues.
Stacy Abrams was a brilliant pick. She spoke so well and the story of her dad giving away his coat during a 30 mile walk to a homeless man said a lot to me. She lost her governor election likely due to voter fraud and that is part of her wonderful pitch. Proud to have her as a fellow democrat.
14
Stacey Abrams is smart enough not to exclude people on the basis of stereotypes nor to hang her fortunes on identification with some groups and not others. She appeals to universal principles and it makes her a strong candidate for higher office.
15
The Democrats will not make a majority from avoiding the compromises that a big tent requires. Not all members of the groups cited as having been left out share the agendas of those members of those groups who have become important constituencies of the Democratic Party. To form a majority, not all of the preferences of these groups can be represented in the policies of the whole Party, just to keep those groups cooperating. Then there are the many people who would work with Democrats on some but not all issues which the dominant constituencies in the Party would like advocated by the Party. Unfortunately, what is projected by the Party is a assurance that anyone who does not agree with them are morally defunct. The self righteousness is so thick that only a strange man who reflects back bizarre disrespect for people makes it seem okay.
5
@Casual Observer The reality is that putting together a coalition has to involve none of the coalition members pushing for actively targeting other members. You're not going to have a coalition that protects LGBT members opening up to homophobes, and a coalition with people of color is not going to be welcoming to racists. I'm afraid that that's the necessary nature of the Democratic coaltion. This isn't a probelm if you don't have a diverse coaltion, like the Republican one.
Looks like the Dems are still the party of not-losing. Becoming the party of winning means not running away from identity politics but running towards the people who aren't voting Democrat. And yes, this will mean compromising some precious principles. Do they want to be right, or do they want to win?
5
"link the distinct concerns of various groups into a common struggle against broad disadvantage" - The only salient critique of certain trendy forms of so-called "identity politics" is when it fails to put that understanding as the goal. Which it often does when it fails to incorporate a coherent class analysis.
A perspective that focuses solely on "Diversity" can easily be used to promote superficial changes that legitimate existing institutions. IMHO posing race v class is a false premise, because class can't be understood in this country without incorporating race as a fundamental component.
Too often IMHO premises laid out by "middle-class," professional class or "meritocratic' spokespeople are substituted for the interests of, as one example, the black community as a whole, and all of the "diversity" within - e.g. it's a fact that class injury and access, or lack thereof, to rapidly eroding blue-collar labor markets - just as the civil rights movement was supposed to establish greater equity in hiring - played a huge role in the extreme growth of incarceration targeting, primarily, poor black men in the '70s, '80s and beyond. Essentially class-blind theories of incarceration like "New Jim Crow" obscure certain fundamentals as well as essential components of reform to lift the most marginalized groups.
As a clearly brilliant campaigner and legislator, Stacey Abrams "gets" these issues. But there are definitely folks with high-profile platforms who don't.
The GOP can not win without voter suppression. They must keep poor people out of elections.
18
There is only one strategy to over come inequality and that is to assure that all are equally able to realize their potentials and to all equally be freed of want. That would include everyone not just those who have been excluded under that old identity politics which placed white men on top of all others. It would include white men who have also been excluded from opportunities to realize their potential.
White supremacy used to be the status quo in this country but it is not anymore. It has not been for five decades. But the legacy of that racist and sexist system still is reflected in in inequalities that definitely correlate with gender and race. The ability of average people to improve themselves greatly diminished four decades ago and that is reflected in the fact that only the very wealthy have shared in the lion's share of the productivity of the last half century. The rest of the people have been lucky to hold onto what they had decades ago. Those who were poor four decades ago are mostly poor today. This is because the new wealth created is not being shared as it was long ago.
The issue of race and gender discrimination cannot be addressed adequately until all can prosper economically which is not the case, today. The idea that race or gender justifies unequal treatment is cruel and founded upon ignorance, and there can be excusing discrimination against people on such a basis. But the inequities due to lack of resources is the greater impediment to success.
11
@Casual Observer
Thank you and elegantly put.
For the Dems to continue to compete, it is critical to take on voter suppression. As Republicans get desperate to keep minorities from voting, Dems will have to work harder to block efforts by states to use multiple government-issued photo IDs and birth certificates. The next step is to make election day a holiday.
11
@Anthony Making Election Day a Holidays is a complicated issue. Will all non essential businesses be required to shutdown on this holiday? As it will be a holiday I assume schools would be closed and parents would need to figure out how to manage voting while taking care of children. People who work in hospitality and in essential services tend to be the ones left out on many holidays.
1
Mr. Bouie is correct.
Ms. Abrams' appearance to the nation as a proud black woman - or a woman who happens to be black - and as representing the Democrats is an important statement of Democratic confidence.
That she was chosen to be front and center shows Democratic strength, but it is a strength born of Progressivism.
Her appearance means Progressives are recognized by the Democrat leadership as the way forward, and that Progressivism rather than centrism is the future.
It resurrects a dead party by finally differentiating it from the Republicans. Finally the party of your father has adapted to the loud proud reality of the present.
15
@Fourteen
Progressivism like conservatism has some broad appeal with respect to some issues but not all.
The conservative skepticism about progressive ideas has merit. Some attempts to correct institutional injustices result in other institutional injustices. In addition, people want consistency because it enables them to anticipate what will happen and enables them to plan for their futures. This makes them hesitant to make big changes. This is why support from the center of the electorate cannot be dismissed, most people are more centrist than progressive or conservative.
2
@Casual Observer
Centrists are not centrist, progressives are.
Studies show that in every country, including here, so-called Centrists are the least likely to support democracy, civic rights, free and fair elections, and most likely to support Authoritarianism.
2
@Fourteen
Yes, no centrism...the country for decades was pulled to the right by manipulative and lying republicans, no wonder poor people vote against their own interest, add to this voter suppression on a massive scale, gerrymandering and the rest of their tricks, no centrist, all the way progressive!
1
Identity politics for president.
13
"Identity politics" is unethical. All people deserve equal respect. Judging people's words and worth by their skin color, gender etc. is wrong in all cases. The "identity politics" academics and politicians remind me of the leaders of the communist parties who claimed to defend and fight for the well-being of the working class by destroying the bourgeois, intellectuals and the "enemies of the oppressed" but in reality built oppressive regimes dominated by the corrupt party elite and their families. Just replace "bourgeois anti-communist intellectual" with "white male cisgender".
18
@AG I'm sure identity politics will go away just as soon as identity stops being the basis for oppression.
3
@Doug K Identity will be the basis of oppression as long as there is "identity politics". Identity politics literally means discrimination (discerning and acting towards an individual) on the basis of their identity (immutable characteristics). Unethical.
1
@Doug K
They’re both kind of the same thing, aren’t they?
I agree with Abrams' policy goals and am glad to have her as a voice in the Democratic party, but I think Bouie (and to some extent Abrams) make a mistake in rejecting Fukuyama's argument, which is that it doesn't have to be identity-based politics or identity-neutral politics.
The injustices and issues of specific social groups (race, ethnicity, sexual identity/orientation) often should be raised and confronted individually. That's not a bad thing. The problem is that that's not enough. We also need to emphasize and organize around a shared identity and shared values (Americanism in the sense of valuing American institutions, the rule of law, freedom of speech, economic fairness, and justice).
Embracing both sides will help Democrats win back disaffected white voters, many of whom aren't racist, and help create a governing majority. Obama blended the politics of individual and shared identities masterfully, but unfortunately many Democratic politicians during and since his presidency have engaged in a fruitless debate of whether to do one or the other.
