As the election postmortem analysis continues, the latest column by Maureen Dowd “Democrats and the case of mistaken identity politics” has become a subject of discussion for the chattering class. There is no doubt that elements of what she wrote has salience as identity politics and some extreme examples of “wokeness” clearly lacks common sense. Sometimes however, this complaint is only aimed at one side.
The creation of a course studying the music of Beyoncé can be seen as an example of wokeness gone too far as MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and his wife Mika seemed to intimate. But just a little research would have revealed to them both a course at Tufts University on the music of Elvis Presley and the University of North Chapel Hill which has courses about rock and roll music. Perhaps the issue is not simply wokeness.
Some of Dowd’s comments about so-called “wokeness” is correct. Where she misses the point however is that “wokeness” is an essentially a reaction to decades of exclusion and being defined as less than. Dowd writes as though no history proceeded it. The reality is that the visceral albeit generally peaceful reaction to “wokeness” is reminiscent of reactions to those who fought for civil rights.
Those who discuss cancel culture are correct. What they consistently leave out however, whether because of misinformation or willful ignorance is when the extreme left engages in cancel culture the right raises money and seeks out another venue. The reaction of the extreme right tends to be more visceral as evidenced by increases of anti-semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, misogyny and racism. This reaction is not only a right wing form of cancel culture, more correctly defined as intimidation, but it is hazardous to the mental and physical wellbeing of various constituencies.
Identity politics was not created by those who are now using it to their advantage. Historically, identity politics was used to designate people as an inferior community. This is evidenced through the beliefs of HL Mencken, William F. Buckley, Lee Atwater’s comments about how to appeal to white racists to Peter Thiel’s comments about women when he said “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.” It is quite interesting to note that as Dowd complains about identity politics, she deliberately ignores the identity game played by the Trump campaign.
Most of the analysis is naturally focused on those who showed up to the polls. The breakdown of those who voted is not surprising and it does not represent a political realignment. The political pendulum will swing back as it always does. The importance of this is that the reported increased support for Trump amongst various constituencies occurred against the backdrop of a smaller pool of voters. An interesting reality is that less people voted post pandemic than voted during the pandemic.
While Ms. Dowd’s commentary will be welcomed by anti-wokeness diatribes perhaps the more interesting and important question is why ten million voters stayed home. As many pundits engage in “what if” scenarios, one scenario may be to extrapolate the probable direction of those stay at home voters and what affects, if any, they would have had on these percentages. The problem is that her overall commentary is too simplistic and void of some historical nuance. The reality is that when you look at the last 9 presidential elections, Democrats carried the popular vote of 7 while winning 5 outright. The national ticket has not been the issue for democrats.
Dowd points to a study which ran in the center right Financial Times which reported “White progressives think at higher rates than Hispanic and Black Americans that “racism is built into our society.” She uses this to critique white progressives. She ignores a Pew Research Study which says 73% of black Americans have experienced racial discrimination. In 2024, Pew Research also found that “more than 8 of 10 blacks believed that black people are more likely to be incarcerated because prisons want to make money on the back of Black people and more than six in 10 black adults believe that institutions such as the criminal justice system, and economic system, are designed to hold Black people back.” She also ignores a study which found that “46 percent of white people fear that would weaken U.S. culture.”
Dowd like many commentators for various reasons has chosen to ignore a vital constituency. It is pretty much a given that the majority of white men will not vote for a woman on the national level especially a woman of color.
Nonetheless, you do have to question how two extremely talented and qualified women managed to lose to a deranged sexual predator. Political commentators like to talk about how black men voted ad infinitum. One demographic, namely white women, the discussion of which seems to be verboten, that consistently voted for the sexual predator is an enigma. This is even more puzzling when you consider that every other female constituency voted the other way. When you consider history, this enigma grows more when you consider that one of the largest opponents to women’s suffrage was the Anti-Sixteenth Amendment Society which was led by white women such as Madeleine Vinton Dahlgreen. Opposition to ERA was led in many respects by white women such as Phylis Schafly. Even within the feminist movement is a history of ignoring and excluding women of color.
When it comes to the Hispanic vote especially amongst men, reporter and journalist Paola Ramos has probably given the more insightful observation when she alluded to “fantasy heritage” a term coined by Carrie McWilliams. Ramos in interview said “One of the entry points for far right Latinos into the world of white supremacy and white nationalism is by leaning into the Spanish heritage, leaning into the whiteness.” She also pointed out that “at a time when democracy seems to feel a little messy for some folks, the elements of authoritarianism aren’t as scary for some Latinos.” While a huge segment support his mass deportation promise it is hoped they won’t resemble the old Judenraete.
There will be a myriad of analysis in the coming days and weeks. The late Senator Robert Kennedy reflecting the sentiments of an inconvenienced elitist allegedly said to his brother President Kennedy “Negroes are now just antagonistic and mad and they’re going to be mad at everything you can’t talk to them. My friends all say even the Negro maids, and servants are getting antagonistic”
In many ways Dowd’s column sounded like an inconvenienced elitist at a cocktail party speaking when no one is around. Ms. Dowd is a stalwart journalist but her commentary in a rare moment would have had greater salience if it wasn’t so steeped in simplicity, anecdotes, historical amnesia and lacking of intellectual depth. If there is going to be an analysis of the past election it needs to be centered in honesty rather than the components that served as an inconvenience when compared to the history that many people have experienced in the nation.
The economic agenda as the main reason for the outcome is a nice comfortable way primarily for white Americans to avoid the hard observations of the election. There cannot be an honest discussion of the election if there is no room for the reality of how successful the Trump campaign was in scapegoating people such as the immigrant and transgender community. An honest discussion cannot be had if it doesn’t include the significant role of gender and misogyny. This discussion may take place but if recent discussions are any indication the odds of it are low.