- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,769
- Reaction score
- 1,936
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The following linked page describes in detail the how, what, and why of identity politics so I can keep redundancy to a minimum: Dismantling The Roadblock To Prosperity.
Identity politics harms us all, some quite severely, and all so needlessly.
I want identity politics to stop.
Identity politics, as practiced in our recent national election, is where a candidate's campaign, either directly or indirectly, emotionally appeals to the race, gender, religion, or sexual preference of the voter, sending a "good" or "bad" message about the voter(s) themselves, in a vote-pandering attempt.
This the candidate does in lieu of focusing on relevant domestic economics, foreign policy, and the candidate's own qualifications.
Thereby the candidate makes the election all about the voters instead of about the candidate him or her self.
The result for those whose candidate wins is a brief "feel good about myself".
The result for those whose candidate loses is a much longer and deeper "feel bad about myself".
Understandably, identity politics divides us emotionally by race, gender, religion, and sexual preference, and that division is destructive and damaging to our citizenry and our nation.
Both Donald and Hillary pandered for votes with blatant identity politics, caring only about getting votes, not caring about the deep division they were doing to our national psyche.
Many other candidates did the same.
It's as if the candidates don't think the general public can understand domestic economics, foreign policy, or what qualifies the candidate for the job, making identity politics a cynical method of vote pandering.
Since the election I have had an increase in clients coming to my office for counseling. Nearly all of them supported Hillary. They are suffering from false guilt and shame about their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, feeling worthless. So pardon me if I'm a little more sensitive to the damage caused by identity politics than others might be.
As the link above presents, identity politics taps deep into our family-of-origin issues that are unresolved .. and, depending on how much dysfunction they were subjected to as kids, can cause serious psychological trauma for those whose candidate loses. It's estimated that nearly all of us were raised in some degree of dysfunctional family .. so there's a lot of people who get "triggered" by identity politics.
Some Hillary supporters are suicidal. Some Hillary supporters want to harm others. Many Hillary supporters are feeling feelings they were set up for by identity politics. They're really hurting, and only a tiny handful are seeking professional help to cope.
Post election, identity politics is still causing riots and demonstrations and verbal acting out among both the electorate and candidates. Identity politics keeps the hurt active.
I must admit that I don't have a solution for how to get identity politics to stop. It's a quick and dirty approach to campaigning and I suppose, until we're fortunate to have more ethical candidates running for office, it's likely to continue.
In my opinion, unless a candidate's jurisdiction includes a law on the books that discriminates with respect to economic opportunity (education, job, financial transactions) against a race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, only then should they decry that law and pledge to overturn it. Any other "comment" about race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is simply pandering via identity politics. Even so commenting about a law not in that candidate's jurisdiction smacks of identity politics in a more "subtle" manner.
Yes, we have freedom of assembly in our country, and we can choose whom we want to assemble with and without. We the rank and file citizens have that freedom. So, yes, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, hiring women at Hooters, country clubs that discriminate, like it or not .. all allowed by U.S. freedom of assembly appeal.
Arguably, because the KKK advocates "White supremacy" including in economic opportunity, criticizing it is justified.
But making your campaign all about race, gender, religion and sexual orientation, as so many of our candidates did this election, simply sets up the "faithful" to experience personal worthlessness should that candidate lose.
Yes, freedom of speech allows identity politics. And I suppose most would say that identity politics is not the same as falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
But I see the harm done by blatant, irrelevant, mass appeal to identity politics.
I have the freedom not to like identity politics, and indeed I don't like it.
I despise it.
For now, I must execute my disgust for it in the voting booth.
Maybe one day, we'll get ethically better candidates, and we'll all be better off.
Identity politics harms us all, some quite severely, and all so needlessly.
I want identity politics to stop.
Identity politics, as practiced in our recent national election, is where a candidate's campaign, either directly or indirectly, emotionally appeals to the race, gender, religion, or sexual preference of the voter, sending a "good" or "bad" message about the voter(s) themselves, in a vote-pandering attempt.
This the candidate does in lieu of focusing on relevant domestic economics, foreign policy, and the candidate's own qualifications.
Thereby the candidate makes the election all about the voters instead of about the candidate him or her self.
The result for those whose candidate wins is a brief "feel good about myself".
The result for those whose candidate loses is a much longer and deeper "feel bad about myself".
Understandably, identity politics divides us emotionally by race, gender, religion, and sexual preference, and that division is destructive and damaging to our citizenry and our nation.
Both Donald and Hillary pandered for votes with blatant identity politics, caring only about getting votes, not caring about the deep division they were doing to our national psyche.
Many other candidates did the same.
It's as if the candidates don't think the general public can understand domestic economics, foreign policy, or what qualifies the candidate for the job, making identity politics a cynical method of vote pandering.
Since the election I have had an increase in clients coming to my office for counseling. Nearly all of them supported Hillary. They are suffering from false guilt and shame about their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, feeling worthless. So pardon me if I'm a little more sensitive to the damage caused by identity politics than others might be.
As the link above presents, identity politics taps deep into our family-of-origin issues that are unresolved .. and, depending on how much dysfunction they were subjected to as kids, can cause serious psychological trauma for those whose candidate loses. It's estimated that nearly all of us were raised in some degree of dysfunctional family .. so there's a lot of people who get "triggered" by identity politics.
Some Hillary supporters are suicidal. Some Hillary supporters want to harm others. Many Hillary supporters are feeling feelings they were set up for by identity politics. They're really hurting, and only a tiny handful are seeking professional help to cope.
Post election, identity politics is still causing riots and demonstrations and verbal acting out among both the electorate and candidates. Identity politics keeps the hurt active.
I must admit that I don't have a solution for how to get identity politics to stop. It's a quick and dirty approach to campaigning and I suppose, until we're fortunate to have more ethical candidates running for office, it's likely to continue.
In my opinion, unless a candidate's jurisdiction includes a law on the books that discriminates with respect to economic opportunity (education, job, financial transactions) against a race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, only then should they decry that law and pledge to overturn it. Any other "comment" about race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is simply pandering via identity politics. Even so commenting about a law not in that candidate's jurisdiction smacks of identity politics in a more "subtle" manner.
Yes, we have freedom of assembly in our country, and we can choose whom we want to assemble with and without. We the rank and file citizens have that freedom. So, yes, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, hiring women at Hooters, country clubs that discriminate, like it or not .. all allowed by U.S. freedom of assembly appeal.
Arguably, because the KKK advocates "White supremacy" including in economic opportunity, criticizing it is justified.
But making your campaign all about race, gender, religion and sexual orientation, as so many of our candidates did this election, simply sets up the "faithful" to experience personal worthlessness should that candidate lose.
Yes, freedom of speech allows identity politics. And I suppose most would say that identity politics is not the same as falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
But I see the harm done by blatant, irrelevant, mass appeal to identity politics.
I have the freedom not to like identity politics, and indeed I don't like it.
I despise it.
For now, I must execute my disgust for it in the voting booth.
Maybe one day, we'll get ethically better candidates, and we'll all be better off.