17
@Edward Swing "We also need to emphasize and organize around a shared identity and shared values ..." Oh, thank you, Mr. Swing. What a wonderful comment!!
4
I didn't bother watching the President's SOTU last night. I've about had it with his self aggrandizing rhetoric and divisiveness. I voted for the guy, now wished I hadn't voted at all. Creating a healthy economy and pushing for fair trade deals is vital in funding the social programs our country's people need a deserve. Ms. Abrams carries the Democratic banner high and delivers the message well. What concerns me is behind all the wonderful programs Ms. Abrams references she offers no line of sight on how they are to be funded. Taxing the super rich floats around out there but nobody talks about how much money the will put into the system; it's just assumed that it will be enough. Just the same I'd like to see the numbers. Then there's the $21 trillion dollar national deficit we're faced with, of which even Trump won't venture a guess how we're going to pay that off. The Democrat line in the past is that they'll just spend their way out of it.
At this point in time I'd like nothing better than to have the 2020 elections be held using ranked choice voting, eliminate the electoral college and ban all white males of any age from running for any elected office for the next 25 years. All the complaining and finger pointing will cease and the Jim Crow, bigot, sex offenders will be gone. I think that Ms. Abrams would make a fine Madame President.
9
@Kurt Pickard
Any suggestions that exclude white males is of course just silly since white males own the country and the sellouts that got elected to office.
Politicians now more than ever have this amazing job waiting for them after they retire from office.
Lobbying!!
I voted for Stacey Abrams for Governor, and I'll do it again if she runs. If she runs for the U.S. Senate, I'll vote for her. And one day, I do hope I have the opportunity to vote for Stacey Abrams for the President of the United States.
14
I came to appreciate Stacey Abrams' articulate vision when she ran for governor last year in Georgia. She reminds me of Obama's best qualities.
The present mess in Virginia is an opportunity for an open discussion of race and prejudice in the United States. Racism (of all types) is endemic to our society, and I sent a message to Ms. Abrams to address the issue with the nation now that she has a wider presence (Obama would do a service entering into the debate now). While all groups struggle with their own prejudices as well as discrimination, it makes sense to me that an articulate person of color should take the lead.
On reflection about the Virginia situation, I'm troubled that someone who has compiled a commendable record over tens of years of service and racial justice, should be exiled for a thoughtless and bigoted act when they were much younger.
I choked on Hillary Clinton's judgemental tweet bearing in mind the issues of sexual violation and the way that she has dismissed Monica Lewinsky.
2
@David Goldin
Remind me again of which of Obama's best qualities she reminds you of, please. At the moment none come to mind.
Finally, the Democrats are doing it right. I now see light at the end of a long dark tunnel.
4
Abrams had good things to say. Please don't make it about the visuals of the identity of the speaker. That, in the end, belittles all of us.
7
The Democratic Party needs to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Whites are still more than 60 percent of the nation's population and thus can't glibly be written off in presidential elections.
We can and we must embrace diversity AND appeal to the white working class as well as the non-white working class.
10
Seriously? Does the Democratic Party really believe it needs to clarify its stand on "diversity"? Are DNC operatives worrying that the GOP will corner the black, brown, LGBTQ, Muslim, women and immigrant vote in 2020?
We get it already: Democrats are for celebrating "diversity" - which means everyone but straight white males (boo, hiss!).
It's *intellectual* diversity which Democrats have a problem with. There is no welcome mat placed for a voter who likes the Dems on economics, but believes in gun rights and is queasy about abortion. There is no room for a voter who likes the Dems' Green Jobs plan, but who believes biology defines "male" and "female." There are many Christians who would vote Democrat if not for the party's open contempt for their mere identity as Christians.
Republican voters give their candidates litmus tests. The Democratic Party gives its voters litmus tests. It is all or nothing with them. You must be willing to swallow their entire progressive, woke, identity politics main course with a side of intersectionality, or you're not even invited to the table.
This is the Democrats' Achilles heel. This is why the Democrats' national ability to govern is always so precarious, regardless of their policies being far superior for the average American.
26
@Livonian
Well said, Livonian !
My own two cents which, I believe, yours is an excellent addition to:
America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
There is a difference between having a proud identity and identity politics. America's basic problem at the moment is the lack of a collective identity and sense of purpose. We are all in one way or another hyphenated Americans. However, when the primary identity becomes the adjective before the hyphen rather than the noun, American, it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to develope the sense of collective purpose necessary to make real progress for any, let alone all, Americans.
By and large, even in the much more divisive and divided days of the Viet Nam War, people thought of themselves primarily as Americans. and when in the midst of that war our nation first landed people on the moon, there was a genuine sense of American excitement and pride. We need to reclaim that sense of the commonweal, if we are to make things better for any, let alone all, of the identities that comprise America.
After all, unlike almost every other country, ours was not founded on millenium-old ethnic continuity but, rather, by a set of principles largely embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, for the most part, we measure both our successes and failures by the degree we are living up to those continually evolving principles.
Yes, America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
8
@Livonian
Yes. I've been pondering the same while reading this article and the comments. What's the point? Very much preaching to the choir -- it's not a selling point to win elections, it's cheerleading for a *portion* of your already decided voters, while taking the very big risk (deplorables!) of potentially excluding others.
Retweets do not equal actual votes! 2.25 years since the last election, 1.75 to go. I do not see the Dems making the progress that they should have in this time. That 'let's get some more of that identity politics' seems like a plausible idea indicates a party adrift, hoping the sail the raft of Trump's loathsomeness to victory.
10
She was impressive!
3
I think Abrams, and her response, were both terrific and on-target.
But I am opposed to identity politics as primary organizing principle for the Democratic party.
Why? Because I am opposed to it for the Republican party as well. Because it's not an a la carte proposition. And because the single most useful thing we all could do as a nation now is remember that though we are all individuals, we're all in the same lifeboat, and we have to re-learn how to row together.
Why (part 2)? Because a party that (rightly) embraces a large variety of subsets by name, but specifically avoids also embracing the white working classes is telling them that they are not welcome in the tent, though they share most of the same dreams and aspirations as the others on the inside.
A political identity defined by specific inclusion also supports specific exclusion. And that, more than anything else, is what I find most reprehensible about the modern day Republican party, and the rocky road they have led our country down.
So, yes, welcome neighbors. All of you, please.
3
How different it is, when politicians are in it for all the people, and not just the interests of their benefactors.
4
@APMinPDX No one is in it for "all the people". Just different benefactors.
@APMinPDX
There are no politicians in it for all the people. Sorry to break it to you.
The fallacy of this notion is that power is not distributed equally within an identity group and disadvantage isn’t experienced equally within an identity group. Socially speaking, everyone should have the same rights. The best way to achieve this is at the individual level, not the group level. Also, power and wealth is a class issue, not an identity issue. A wealthy, powerful person can be from any identity group. Fighting the identity battle only serves to further divide people who increasingly had no stake in the fight to start with.
6
The perception, or the reality that one is being marginalized or discriminated against because of one's identity leads to anger that is, if not totally justified, at least self justified. In 2016 we saw how anger dominated the narrative on both sides. Angry voices spoke loudly enough that it seemed that nothing else could be heard. Anger, of course is monolithic, it cannot be contained nor is it susceptible to debate, which only gives it a new target. Anger either consumes itself or it becomes a component of our listening apparatus.
