From the original. As one fundamental example, U.S. voter protection laws passed in the civil rights era of the 1960s are being eroded by the U.S. Republican party.
Only the parts that are anti-democratic. The GOP has zero problem with all races having equal access to the ballot box. What they have a problem with are laws which grant special considerations to voters based on their race, because doing so is fundamentally anti-democratic.
In the 1960’s, laws were passed which guaranteed minority representation in Congress, based on the questionable assumption that only black legislators (and now Latino legislators) could adequately represent black (and now Latino) communities.
You still believe that? I don’t. A nation that is 70–75% white elected a president from a minority group. Considering that, it’s difficult to make the argument that representation MUST be aligned racially, and if not, minorities will suffer.
In fact, I would ask you to consider the possibility that by legalizing a racist (because that’s what it is) voting districting policy, you’ve insured that the US remains racist for a long time to come. If your districting is racist, then how can the population *not* be?
For instance, gerrymandering and voter suppression keeps black people from having their votes counted in our democracy to this day, sixty years after MLK Jr.’s “Give Us the Ballot” speech. Alabama legislators who restricted voting rights, claimed they were working to take down the “black power structure” in the state.
Unsurprisingly, the article linked to talks about Voter ID. There is plenty of evidence that shows that photo ID has no effect on minority voting. Even the left-wing agitprop site Vox, while at the same time advancing the myth that the only purpose of these laws is to discriminate, admits as follows:
But there’s some good news: Despite Republican legislators’ best attempts to suppress minority voters, study after study has found that voter ID laws have little to no effect on voter turnout. At worst, the effect is small — barely detectable even in studies that employ multiple controls. At best, there’s no effect at all or even an increase.
Why? Well, anyone with a statistical mind knows the answer. The group which is least likely to have a photo ID card is not “black voters” or “latino voters”; it’s POOR voters. And the statistical fact is that in raw numbers, MOST poor people in the US are…..white. (And tend to vote Republican).
ERGO, to the extent that a voter ID law affects ANYONE, it affects the GOP as much, if not more, than blacks or latinos. Which is why Vox had to admit that fact in the above citation.
So, although we can debate the efficacy of photo ID in stopping present or future vote fraud, what is not debatable is that photographic identification is a worldwide voting standard in developed nations, and since everyone either has one or can easily get one, it can’t hurt, by my way of thinking, to move in that direction. I personally didn’t like it when the international election observers monitored our 2008 elections, and in their report referred to our voting standards as an “honor system.” Kind of embarrassing.
That’s the real identity politics. But when someone says they’re against “identity politics” what they usually mean is that addressing discrimination makes them uncomfortable. To which I say, get over yourself and ask how your politics does or doesn’t address the real “identity politics” that are actually hurting people.
This paragraph cannot have been written by a rational person. First off, the straw man: one cannot know what people “usually mean” when they use a phrase unless you ask them; without a citation to a poll, the author is prevaricating. And then quite obviously, the two conclusions in the last sentence are irrational, because they assume as fact the straw man raised in the first sentence.
Identity politics (and I say this as an easily identifiable member of a religious minority who is also not-white by US WASPy standards) is gutter politics that requires demogogery to be effective. It is only used by politicians who have nothing affirmative to offer the nation as a whole, so they attempt to gain power by making targeted promises to a sufficient number of their preferred “identity groups” so as to win an election, after which they ignore those promises whilst blaming the majority as to why they cannot fulfill them.
Hope that helps. :-)