One of the frustrating aspects of the current intra-party flareup is the fact that ideologically, we’re pretty much all on the same page. And our side won that ideological battle.
- Minimum wage. See headline today: “Democrats unveil plan for a $15 minimum wage.”
- Social Security. Remember when cutting it was all the rage, fueled by Third Way and other deficit scolds on the supposed left? Well, the party platform now proclaims expansion as the official party position: “Democrats will expand Social Security.” And Democrats (led by Elizabeth Warren) have followed along. Even Hillary Clinton, by the way.
- Income inequality. A conservative Wall Street Journal columnist whined: “[T]he platform draft’s core narrative is inequality, the injustice that inequality entails, and the need to rectify it through redistribution.” And aside from a few red state outliers, the core has been adopted party wide.
The issues that suddenly divide us? Apparently whether we, as a party, will be unyielding in a woman’s right to choose. Taking a page out of the right’s playbook, Jane Sanders called fighting for that right “political correctness.” I see it as core and just as central to who we are as a party as the bullet points above. We’re apparently arguing over whether economic equality would keep immigrant families from being torn apart by immigration authorities (it wouldn’t), or keep African Americans from being shot in the streets and killed in jail cells (it wouldn’t), or keep Donald Trump from grabbing a woman’s pussy (it hasn’t).
Those aren’t divisions based on an economic debate. The economic debate, internally, is settled. That debate is over those who think it’s the only issue that matters, and women and people of color who know damn well it isn’t.
Furthermore, there is a shocking inability from some white, mostly male liberals to accept that in our new party, voices of women and people of color are now central to the narrative. That yes, it’s time to cede the stage to a new generation of leadership. In a recent comment thread, I wrote about our need to show “solidarity with the people that matter in our party,” referring to women and people of color. And believe it or not, a bunch of men were triggered. As I responded, “Only a white male would hear the words ‘solidarity with the people that matter in our party,’ and somehow get ‘white men DON’T matter’ out of that.” Yet amazingly, that’s exactly what happened.
So if we’re on the same ideological page but the battle lines appear to be race- and gender-based, what does that mean?
It means that while people are pretending that they’re arguing over policy, fact is, that’s a facade to mask a battle over the party’s changing of the guard. Those who have enjoyed the privilege of race, gender, and class are feeling uncomfortable and threatened by those who are ascendant in our coalition.
Australian Aboriginal activist Lilla Watson summed up one of her people’s proverbs as such:
If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time.
But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.
As a movement, that’s where we need to be. That’s the point where we’ll be truly a unified, effective, and equitable movement. And that requires we all work together for all of our causes. And if you’re a liberal saying shit like defending a woman’s right to choose is “political correctness,” or uttering the words “identity politics,” then you’re doing it wrong. Very wrong.
And yes, this comment thread will be a shit show, but consider this a first step in a long conversation. Because we’re doomed as a movement if we don’t get this right.