The good news is this. Honesty, authenticity, the ability to inspire, and the drive to seek justice is not the exclusive property of any race, ethnicity, gender, or party. It emerges from time to time on the political landscape. It has certainly emerged in Stacy Abrams. I listened to it on radio, so I had no visual impression. There was nothing in her speech that I heard that I could feel did not apply to me, an old white guy. She is invoking a movement toward justice. The fact that justice has been denied in so many ways to people of color is really a given. I do not understand why people feel that by extending justice to all somehow means that it will be denied to them. That's not identity, that's a lack of identity. That's feeling that there is something special about your group or clan or football team, or country that makes it more worthy than anyone else. It just ain't so! Sorry if that makes you angry.
3
@michaeltide
If anger is monolithic, as you suggest, then it's a cactus.
Identity politics, as the term is commonly used, would have downplayed "a focus on broadening economic gains, ... and expanding domestic programs like Medicaid." Stacey Abrams did not do so, because she understands we need social justice AND economic justice in order to move ahead.
As MLK proclaimed just two weeks before his death: "“Now our struggle is for genuine equality, which means economic equality, for we know now that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t have enough money to buy a hamburger?”
2
Abrams was terrific,managing to combine discussion of the specific forms injustice takes in the US with a broad and general critique of the inequalities that characterize the country. Why Bouie wants to call this identity politics and heave yet another salvo at white working people both mystifies me politically and indicates bad arithmetic on his part. Abrams would make a great VP candidate for Bernie Sanders and a [resident four years later.
9
So all the talk about wanting to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, is nonsense ?
We should band together because we are brown or black or yellow or red or green ? And we deserve power because we are not white ?
America may not be perfect, but I believe Americans aspire to fairness and color-blindness.
Stacey Abrams' message, as interpreted by Mr. Bouie, is depressing and is going to turn off a lot of voters, white as well as minority.
43
Racial equality after 400 years of suppression is not going to be achieved by declaring it.
@G You said it.
1
I traced Mr. Bouie’s note of Stacey Abrams’ essay in Foreign Affairs. (Thank you, sir.)
It is worthy of reading in its own right because Ms. Abrams deftly handles the old question in America among those without power: Should we focus on class or identity? Her response:
“The facile advice to focus solely on class ignores these complex links among American notions of race, gender, and economics.”
In a single sentence, she outlines the profound issues the powerless face, implicitly even white men. We have a long history of using identity as a weapon to dispossess Americans from their birthrights of freedom, the franchise, and the ability to live without fear in a democratic republic. That history is so long and so fraught that these identity issues have become paramount because the dominant group uses them to define and divide.
Ms. Abrams is pointing out a pathway based on justice. What could be more American than that?
11
I have always believed that one's vote should go for the politician who can articulate the best ideas that represent the majority of us. It never dawned on me, really, to consider race, gender, religion, as criteria. John F. Kennedy had to plead with American voters not to worry about his Catholic faith, Obama obliquely dealt with his race, etc. Hillary Clinton made her gender a very big deal, and I don't think it helped her - but it was her ideas that were lacking, and the conviction in which she held and delivered them. The Republican Party has made "identity politics" into an epithet, and the Democratic Party should take heed and proceed with caution. It seems to me that Ms. Adams is a shining star because she has common sense ideas, she believes what she says, and she delivers her ideas with forceful conviction.
13
This opinion is framed as commentary on the idea that Democrats should downplay "identity," but focuses only on Stacey Abram's excellent speech. It would have been useful for Mr. Bouie to include his views on Xavier Becerra's response to the State of the Union address. Mr. Becerra's response was an equally vital part of the Democrats' rebuttal. I have no problem with focusing a column solely on Ms. Abram's incisive and stirring speech, but if you want to make a broader argument about diversity and identity it would be helpful to cast a more inclusive net.
4
After listening to Stacey Abrams, I can understand how disappointed the people of Georgia must have been to see her lose her race for office - this time.
It will be more and more difficult to suppress this wave of high quality candidates from all backgrounds who have stepped up to serve in view of the disastrous Trump administration.
8
yawn
she has no ideas, no platform, other than "inclusion". This country has had people of color as President, Supreme Court Justice, Sec of State, National Security Advisor, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs, etc etc sports stars, team owners, restaurant owners, mega celebrities and billionaires.
We have come a long way since Dr.ML King moved our hearts. let's recognize the relative inclusion and fairness and justice that actually exists here, far better than most other nations in the world, dear readers.
30
@Joe Yoh
"yawn
she has no ideas,"
Does the right just recycle talking points? How about starting by Googling "Green New Deal" or "70% tax rate proposal"?
2
@Ken - No, those aren’t Abrams’s ideas. Credit belongs to a select group of freshman House members (eg, AOC) and only a handful of Reps and Senators who have championed these and other so-called radical ideas long before they became trendy (Rep. Ro Khanna, Sen. Warren, Sen. Sanders, to name a few).
Look closely, and Abrams is actually a centrist. In fact, she’s now a board member of the neoliberal think tank Center for American Progress, so she’ll probably be shooting down progressive platforms in no time.
2
I was so happy to finally see a rebuttal that demonstrated that Democrats are focused on working Americans. And Stacey is a brilliant speaker. While I don't really identify as a Democrat myself (more Green), I'm happy to vote for Democrats that address the needs of workers and families and people who need health care. Go Stacey!
9
Sadly, I was not overly impressed by Ms. Abram's speech last night. It sounded like the same, tired DNC talking points. Yes, the symbolism was not lost that she was delivering the response but at the same time, it was not a barn-burner. More importantly, I think the DNC squandered an opportunity to let Ms. Abrams do what she did best--i.e. build bridges and coalitions rather than polarize people. As much as Mr. Bouie celebrates her perceived embrace of identity politics, I think that was not at all what she was doing. If you listened to her story, she simply told her personal story and took a step towards establishing a moral high ground that was lost when spray tan Sam took office. People who saw that speech as an embrace of identity politics missed the point and risk sabotaging a bright future with their own personal baggage. Between Abrams, Harris and Booker, my vote would go with Abrams. Neither Harris nor Booker could have ever pulled off what Abrams did in Georgia and that is what people should take notice of.
8
@McDiddle
I heard a very different speech than you heard. Guess we hear it through the lenses we bring to the table. I heard a strong rebuttal of the Republican party and Trump in particular. I heard the construction of bridges in her response to the calamity of the State of Disunity from Trump.
8
Although I am puzzled by Bouie's article (as I have been with his previous ones) I am very heartened by the comments. What is the point of highlighting "identity" in the first place. Especially when it seems that is all the new left Democrats have to sell. AOC and her cohorts are consumed by the crusade of their message, which then presents as intolerant tyranny. Basically, they say our time has come, we are here, we are here because of our color and numbers and identity and you have to accept us and give us a full place at the table. Yet when pressed on real ideas for real issues they come up short, And if challenged for that deficit they play the patriarchal oppression card. Nice work if you can get it. Not sure this fad will last or the real Democratic party, addled by identity paralysis of its own, will have much use for them when the dust settles. Just saying.
19
@ST
"Yet when pressed on real ideas for real issues they come up short" You probably have not heard about the Green New Deal or the 70% tax rate proposal. That would be a good place to start.
2
@Ken
Thank you for proving my point, those proposals are fantasies and, well, come up short of mature realistic policy
2
Obama got elected president because he focused on the issue that he was the BEST CHOICE for the job, and he did not focus on gender, racial, ethnic, or color identity.
That worked because the vast majority of Americans want to think of themselves as people who vote for the best choice, regardless of
racial, gender, color identity, etc.
That was probably the most important reason Obama won the presidency twice and Hillary lost her election.
There is a lesson there.
