Establishment "identity politics"

I'm still cautious about using the term "identity politics" because it doesn't yet seem to have achieved a reasonably stable meaning in the American political vocabulary. And the "Identitarian" movements in Europe are a small but militant and influential group among the far right.

The term was tossed about a lot in connection with the 2016 elections. It was often used by pundits to distinguish Hillary Clinton's pitch that emphasized civil rights for women and minorities from Bernie Sanders' emphasis on economic issues. while this wasn't entirely off-base, "identity politics" still carries a pejorative connotation. Especially among Republicans. Which is why some Democrats take care to emphasize that Trumpism is very much white identity politics. Dibgy Parton recently wrote, "This is the fundamental contour of American politics. When the two parties take opposite positions on slavery, now racial equality, we are divided. It's hard to believe that we are back to this place, but we are. And we can try to ascribe that to other motives all we want, it won't change anything." (It's white supremacy, people. It's always been white supremacy. Hullabaloo 02/04/2018)

But whatever term we use for it, it has become common in the internal arguments within the Democratic Party for the corporate Democrats to try to accuse progressives of being deficient in their concern for women's and minority rights. On the face of it, this doesn't make much sense, since the Sanders wing of the party is very much in favor of women's rights, including abortion rights, and of protecting minority civil rights, including affirmative action. The key difference is that the Democratic progressives also support New Deal economic policies, while the corporate Democrats are on board with the neoliberal economic agenda which is mostly in agreement with Republican positions.

After the 2008 and 2016 primary campaigns, it is now pretty much standard practice, at least at that level, for female candidates to try to portray male opponents and minority candidates to portray theirs as anti-black, anti-Latino, etc. In some cases, it's more objectively accurate than in others. But politics is politics. It's part of the mix. Whether it's effective or not depends on a lot of variables, including who is making the criticisms and, obviously, how the target audiences process the attacks.

I've expressed concern before about the Gillibrand Standard applied in the defenestration of Al Franken by his fellow Democratic Senators in 2017. I'm worried that the lessons Republicans have taken from it is to prepare to deluge Democratic candidates in October 2018 with frivolous allegations of sexual harassment. (Which doesn't exclude their being able to find some real ones.) See my posts: Kirsten Gillibrand as Presidential candidate 12/12/2017; The Gillibrand Standard Takes Out a Female Candidate? 12/17/17; Two weeks too late 12/19/17

Branko Marcetic writes about the use of "identity" issues against progressives in Only When It Suits Them Jacobin 02/02/2018.

During the primaries, Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright appeared to admonish young women for favoring Bernie Sanders over Clinton. Numerous liberal feminist writers insisted on the importance of getting Clinton into the White House, regardless of how centrist she may be. “Not electing a woman, again,” warned Rebecca Traister, would be “much more than symbolic.” In a now-deleted post on David Brock’s Blue Nation Review, Clinton loyalist Peter Daou explained that, “[Sanders’] views notwithstanding,” he was “a white male who has been in Congress for over a quarter century,” making him the “definition of establishment,” while Clinton, solely by being “a woman attempting to break the ultimate gender barrier” was “the definition of anti-establishment.”

This line of attack continued into 2017, when similar claims were used to deflect substantive criticisms of potential presidential candidates. Skeptics of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick — three establishment Democrats floated as 2020 contenders who also happen to be black — were told they were simply motivated by bigotry, to the point where some critics were blithely misidentified as white men. In the words of Briahna Joy Gray, liberal discourse became “a world in which personal identity [is] shorthand for ‘progress’ … and ‘white man’ [is] an epithet.”

Howie Klein of Blue America comments on that article at his Down With Tyranny! blog in an apparently ironically-titled post, My Budding Romance With The DCCC, The Blue Dogs, The New Dems And EMILY's List 02/06/2018. "I like his line of thinking," he writes of Marcedtic's article, "but he wastes it on [Chelsea] Manning and [Paula] Swearengin, one step up from vanity candidates." But Klein also stresses, "The tragedy of all those walking garbage candidates the DCCC--along with the Blue Dogs, New Dems and EMILY's List-- try to pass off as real Democrats is that most of them have-- or had before the DCCC chased them away-- fine progressive candidates. Don't be fooled."

Zaid Jilani calls attention to establishment Dem primary mischief in Democrats Anonymously Target Muslim Candidate, Questioning His Eligibility to Run for Michigan Governor The Intercept 02/01/2018.

