“We must not be anything other than what we are.” – Maaza Mengiste
Identity politics refers to using the interests of certain groups for political benefits. This has always been a topic of concern and with the presidential elections outcome, some people believe identity politics affected voting patterns and the result. In the articles “The End of Identity Politics” by Mark Lilla and “The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class” by Derek Thompson, the authors talk about what identity politics is and the greater impact that it has on us. One being a self-declared liberal and the other a journalist disappointed by the election results, both authors openly display their views on the anticlimax of the event. And that leaves …show more content…
He starts with how the liberals have spent the better time after the election results trying to figure out where Clinton went wrong. They concluded that Clinton failed the working class and therefore, had a weak stance and lost. But the truth, according to the author is, that Clinton sent the message too clear and did not fail the working class, instead her message was perceived and it made the other groups concerned. Since the interests of a certain group did not benefit the interests of another, they were terrified of losing their haven, which made them inclined towards Trump. He uses a firm tone when he talks about how Clinton had plans to help the working class, including the Black, Hispanic and Latinos, and they still chose the other …show more content…
He has no fear in pointing out and bluntly criticizing the viewpoint of Trump’s voters when he says, “Under Obama, that was dangerous government overreach, but under Trump, it’s a jobs plan by a guy they know won’t let Muslims and Mexicans cut in line to get work renovating highways and airports.” He questions the future of the country, which is in the hands of people with contrasting principles. One of them being “pluralist social democracy” and the other one “white nativist protectionism” and he asserts on how they are both at a thin gap and impossible to achieve at the same time. Finally, he paints the bigger picture, starkly, that maybe naming people is just a way to shrug off the truth that everyone will always put their best interests forward, no matter what the cost
Identity politics refers to using the interests of certain groups for political benefits. This has always been a topic of concern and with the presidential elections outcome, some people believe identity politics affected voting patterns and the result. In the articles “The End of Identity Politics” by Mark Lilla and “The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class” by Derek Thompson, the authors talk about what identity politics is and the greater impact that it has on us. One being a self-declared liberal and the other a journalist disappointed by the election results, both authors openly display their views on the anticlimax of the event. And that leaves …show more content…
He starts with how the liberals have spent the better time after the election results trying to figure out where Clinton went wrong. They concluded that Clinton failed the working class and therefore, had a weak stance and lost. But the truth, according to the author is, that Clinton sent the message too clear and did not fail the working class, instead her message was perceived and it made the other groups concerned. Since the interests of a certain group did not benefit the interests of another, they were terrified of losing their haven, which made them inclined towards Trump. He uses a firm tone when he talks about how Clinton had plans to help the working class, including the Black, Hispanic and Latinos, and they still chose the other …show more content…
He has no fear in pointing out and bluntly criticizing the viewpoint of Trump’s voters when he says, “Under Obama, that was dangerous government overreach, but under Trump, it’s a jobs plan by a guy they know won’t let Muslims and Mexicans cut in line to get work renovating highways and airports.” He questions the future of the country, which is in the hands of people with contrasting principles. One of them being “pluralist social democracy” and the other one “white nativist protectionism” and he asserts on how they are both at a thin gap and impossible to achieve at the same time. Finally, he paints the bigger picture, starkly, that maybe naming people is just a way to shrug off the truth that everyone will always put their best interests forward, no matter what the cost