47
@David
Exactly correct. Obama knew how to win. Others who would pick up the mantle for the Democratic Party have to demonstrate the same ability. Ideas and rhetoric are not enough; political reality cannot be ignored or wished away.
11
@David
Sort of ironic that Hilary played identity politics to the hilt and in spite of being Democratic royalty could not capitalize on her opportunity and beat the weakest republican candidate ever to run for President. Obama came out of nowhere and mostly shunned the us versus them attitude of this columnist and easily won two elections against fairly strong mainstream republicans.
@David
A lot of people voted for Obama because he was African-American. But you’re right, he never appealed (overtly) to race, and that certainly helped to get him elected.
I greatly admire Ms. Abrams's skilled employment of identity politics as a tool to improve the greater good and lift all boats. The Democratic Party needs to remember that it's far too easy for less skilled practitioners of identity politics (or more bigoted practitioners, witness the anti-Semitism and arguable anti LGBT of leaders behind the Women's March) to raise concerns that it's only a tool for retribution against whites or anyone else viewed as being "privileged" or "establishment." Figuring out who fits those definitions and what "punishment," if any, is warranted is a dangerous game that the Democrats will greatly need to avoid, as Trump and the Republicans are going to try to goad them into doing so. As long as their politicians like Abrams (and Booker and Warren so far, for example) keep things positive and focus on how everyone of every identity wins, we'll be OK. Exactly whose job in the Democratic party right now is it to make sure everyone stays on message and that happens in the next election?
5
America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
There is a difference between having a proud identity and identity politics. America's basic problem at the moment is the lack of a collective identity and sense of purpose. We are all in one way or another hyphenated Americans. However, when the primary identity becomes the adjective before the hyphen rather than the noun, American, it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to develope the sense of collective purpose necessary to make real progress for any, let alone all, Americans.
By and large, even in the much more divisive and divided days of the Viet Nam War, people thought of themselves primarily as Americans. and when in the midst of that war our nation first landed people on the moon, there was a genuine sense of American excitement and pride.
We need to reclaim that sense of the commonweal, if we are to make things better for any, let alone all, of the identities that comprise America. After all, unlike almost every other country, ours was not founded on millenium-old ethnic continuity but, rather, by a set of principles largely embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, for the most part, we measure both our successes and failures by the degree we are living up to those continually evolving principles.
Yes, America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
11
"She represents a repudiation of the idea that Democrats must downplay “identity” to appeal to the country at large."
If Mr. Bouie would like to express his own opinions on the subject, he is entitled. But compared with the speech I heard Stacey Abrams deliver last night, this is a gross mischaracterization of what she said.
11
It’s a subtle argument - she’s not arguing my identity over yours, she is arguing that we can all identify with the need for healthcare, the need for diversity, etc which cuts across (intersects) all of our individual identities. I’m Irish, but I need healthcare - not just for me and other Irish Americans but for all americans
14
There is an unspoken corollary to identity politics: "we need to take every opportunity to punish the white patriarchy, because institutional racism means that they're usually getting away with it."
Look at the reaction to the Covington High School kid - he got busted "smirking while white," so people who practice identity politics thought they needed to go all in and tear him down. Famous people with fabulous wealth, like the actor Ron Perlman, somehow thought it was their responsibility to strike a blow against this minor.
Look at what's not happening with Justin Fairfax - he's not being railroaded out of office, even though this is supposedly the moment when we believe women by default. The reason is clear; the power of #metoo is supposed to be used to demolish the white patriarchy, not to remove men of color from positions where they're already under-represented.
This is the problem with identity politics; it leads us to a place where white men who do stupid things as children (or, in Nick Sandmann's case, just look at the wrong person the wrong way) are gleefully "busted" and opportunistically barred from power for life, while a man of color who may have sexually assaulted a woman is treated with the utmost care (instead of the Al Franken treatment).
These examples are starting to pile up, so it's no longer possible to dismiss them as fiction. This is where identity politics is taking us.
34
@Patrick
Respectfully, those are different take-aways then what I see. "Identity politics" means recognizing the diverse needs that different people (colors, ethnicities, ages, background, etc) have at different points in their life.
If the Covington kid, wasn't wearing a MAGA hat and appeared less smug then perhaps people would have viewed the situation with a little more tolerance.
Your anecdotes are not evidence that can be applied uniformly. The Justin Fairfax example is not a clear one, maybe waiting until more info or evidence is collected before making a judgement?
p.s. your writing makes it clear that you are a white guy (as am I) and that you are expressing you own form of identity politics
2
@Patrick 100 percent correct and this is why Trump will be re-elected.
1
Obama pulled this off enough to get elected twice. Not sure Ms. Abrams has the same skills but only time will tell.
2
So from a background of whiter manual labor types, the Democrat rebuttal changed to a framing picture of mostly non-white women.
Not sure if picking the right 'framing group' is the big leadership breakthrough needed. I'd rather hear someone talk without the chorus line.
10
I saw a woman who lost her election and is now making a career out of resentment. I can't imagine a worse national image.
33
@Mike Livingston
Resentment? Not sure how you see that in her response to Trump's mess of a speech. I heard inclusion, hope, and recognition of each individual as unique and worthy of respect.
8
@Mike Livingston She lost her election because of racist voter suppression policies, including her opponent's team walking around some neighborhoods and illegally 'collecting' (aka confiscating) mail-in ballots. And now Stacey's suing the state for mishandling the election. She's fighting for the right of every Georgian to have their vote count. That means a lot to a lot of us.
4
@Mike Livingston It might seem that is what is going on, but Stacey Abrams doesn't do or say things without thinking them through very carefully beforehand.
2
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis of a wonderful speech - both the message and delivery. Your white colleagues on PBS were dismissive of Ms. Abrams - this is the real racism. I am a OBS subscriber but last night I was appalled by all panelists except Ms. Jean- Pierre.
5
Yes, pick of the Democrat litter alright.
Owes the IRS $50,000; has over $170,000 in credit card debt. She cannot manage her own household budget but she would make a great governor/senator/president.
Right, sure.
23
@Truthbeknown
As she said in her speech, her father with cancer needed medical treatment, and she has another family member who needed help. For those very good reasons she got into debt. She has a schedule to pay it off. This reflects the common experience of far more Americans than you seem to realize.
Brian Kemp had much larger financial problems, and the governor before him had millions in debt. Trump blew off $3.4 billion in debts in the 1990s as a business man (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/nyregion/donald-trump-taxes-debt.html), in addition to his $40 million debt to Deutsche Bank in 2009.
Have you ever criticized Trump's billion dollar mountains of debt? If his tax returns were exposed, who knows how much else would be revealed. If Trump cannot manage his own household budget but he would make a great president. Not. In two years, he added $2 trillion to the national debt.
Stacey Abrams took care of her family. Bless her.
20
@Truthbeknown
Deutsche Bank, bank for the Russians and Trump, refused to loan the impoverished Trump millions in 2016 when he was running for office. Let's see his tax returns! He didn't contribute to our national well-being for at least 18 years by playing with tax loopholes and that makes him a patriotic citizen? Hmm!
12
@Truthbeknown If only a mysterious benefactor would pay off her debt like Brett Kavanaugh’s $200k credit card debt.
By all means, demonize a politician who is paying her own way through student loans and idolize those who get from lobbyists and foreign intelligence.
16
I see a lot of optimism in the Democrats but I don't see substance. Pie in the sky ideas that will eventually be walked back and converted to agendas brokered by lobbyists.
Have fun and keep on "High Fiving" but when reality sets in the Democrats are going to have tons of explaining to do..
