In the post-mortem of this recent presidential election, a common critique is emerging: Democrats' reliance on identity politics has missed the mark, failing to resonate with a broad spectrum of voters.
But the issue isn’t with identity politics itself; it’s with the way we’re applying it. Our approach has become overly simplistic, compartmentalizing people into single dimensions rather than embracing the layered and intersecting identities that shape real lives.
What we have been doing is not, in fact, identity politics but identity pandering. If we want to build a lasting coalition, we need to engage with the full spectrum of who people are, not just checkboxes on a form.
For those who argue that we should simply abandon identity politics or claim it doesn’t work, there’s a real risk of overcorrecting. Without a thorough critique of what went wrong and a thoughtful path forward, we could end up discarding an essential tool for connection and understanding rather than refining it. A knee-jerk dismissal risks pushing us further away from the nuanced, inclusive politics we need to reach a diverse and multifaceted electorate.
The current approach to identity politics often uses traditional Venn diagrams to represent different aspects of identity, such as race, gender and class. These diagrams show circles overlapping in specific areas as if our identities are made up of separate, defined parts that just touch in certain spots.
But in reality, our identities are more complex. They don’t just meet in a few places — they blend together, continuously shaping each other.
A better visual metaphor is the Reuleaux triangle, a rounded shape that forms when three circles........