Charles Blow also uses the establishment-Dem trope here, somewhat carelessly equating Trump's vote with white working-class voters assumed to be primarily motivated in their voting by white identity issues, "He [Trump] was working-class white America’s rebuff to an erudite black man and a supremely experienced woman. Trump’s defects had been validated. He was loved among those who hate." (my emphasis; Constitutional Crisis in Slow Motion New York Times 02/05/2018)

Two weeks too late

Democratic Senators Urge Al Franken To Reconsider Resignation Morning Joe/MSNBC 12/19/2017:

A Second Take On Due Process Morning Joe/MSNBC 12/19/2017:

I don't feel entirely comfortable siding with notorious corporate Dem John Manchin on this. (See: Edward-Isaac Dovere, ‘I Was An Easy Pickup’: How Trump Lost Manchin on Taxes) But when he's right, he's right. Politico 12/19/2017)

But Kirsten Gillibrand isn't claiming second thoughts: Edward-Isaac Dovere, Franken urged to reverse his resignation Politico 12/18/2017:

The feeling is not pervasive throughout the conference. Aides to several Democratic senators who called for Franken to step down, despite their conflicted feelings about doing so, said they remain comfortable with the move.

That includes Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. The New York Democrat helped lead the charge against Franken the day that POLITICO published the account of a former Democratic congressional aide who said the former comedian tried to forcibly kiss her after the taping of a radio show in 2006.

Gillibrand has said that sending a clear message of zero tolerance is important, and that she was worried that the Ethics Committee process was being used as a shield.

“She has said, ‘He was entitled to a process, but he was not entitled to my silence,’” said one person who has spoken to Gillibrand about the decision.

And why should she? Pushing Al Franken into announcing his resignation removed one of the more prominent male politicians who might be a competitor to her in the Presidential primaries of 2020. She has other potential male opponents to knock off before she can get the nomination, notably Joe Biden. So why give up a political tactic that has been quite effective for her in the Franken case? Andrea Ramsey has some thoughts on the matter.

So does Elizabeth Drew:

Sen. Gillibrand, ringleader in showing Al Franken the door, now says he could have his process but not deny her her voice. No one was doing that but her voice denied him any process.

— Elizabeth Drew (@ElizabethDrewOH) December 19, 2017

The Gillibrand Standard Takes Out a Female Candidate?

"We should not have to be explaining the gradations between sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping." - Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, 12/06/2017 Facebook post calling for Sen. Al Franken's resignation

The Gillibrand Standard according to which any allegation of sexual misconduct against a Democratic candidate becomes a reason for the Democratic Party to cut them loose seems to have claimed its first female candidate.

The candidate in question is Andrea Ramsey, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Kansas' 3rd Congressional District. Here is her description of why she decided to go the Al Franken route (Andrea Ramsey letter: ‘I never engaged in any of the alleged behavior’ Kansas City Star 12/15/2017):

When I was the head of human resources at a local company, I had to make difficult business decisions on a daily basis concerning budgets, training initiatives, compensation and benefits, workforce hiring and workforce terminations. A termination decision is always the most wrenching, because it affects not only a person’s livelihood, but also an individual’s dignity and sense of self. Sometimes employees don’t take the decision well, and do things they wouldn’t otherwise do because they are angry in that moment, seeking to retaliate.

Anyone who has seen personnel departments in large organizations in action is likely to have a twinge of skepticism at reading that. Because HR staff are advocates for the company, not for the employees. But that's beside the point for the facts of her case.

Twelve years ago, I eliminated an employee’s position. That man decided to bring a lawsuit against the company (not against me). He named me in the allegations, claiming I fired him because he refused to have sex with me. That is a lie. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated the allegations and decided not to pursue the complaint; the man later decided to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit. Because I wasn’t a named party, I didn’t have any opportunity to participate in its resolution.

Since I was in sixth grade, I wanted to be a lawyer. What drew me to the field of law was the idea of due process, that both sides presented their case and an objective judge or jury weighed the evidence. I have been swept up in decisions without due process. A man sued my company twelve years ago and made false accusations against me. Had the false allegations been brought against me directly, I would have fought to exonerate my name and my reputation. I would have sued the disgruntled, vindictive employee for defamation. Now, twelve years later this suit is being used to force me out of my race for Congress. Let me be clear: I never engaged in any of the alleged behavior. And the due process that I love, that drew me to the field of law, is totally denied. [my emphasis]

Ramsey specifically refers to the problem created by the Gillibrand Standard, though she doesn't call it by that name:

My opponents have chosen to use these false allegations against me for political purposes, not only engaging in a whisper campaign, but also contacting political and news organizations. These false allegations are disgraceful and demean the moment this country is in. For far too long, complaints of sexual harassment have been completely ignored. The timely and thorough investigation of complaints is a very good thing. We are seeing real change in how harassment is being handled from Topeka to Washington. We should always make it as safe as possible for people who have been wronged to come forward, and I have based my professional career as an employment lawyer and human resources executive on that principle.