20
Abrams' eloquent rebuke of Trump's campaign rally thinly disguised as a state of the union address should have been the actual state of the union address. If Trump is the face of the Republican party and Abrams is the face of the Democratic party, the future bodes well for our country.
7
There is nothing "democratic" about identity politics. Indeed, the United States used "identity politics" for much of its history to enslave and exclude African-Americans, marginalize women, and keep gays and lesbians in the shadows.
The left-wing's embrace of toxic identity politics - in which one's membership in a historically oppressed group outweighs any individual's worth and is wielded now to shame, vilify and pander - will only plant a bitter harvest for future generations of Americans.
I am waiting for a leader to appear who rejects the politics of division based on skin color, gender and sexual-orientation.
Since the left-wing has ceded all common sense to "intersectionalism" and identitarian group-think (and the right continues with its regular playbook of demeaning immigrants and other outsiders) I fear I will be waiting a long time.
30
@No Bandwagons
One's membership in a historically oppressed group will be deemed EQUAL to any UNoppressed individual's worth.
Staci was wonderful, she communicated to everyone and her message was full of substance. Ms. Abrams has been a warrior for justice for years and listening to an elite Commander in charge, many of us needed her to right the sinking ship.
We are all different but we are Americans first and we need to respect each other. Stop telling women how to live their lives, crocodile tears over made up abortion statements but no tears when we put children in cages, separated them from their parents and have no will to reunite them back with their families. Only the GOP who all came over on some boat have the rights to love there families?. Lets all be honest and do the best for America and hopefully the next generation of people will do better than this generation is doing. Thank God for Nancy,Stacy and the progressive Democrats who are going to right this ship
11
Congratulations to Abrams, Kamala Harris, and Andrew Gillum for attracting much support and national exposure from the nation's mainstream news organizations. Too bad Latinx Democratic officeholders and candidates do not receive the same level of love and attention from decision-makers in broadcast news and social media networks. There was not much reported about Lupe Valdéz who could have become the first Latina governor of Texas, or David Garcia who ran for Arizona's highest office. Both are from racist states like Georgia and Florida. But nothing of significance about them in the national media. The latter is completely oblivious to the Latinx community. Worse, they really neither care nor want to know more about the largest community of color, youngest demographic, and trillion-dollar consumer market in the U.S. Maybe the Latinx community should create its own political party since for generations they continue to be ignored by both the Republican and Democratic parties.
3
@Califas
Don't you see the irony here? The constant beat of "what about the _______ community?" is dividing us and getting us nowhere.
So the author says that Democrat leaders are proud of identity politics. Last time around, those same leaders were proud to hitch their wagon to Hillary and her coterie of Elites.
How do you know this is a winning formula ?
The last one surely wasn't.
17
@G
It's called the Democratic Party. And for good reason.
@G The problem with this argument is that Hillary Clinton actually won the tainted 2016 election, but was denied office by a cheater. Stacey Abrams actually won the tainted Georgia governor election, but was denied office by a cheater. And now the same cheaters think they can purge Virginia of its duly elected Democrats. If only as many people would get upset about these as got upset about that bad, tainted no-call in that football game!
Sorry Mr. Bouie - to win elections candidates must demonstrate accomplishments, intelligence, commitment to advance the interests of all Americans. Barack Obama did not campaign on "vote for me because I'm black" but "yes WE can!" He won because he is articulate, intelligent, and demonstrated on working for the country as a whole, and not appealing to "identity."
Hillary Clinton explicitly appealed to those who wanted a woman for President, and lost the vote of 52% of white women.
I hope that Ms. Abrams succeeds because of her intelligence, commitment to values good for all Americans, and ability to accomplish. If she runs as a "black woman" we well might have to tolerate 4 more years...
14
Little early to be high-fiving. Have see what the numbers look like in 2020.
12
My sense is that following up Steve Beshear with Stacey Abrams for delivering the state of the union rebuttal expands the definition of what the Democratic Party stands for- it expands the big tent include good people of all kinds.
And much like that identity expansion in the Democratic Party, Stacey Abrams' identity as a black woman is expanded and made more descriptive with the host of unique accomplishments that make Abrams who she is: the daughter who supported her parents through her father's battle with cancer, the negotiator praised by Georgia Senate Republicans for her bipartisan "brilliance", the business mind who won several Georgia Chamber of Commerce awards, the legislator who received many awards for her leadership and effectiveness driving (instead of just talking about) tangible legislative change, and the intellectual with a host of international fellowships demonstrating her keen understanding of the world outside U.S. "walls."
Let's not limit ourselves, Democrats. It is almost an embarrassment of riches that we have so much good to offer our country, and the world, from completely different kinds of leaders in our party.
Big tent.
12
She spoke about a number of subjects that many average Americans can relate to, such as voter suppression. Those are the types of issues that ALL Democrats should talk about repeatedly so that they don't seem to be fixated on just a few issues. No need to "downplay" identity but don't make it the only focus of attention either.
7
I think she is very wise to seek a position in state and local politics first as a foundation for a run for the US House or Senate. Once she has served as a governor, she will have an experiential basis for a presidential run.
5
@Rebecca Hogan And I personally will support her all the way to the Presidency.
As to my views of the charlatan-in-chief's so-called "speech", I won't even discuss it. Suffice it to say that the rambling mixture of platitudes and hyperbole entertained for about 3 minutes, then descended into total boredom and monotony. With that in mind I hoped to find inspiration in the Democratic response. I don't know much about Stacey Abrams, but was optimistic that I might hear some stirring and concrete thoughts about how we could get on a path leading us out of the mire we're bogged down in. Alas, I found no such inspiration. Her speech sounded like she was running for office, extolling her personal achievements and talking about her time in Georgia, working with her colleagues of both parties, that seemed to make us want to believe that the Peach Tree State was Nirvana. Why didn't I ever know that before?! Bottom line is that I hate political speeches filled with platitudes. It was fine that her dad gave his coat to a homeless man and walked in the rain, alone, until his family picked him up but there are millions of unsung acts of kindness taking place around the world all the time. The person who can step over the homeless sleeping on the street shouldn't find comfort in hearing Abrams' story because charity starts in the heart and is not transferable like a coat from one person to another. My point is that I heard nothing concrete about issues affecting our daily lives, and that is what I expect from politicians. Leave the sermons to the churches.
9
@ManhattanWilliamMy sentiments exactly, it was a non-response.
5
While I kept identity in mind as she spoke, I mainly just enjoyed hearing someone speak who was articulate, coherent, and compassionate. The contrast was compelling.
25
I am a lifelong Democrat in "the country at large" who has, over the years, become increasingly disaffected from the party.
What I saw the party leadership do to undermined the Bernie Sanders campaign has turned me into a rest-of-my-life Independent. I am no longer volunteering the hours and hours I used to do every two years, and I have stopped donating to any Democratic party appeal, telling them I only donate to candidates who I believe will represent me and my values.
That said, I see politicians such as Stacy Abrams and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the Democrats (and our democratic) future. Not because they are women, and not because they are women of color, but because they represent the future of this country and have the potential to become great leaders.
I hope to live long enough to have an opportunity to vote for either one of them, or both, because I see in them leaders who can represent me and the rest of the nation. And not just the wealthy elite.
23
@avrds
"Not because they are women, and not because they are women of color, but because they represent the future of this country and have the potential to become great leaders."
I think you've got it backwards: they're the future of this country not just because they're capable leaders, but BECAUSE they're women of color. It's a recognition that power and potential belong to every one of us, not just the white men who have monopolized the wielding of power and the making of policy for so long.
With respect, our political system is designed for two parties; independents serve as spoilers for the party most opposed to your principles. If you want to see progressive change, then help make the Democratic Party live up to your expectations. If you like Abrams and AOC, then work to fill the party with more leaders like them.
1
@Jason - I hear what you are saying, and believe me, I have invested years in trying to get the Democratic Party to not just meet my expectations but better represent and work for the rest of the country. To be more democratic.
I haven't given up hope -- I think the future is looking better and better with leaders such as Abrams and Cortez -- and I'm sure we are in for some lively debates over the next year. But I have given up on just holding my nose at the ballot box. That's what I consider throwing away my vote.
3
@avrds Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. Why would the Party throw their support behind someone who isn't a Democrat?
2
“We believe in equality for all, and privileges for none. This is a belief that each American regardless of background has equal standing in the public forum, all of us. Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive, rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come.”
― Barbara Jordan, We Rise: Speeches by Inspirational Black Women
I sure do miss her and her wisdom.
28
Bouie seems to believe that "diversity" is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. Diversity, as he presents it, however, is outer appearance; he seems to be advocating group think in policies.
At the end of his book, Friends Divided, the eminent historian Gordon S. Wood wrote: "To be an American is not to be someone, but to believe in something." Neither Trump nor Abrams talked about ideas and policies. One had preached to his base and the other to the converted. In 2020, we will see which polarity will be victorious, as each "tent" is becoming more exclusive.
In reality, the only "inclusion' of importance is where one stands in the income pyramid, which has become narrower and higher since the Taft-Goldwater-Reagan-Bush/Bush-Trump ascendancy. Neither Trump nor Abrams addressed this fact, nor indicated that it is a factor to be addressed politically. Both sides of the divide are bankrupt.
14
There is a difference between having a proud identity and identity politics. America's basic problem at the moment is the lack of a collective identity and sense of purpose. We are all in one way or another hyphenated Americans. However, when the primary identity becomes the adjective before the hyphen rather than the noun, American, it becomes exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to develope the sense of collective purpose necessary to make real progress.
By and large, even in the much more divisive and divided days of the Viet Nam War, people thought of themselves primarily as Americans. and when our nation first landed people on the moon, there was a genuine sense of American excitement and pride.
We need to reclaim that sense of the commonweal, if we are to make things better for any, let alone all, of the identities that comprise America. After all, unlike almost every other country, ours was not founded on millenium-old ethnic continuity but, rather, by a set of principles largely embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, for the most part, we measure both our successes and failures by the degree we are living up to those continually evolving principles.
America is a work in progress, and that is a good thing.
14
Democrats and Reps (to a lesser extent) need to drop identity politics. They are ineffective and schismatic and only work in further demarcating the boundaries between groups not in bringing people together under one identity: American. Doubling down on this stuff will only lead to more Trumpian clones or worse. Intersectionality is a religious framework and religions tend towards absolutes. This is not what we need.
40
I am a big Stacey Abrams fan but she missed an opportunity to respond to Trump's words of fear of immigrants, his inability to act to support the poor where their remains so much inequality, the need to provide the safety net of health insurance for all.
She spent the first minutes(the most important time in any speech which should be devoted to big differences in political goals between Dems and Republicans) on her personal life not the bigger picture, plight of the people left out of the Great American dream.
This was truly a missed opportunity allowing Trump to lay out the Soft Power of our Country in a narrow Conservative but increasingly conciliatory tone.
6
@cdb Any time a candidate tells the story of their family's struggle, the obstacles they overcame through hard work, self-sacrifice, faith, education, etc., I always think, "So we don't need to change anything to make it easier for the next generations, huh?" Unless said candidate goes on to explain how he or she did not have to work as hard, sacrifice her dreams, worry as much, overcome the same obstacles as her parents because they demanded and voted for the change that was needed, invested their tax dollars where it mattered, etc., the audience is left staring a candidate who is successful in life and thinking, "If she did it, anybody can. No problems for government to solve." That's what Republicans always say.
2
Paint me as less excited. She lost, and if the Democrats turn their backs on the white working class again, they'll hand Trump a second term. Trump doesn't need more converts: he just has to hold on to the same people who voted for him in 2016.
36
@Andrew Maybe the democrats don't need the white working class as much as the white working class needs to learn to build coalition.
@Andrew Except that he won't hold on to those voters, especially in Pennsylvania. He has never tried to expand his base and that's a recipe for losing the 2020 election.
1
@Andrew If the Dems turn their backs on the white working class again, they will richly deserve to lose to Trump.
Republicans have been the masters of "identity politics" for the past 40 years. They have gone after white Christians with a litany of imagined grievances, telling their voters that they are the real "victims", that there is a "war on Christmas", and that only they are being left behind. Republicans saw a winning formula, and they've stuck to it.
Trump voters are identity voters. They vote their true interests. What, you say? They won't have better healthcare under the Republicans. Higher education will continue to be out of reach for them. But the mistake we Democrats make over and over is to think these are their interests. They are not.
Trump voters are interested in only one thing -- a president and a party that tell them that as white Christians, they are the "real" Americans, and the rest of us must be content with the scraps of second-class citizenship.
I'm glad that Ms. Abrams gave the speech she did. It was thoughtful. It was reasoned. And it was determined. Finally, a Democrat who isn't "afraid" of identity politics.
It's time for all Democrats running for office to walk away from Trump voters. They will never change. As long as Trump tells them they're better than the rest of us, they're happy.
Democratic candidates need to start reaching out to those of us who aren't white Christians, you know, those voters who have been loyal to Democrats decade after decade after decade, with not much to show for it? It's really that simple. Respect your base.
59
@Donegal Thank you for articulating something that has been a slow realization for me--a citizen of a red state. I used to rail at people in my state for voting against their interests. After the 2016 election I recognized that I was attributing to them the wrong interests. They are not financial security, health care, jobs, etc, they are interested in maintaining what the believe to be their rightful place in a certain racial hierarchy Also, abortion. So I agree it's time for Dems to walk away. Cultivate the next generation of voters.
13
@Jennifer "After the 2016 election I recognized that I was attributing to them the wrong interests. They are not financial security, health care, jobs, etc, they are interested in maintaining what the believe to be their rightful place in a certain racial hierarchy "
This is an interesting theory, but what evidence do you have that these voters' primary (or any!) interest is "maintaining their rightful place in a certain racial hierarchy" ?
3
@TRF It was stated that the evidence was personal observation. Do you not know what "evidence" is?
1
We are told there is no such thing as "Race"
but then Mr. Bouie, you, yes you, note that
Ms. Abrams stood in front of a racially diverse crowd
and spoke about the need for "Identity Politics".
Why does the tincture of anyone's skin matter ?
The only thing that matters in America is how much
money you have, the less you have the less political power
and the less effective legal rights you have.
It is not 1959 anymore, Mr. Bouie,
it is 2019.
Speak to and for all Americans,
not just some self-identified group.
73
I am a middle-aged white woman living in Southeast Atlanta, and I can promise you that Stacey Abrams captured, and still has, the hearts and minds of the majority of Georgia. The only way that Brian Kemp could win the governorship was by cheating, and that he did, in addition to suppressing as much of the black vote as possible.
While we recognize that Stacey Abrams is a fitting star for the national political stage, and agree that she was the perfect choice to give the Democratic response to a racist, narcissistic, opportunistic Trump, we need her here in the New South! She is a true representation of our values as well as the Democratic party, which has benefitted from the hard work of African American women who deliver at the polls.