In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard. For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process. [my emphasis]

McClatchey's Lindsay Wise and Bryan Lowry report (Democrat Andrea Ramsey, accused of sexual harassment, drops out of U.S. House race McClatchy/Kansas City Star 12/15/2017):

She was running with the endorsement of Emily’s List, a liberal women’s group that has raised more than a half-million dollars to help female candidates who support abortion rights. ...

The Democratic campaign committee, which has not endorsed anyone in the race, said in a statement that members and candidates must be held to the highest standard.

“If anyone is guilty of sexual harassment or sexual assault, that person should not hold public office,” said committee spokeswoman Meredith Kelly.

Emily’s List said in a statement on Friday that the group supported Ramsey’s decision to drop out of the race and wished her well. The organization removed Ramsey’s photo and endorsement from its website shortly after The Star’s report was published online.

Note that the Democratic committee in that quote appears to be saying they think Ramsey was guilty of the alleged conduct.

From their report, it appears that Ramsey could have been a strong Democratic candidate. Scott Bland and Maggie Severns write (Female House candidate withdraws over sexual harassment claim Politico 12/15/2017), "Ramsey is the first congressional candidate to resign amid a wave of other resignations in Washington revolving around sexual harassment. Ramsey was a top recruit for the women-in-politics group EMILY's List this year and Yoder’s district, which includes parts of Kansas City, is considered a promising potential pickup seat for Democrats."

This story presents the same dilemma that the Al Franken case did, in that the politician accused did not accept the accusations as accurate, the claims that were in the public record were vague, and there was no formal process that had validated the claims. In both cases, the Democratic Party quickly turned on the candidate, or Senator in Franken's case. And the accused person bowed out of their political position, which for a lot of people will be taken as an admission of guilt. And the charges are "out there," and lot of people will believe them because they find them titillating.

The Republican Party does not apply the same standard to their candidates. See: Moore, Roy; and, Trump, Donald.

The case of John Conyers is obviously different. Except by the Gillibrand Standard, in which Democrats should not differentiate among vaguely alleged rude behavior, indecent exposure, and actual assault. But, as I understand it, Conyers had agreed to specific settlements on very specific allegations. There were also accusers speaking on the record and telling credible and generally consistent stories.

One of the things I've wondered about in the current discussion of sexual harassment is how it may affect the practice of companies and other organizations agreeing to cash settlements over such allegations. The nondisclosure agreements strike me as a real problem. But the settlements themselves can be based on a pragmatic financial calculation, in which the company attorneys are confident they would win the case but it would cost the company significantly more money to litigate the case than the settlement would cost.

Bill Clinton famously made a legal settlement with Paula Jones. But, as Joe Conason describes (When reckoning with Bill Clinton, use facts, not myths PressConnects 11/24/2017), "various contradictions marred her testimony, notably the mythical 'distinguishing characteristic' of Clinton's male equipment, which she evidently invented. Still, he agreed to pay her a settlement of $850,000, without any admission, to end the litigation." And he explains, "That payment was the least of the indignities and injuries that befell Clinton. The investigations cost him tens of millions of dollars, a five-year suspension of his license to practice law, a searing scar upon his family, and a future obituary that will feature his status as the only president ever impeached over a sex lie."

So a legal settlement over sexual harassment charges in itself does not mean an admission of guilt unless such an admission is specific. In Ramsey's case, she is explicitly denying the charge. And she is claiming, so far apparently without argument from anyone, that the settlement the company made over the fired employee's complaint did not include the company admitting any kind of validity to the sexual harassment claim.

The Democrats are going to have to find a better way to handle these cases like Franken's and Ramsey's, unless they don't care that the Republicans can use this to easily knock out Democratic candidates from contention.

Kirsten Gillibrand as Presidential candidate

Kirsten Gillibrand's national political visibility got an obvious boost from her taking the initiative to pressure Al Franken to resign over vague allegations of sexual misconduct on the level of rudeness, most of them from anonymous sources, as of this writing and at the time of Franken's resignation speech in the Senate.

In announcing her demand that Franken resign in a Facebook post of 12/06/2017, she included this remarkable statement:

While it’s true that his behavior is not the same as the criminal conduct alleged against Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or President Trump, it is still unquestionably wrong, and should not be tolerated by those of us who are privileged to work in public service.

As the mother of two young boys, we owe it to our sons and daughters to not equivocate, but to offer clarity. We should not have to be explaining the gradations between sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping. And what message do we send to our sons and daughters when we accept gradations of crossing the line? None of it is ok and none of it should be tolerated. [my emphasis]

It's quite a double message to acknowledge that the vague and publicly unproven claims against Franken are not "criminal conduct" but then immediately after to insist that in public life and in private standards ("our sons and daughters") we should not "accept gradations of crossing the line" among "sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping."