We are proud of Ms. Abrams and what she represents. We are tired of being represented by the likes of Senator David Perdue, who serves only his own interests and impedes our progress. Georgia deserves better, and whenever Stacey Abrams is ready for her next run, we are fired up and ready to go!
160
@styleratl: Your post just makes me SO happy! Thank you for your strength and character. You and Stacey et al. just get after it!
4
Great point contrasting Abrams' speech to last year's (forgotten) speech, thank you. As a white male, I've been appalled at how my fellows, even some members of my own family, have utterly failed to realize that racial and social inequalities in the system actually make us all weaker. At a time of prosperity, when we could finally be addressing these issues to make us into an even greater nation, the Republican minority -- yes, for they represent a minority view -- are bullying us in completely the wrong direction, suppressing votes, and encouraging racial divisions at the behest of the most corrupted, hypocritical President ever to come into office. It's disgusting, and I hope Abrams and the many other members of this new coalition can keep steering the Democratic party in the right direction. It's the only hope we have of Making America Great Again.
16
All I will remember from her rebuttal is the green screen. Is anyone going to look into this?
Ms. Abrams is the rightful governor of Georgia.
Brian Kemp lied and cheated, removed voters names from rolls and engaged in voter fraud to win.
The Republicans mantra is; either vote for us or we are eliminating voting rights.
And that is pretty much how they operate across the board, the biggest voting fraud in our history being Trump in the White House.
26
Stacey Abrams - a humble African-American woman from modest beginnings who scraped her way to elected office through intelligence, articulateness, and compassion - sounded like a real American who embodies the American journey.
Donald Trump - a spoiled rotten dirty diaper of a human being born with a golden pacifier in his mouth who rigged his way into office via white supremacy, Kremlin assistance and FBI hi jinks - sounded like a guy unfamiliar with the English language trying to channel the spirit of Mussolini.
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap."
- Napoleon Bonaparte
When Gov. Adlai Stevenson was running for president in the 1950s, a supporter purportedly said to him:
“Every thinking person in America will be voting for you.”
Stevenson replied, “I’m afraid that won’t do — I need a majority.”
Let's hope America's collective IQ inches slightly higher in 2020.
338
@Socrates Brilliant response, yours and Stacy's.
13
@Jacob
I'm quite familiar with the 1952 and 1956 elections, Governor Stevenson and President Eisenhower.
15
@Socrates Stacey Abrams burned the flag of Georgia, behavior that hardly makes her worthy of representing the great state of Georgia in the US Senate--or making the Democrats' response to the State of the Union address last night.
Further, Stacey Abrams fiscally irresponsible, as described in an opinion piece by none other than Michele Goldberg of the NYT. According to Ms. Goldberg, Stacey Abrams is more than $200,000 in personal debt, including $54,000 to the IRS. And Ms. Abrams gave $50,000 to her (failed) campaign instead of paying down her IRS or student loan debt. You must be kidding!
Ms. Goldberg's opinion piece tried to portray Ms. Abrams as working-class, whereas in fact she has a law degree from Yale, worked as a tax attorney, and co-founded a financial services firm.
Even now, 19 or 20 years after getting her law degree, Ms. Abrams still has an outstanding student loan balance of six figures and a five-figure balance due the IRS. Perhaps she needs to go back to Yale (or even a local community college) for a refresher course on personal finances.
How could anyone believe Ms. Abrams could possibly be a suitable candidate for the Senate or a leader of the Democratic party? This is not a matter of party or race or gender; it is about someone's blatant and longstanding inability to manage her personal finances responsibly, and to show respect for the state she hopes to represent. This is a very bad sign for someone the Democrats would like to be a leader.
5
The "identity" that Stacey Abrams represents is universal inclusion. Everyone belongs. The "identity" that Trump and the Republicans represents is an us against them, where white guys are the us and everyone else is a them. Trump plays zero sum game identity politics. The more any member of the "them" get ahead, the less one of the "us" gets ahead.
This is a divide and conquer approach and it got him into the White House, thanks to the electoral college coupled with rampant voter suppression. Unfortunately, as a governing platform, it is ripping us apart.
It is not identity politics if one supports all of those intentionally left out by zero sum exclusionary politics. Instead of divide and conquer, it's unite and restore democracy. This is what gets people so excited about Stacey Abrams.
This is the theme Democrats should push for as we move forward. Freedom is not a zero sum competition. Liberty and opportunity are not zero sum products. They are for all, even the white guys. They just haven't figured out whose on their side yet. That is the challenge.
134
I voted for Stacey Abrams in the recent Georgia race as well. I voted for her because she is smart, thoughtful, and she understands people. Not just black folks and white folks, but PEOPLE. She gets it. And she's not afraid to stick her neck out.
I also voted for her because she is great at working across the aisle to gain consensus on important issues. Abrams understands that governance is not about parties but about what can and needs to be accomplished by those who govern.
Abrams is an example of the direction progressives need to take to effect change in our country. She's got my vote if she runs for office again.
260
@Sandra E. I hope some day to have an opportunity to vote for her. She is remarkable.
8
Dr. King implored that we judge somebody by the content of their character, not the color of their skin (and I would presume that he'd include gender and sexual identification if he were still alive today).
If we continue to progress with the understanding that ALL are created equal, with the occasional law to assist in that endeavor, we'll be in fine shape.
I find Stacey Abrams ability to succinctly express the importance of letting ALL citizens vote with equal accessibility is impressive. And I hope she succeeds wildly.
The right to vote is not inherently a variably accessible activity, yet one's identity does play a role. It is interesting that that role is defined by the GOP. So, who's playing identity politics? Who needs create legislation to guarantee that which is defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
26
It is funny that a prevalent criticism of Trump's politics among "progressives"--promulgated by Bouie himself--is that it is "white identity politics." And yet they also argue that identity politics are not bad--people should not feel like they need to "downplay" identity. So--how is the critique of Trump's politics a critique at all?
The answer seems to be that white people--and white men, more particularly--are the one group that is not supposed to play identity politics. On the contrary, they are supposed to be good, obedient allies, helping the various other groups achieve their political ends. It seems inevitable that an increasing number of white voters are not going to find that argument particularly compelling.
85
@RC
"Rules for thee, not for me"
The Democrats have always been the party of identity politics, the Republicans are just finally catching up
19
@RC
The problem is that white identity politics aren't recognized as such. They're just "politics," and people use the specter of "identity politics to define and marginalize the discourse of non-white, non-male, non-heternormative groups—any group that deviates from the established norm.
Recognizing that dynamic is the key to true equality in political discourse.
13
@RC I don't think you're grasping the root of the critique of white identity politics.
The phrase "white identity politics" itself is a call-out, not against the idea of identity politics, but rather to illustrate that the entire history of American politics has been an unrecognized centering of whiteness. The fact that it hasn't been given a name until recently is testament to the near universal assumption that white is normal, mainstream, and default such that it hasn't *needed* a name. This critique, understood properly, is one of the many gauntlets thrown down by the movement of people of color and their allies to call out and combat white supremacy.
"What's a white person to do?" you seem to be asking. Instead of an honest confrontation with the legacy of white supremacy, you caricature an anti-racist white response as being akin to being "good, obedient allies." Your inclusion of "obedient" is key here. For you, a white person needs to be brainwashed, subservient in order to accept a vision that is critical of historically-constructed whiteness. There's not a whiff of recognition that many white people find that releasing the mind-forged manacles of white supremacy is liberating.
You're right that white men ought not to "play" identity politics. Most of the social problems we face are the scars that white identity politics have left on the face of this country.