That a reckless and foolish standard. For law, for private life, for business, for public life. Telling a dirty joke in the office may deserve a reminder from the boss not to be vulgar. But to be a good reason to fire someone, much less imprison them, it would need to be an exceptionally dirty joke.

And, yes, to be clear, I'm being sarcastic on the last point, although there might be circumstances - doing so in front of a customer, or a junior executive inserting one into a presentation to the company board of directors, in which a single instance might be justifiable. But by the Gillibrand Standard, we should accept no "gradations" of seriousness of an offence among "sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping." We should assume that an attempted kiss, one of the sins of which Franken is accused, also fits in that category of the Gillibrand standard, since it was the Franken case that was the occasion of her statement.

As a practical matter, the Republicans will look at the Democratic Senate revolt against Franken as a sign of weakness, including Franken's decision to resign while denying the accuracy of the charges. Republicans are very adapt at using these kinds of claims against Democratic opponents, or "weaponizing" them as the pundits now say.

Also as a practical matter, Gillibrand's initiative removes Franken as a potential competitor for the Presidential nomination in 2020. Other potential/likely Democratic Presidential candidates that joined in the call for Franken's resignation before he publicly declared his intention to do so were Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

But Gillibrand was the one whose leadership on the matter earned her a couple of valuable puff pieces in the days since. The New York Times reported the same day as her Facebook post: Shane Goldmacher, On Sexual Misconduct, Gillibrand Keeps Herself at the Fore New York Times 12/06/2017. The flattering graphic below accompanied Politico's story on her:

Her earlier use of the Roy Moore scandal to score points with Democrats suspicious of Clinton paved the way for her Franken publicity bonanza: Jennifer Steinhauer, Bill Clinton Should Have Resigned Over Lewinsky Affair, Kirsten Gillibrand Says New York Times 11/16/2017. Politics is politics, and her positions on that issue and Franken have been politically beneficial to her in the short term. When even a Gillibrand Presidential candidacy can survive the incredibly low barrier set by the Gillibrand Standard remains to be seen. If there's a photo of her from some time in her life playfully pinching somebody on the butt, that could be embarrassing.

Now Trump has decided to make her the same kind of target he made Hillary Clinton:

Gillibrand responded:

You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office. https://t.co/UbQZqubXZv

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 12, 2017

Now she is getting even more attention as a defender of women, with headlines like this from Yahoo News today:

The Morning Zoo crowd came down hard on Trump, Mika On President Donald Trump: That Tweet Said So Much About His Character Morning Joe/MSNBC 12/12/2017:

This MSNBC segment also gives some possible other angles on this and the kind of comma-dancing that may go on around it, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: President Donald Trump's Attack A 'Sexist Smear' 12/12/2017:

I won't try to predict how this will play out. I will say that Trump's base doesn't care about sexual harassment and assault charges against him. And the Franken case gives good reason to worry that Democrats will not be able to outplay the Republicans on the politics of this. To the extent that Democratic responses to this and future Trump outbursts on the subject comes off to Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters as, "You can't criticize me because I'm a girl," that will not be good for the Democrats.

Trump operates as a professional wrestler. He portrays a theatrical image of toughness with blowhard nonsense like this. But it has so far worked remarkably well for him politically. And Trump's professional wrestling instinct may be telling him Kirsten Gillibrand would be a useful foil for him.

The Democrats need to use their advantage on the sexual harassment issue without forgetting that Republicans can do the same. And the radical difference between how the parties' respective voting bases regarding the issue. And that makes it more complicated for the Democrats. Because the Democratic base has a lot of people, male and female, who are more inclined toward "believe the evidence" than simply "believe women." Especially ones who remember the Clinton pseudoscandals of the 1990s. And a lot of the Democratic base will not feel the least bit comfortable with the Gillibrand Standard of treating "sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping" as a set of equivalent sins.

And even in the midst of justifiable outrage about Trump's obviously sexist and sleazy tweet above, it can also be read and understood by the Republican base as a swipe at political corruption. It's a joke to think of Trump as an opponent of corruption. But the effect of political symbolism is not purely a matter of logical reflection. John Marshall has an insightful take on the corruption angle of the tweet and how Trump more generally works the issue, The Only Honor Is Corruption TPM 12/12/2017.

And that was the approach that White House publicity hack Sarah Huckabee Sanders took in her daily briefing today, beginning just after 21:30 (PBS Newshour 12/12/2017). She returns to it later in the press conference and works it hard:

Also, am I the only one to think that Trump's reference to Sen. Schumer in that tweet was a bit of anti-Semitism? Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred to Gillibrand as a "puppet" of Schumers, "puppet-master" being a long-time feature of anti-Semitic propaganda.