19
This is so heartening and appears to be a truly effective strategy for pressing forward on progressive matters all across the board. Hooray!
8
Profoundly disappointed in Abrams response to the SOTU. It sounded more like a campaign speech than the Democratic response. Too "pleasant" and too much smiling. And too conciliatory. Abrams does not want to see Trump fail? This country has endured two years of Trump seeking to destroy this nation on a daily basis. Has that all been forgotten? Why does Trump get a pass? This is one of the reasons Democrats lose. We are simply "too nice." We need bolder, stronger, tougher voices who aren't afraid to call out Trump (and the GOP). I respect Stacey Abrams, but last night she did not demonstrate strong leadership.
14
@Tom Too nice? Give me a break. Democrats have done nothing but vilify this president at every opportunity since before Day One. Nice try.
1
Abrams is indeed impressive, and I certainly hope she'l run for Senate in 2020.
But I do worry that left-leaning pundits and the national democratic party are a little too enamored with identity politics. The echo chamber they're creating could be very dangerous for us in the 2020 Presidential election.
77
@Sparky
Exactly. As impressive as Abrams and Beto are, they were both recently defeated in their home states. It's not enough to have policies; you also have to be able to win elections.
45
@Sparky, there is a marked need for *progressive* identity politics to combat the rightwing, White Nationalist identity politics of Trump and the Republicans!
One cannot neatly separate out identity politics from social, economic, and moral ones, either.
We need to stop environmental racism, discrimination in hiring, wages, and housing. We need to provide equal opportunity for all, end police occupations of urban areas, end the scourge of voter suppression and expand democracy and provide health care for all at affordable rates.
Women's rights are important, as is fighting back against xenophobia and racism. We need to decry immigration and deportation policies that separate children from parents, and protest mass incarceration of blacks, unequal pay, the attack on gay rights, etc.
We need to raise the minimum wage to help urban minorities, ensure health care is a right, which helps the poor and minorities. We need to end sexual harassment and employment discrimination — we need to ensure equal employment opportunities.
If those be "identity" politics, we need more of them, not less!
The major economic issues of our times are inextricably bound up with the assaults on civil rights, civil liberties, the war on women and gays, minorities, immigrants, etc.
We should not set aside central issues about justice, identity, and common decency to pander to White Nationalists, xenophobia, racists, and misogynists.
12
@Pat
Or more accurately, "you also have to be able to win rigged Jim Crow elections that systematically disenfranchise a significant number of your supporters".
There....fixed....just Republistan elections are.
17
She was the absolute highlight of the night. Eloquent but not flowery and very pragmatic in her approach to rebutting the President and establishment. The backdrop was refreshing and evoked the future, one that is energetic and inclusive. Americans are longing for visionaries in government and I think everyone saw a sliver of that last night.
43
She'd wonderful, and she presented identity as a cause for celebration and admiration, not as a cry of foul or injury. For the latter, see Virginia and the Republican in line to take over after the Democratic reign of terror purge is over.
5
With all due respect, I beg to differ.
I voted for Ms. Abrams. She has shown herself to be highly intelligent, well-informed, politically experienced and savvy but decent nonetheless, and able to calmly but firmly challenge the majority Republican leadership on policies yet work with them to find solutions where she could do so without abandoning principles.
That is why I voted for her. Not because of her race, gender, etc.
Stacey's qualifications and appeal are not dependent upon her race or gender. To the contrary, identity politics will lead to the further Balkanization of the American body politic.
72
We cannot afford to be silent about identity, nor was Ms. Abrams!
Do not fall for or join in the attack on so-called “identity politics” — it is a red herring promulgated by the Right and is designed to hide its own systematic, clear, and cruel identity politics, which involves attacking women, blacks, minorities, immigrants, gays, etc.
We must fight back. A progressive message of hope, diversity and unity, and a call for expansion of rights, opportunities, and democracy and an end to bigotry, discrimination, and racism will work!
4
@Marsha Pembroke
For the record, I consider myself a liberal, New Deal Democrat (a picture of FDR hangs on the wall in my study). I hope for an end to bigotry, discrimination, and racism. But I don't see that as being incompatible with concern about where identity politics leads us.
I merely hope for the same day for which Dr. King hoped, when we are all judged upon the content of our individual characters, rather than the colors of our skins. That's all.
8
This has to be who we are. Not a patronizing token tent, but a party dedicated to inclusion and diversity of voices at the table. One steadfastly participated with and framed by people from all of America.
Combatting voter disenfranchisement, demanding inclusion and representation, repudiating hateful divisiveness and developing a rich economic soil for growth as vision for greatness is our path forward.
17
My parents tried to teach me not to engage in identity politics, but when they saw me wearing my sister's clothing, they rethought that. Not.
3
I was waiting to hear the call out that Trump never even mentioned Climate Change and cherry-picked which national disasters to highlight to avoid the shooting in nevada and to avoid highlighting the ideology held by those who have terrorized americans in recent years. I was hoping to hear her point out the illogical calls to form a new nuclear treaty with Russia after voluntarily tearing up our treaty with Iran - or the highlight of Iran as a boogy man when Saudi Arabia is just as guilty of destabilizing the middle east.
I really did appreciate her call outs about the recent efforts to restrict voting rights by GOP law makers, but I feel like she didn't press hard enough on how incompatible those actions are with the motivation of supporting individual freedoms - and I am quite disappointed that no one is pointing out that Trump promised to push down drug prices and help out senior citizens while simultaneously launching demagogy targeting Socialism.
I was really waiting to hear a direct call out of Trump's lies that would force a larger discussion about how ridiculously untruthful that man is.
I think her response was solid but underwhelming, and I am saddened that it wasn't coordinated with Sanders who cut a real reply to the lies, provided a solid forward facing vision and reached out a hand in unity across the aisle. Some of the establishment is solidly anti-Bernie and progress and we need to stop that, it only hurts the democratic cause at large.
5
@Alex she spoke only 7 minutes can't cover it all although I think she did quite well.
9
@Alex...As a prominent Democrat pointed out on one of the Democratic cable programs, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He is registered as an Independent in Vermont, and he is an avowed "democratic" socialist. Why would the Democratic Party coordinate it's propaganda response with another party? The DNC didn't heck with Jill Stein, did it?
The best political identification is to identify yourself with the best option and to chose the best regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. Ideally you should not overplay identity, and not downplay it, simply not play it at all. As a PhD professional, I did not want to be the best Latino student, I just wanted to be the best I could be. Period. I don't want to be the best Latino Engineer, I want to be the best Engineer I can be. Period (I am recognized as a good expert among my peers, not among my Latino peers as being Latino is completely irrelevant in terms of being a good engineer). When you try to be the best you can be without identifying with any group, then race, gender and all other such issues become irrelevant. Stacy Abrams seems a good politician, and her gender and race has nothing to do with it, only her ideas.
64
Stacey Abrahms is very impressive. I hope to hear more from her regardless of what she chooses to do next.
59
Stacey Abrahms didn't offer a rebuttal, but a true vision of what the new Democratic party has to offer and a vision of how the country could and should look like.
She was clearly laying out that one can govern, but at the same time follow the rule of law. (with investigations) She pointed out that we can disagree, but there is a way to go about finding consensus without hurting people in the process. She was insightful when talking about wanting ALL of us to succeed, but doing so in a very truthful way.
I have been saying for awhile now that republicans are irrelevant. The old idea of trying to appeal to ''moderates'' (republican lite) voters has not worked. The country is crying out for Progressive representation and approximately 100,000,000 potential voters sit out in any given election.
She was talking to them, as well as us.
276