Remember when Bernie Sanders was mocked in the primaries as "not getting it"?



While admirable, Sanders’s “revolution” is primarily an economic one. And despite what he may say, an economic revolution is not tantamount to a sociopolitical overhaul. To put a finer point on it: Achieving a $15 minimum wage will not stop racially prejudiced cops from shooting black people. It will not stop immigrants or refugees from being detained at our borders. Dismantling Wall Street, whatever that means exactly, will not shore up or extend women’s reproductive rights.

Yes. Why would Bernie want to prioritize economic issues? It's such a mystery.

Oh sure, Americans overwhelmingly support Bernie Sanders' economic policies, but everyone knows that minority voters only really care about issues specific to their identity.

Why is it that the Democratic establishment is convinced that we shouldn't prioritize economic issues?

You don't suppose they think that because they are already wealthy so it's not a problem for them, do you?



A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy — twice the percentage that said the same about Trump.

Let's look at it from the wealthy elite point of view for a moment.

They think of themselves as civilized and progressive.

But Bernie's "tax the rich" plans will cost them money.

Being progressive on economic issues is painful when you are already rich. It's much easier to be progressive on gay marriage because it doesn't cost you anything, while you can still signal your virtue.

It explains why identity politics is so popular with the wealthy.



Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism—its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail.

This is why Adolph Reed and I have been arguing that identity politics is not an alternative to class politics but a form of it: It’s the politics of an upper class that has no problem with seeing people being left behind as long as they haven’t been left behind because of their race or sex. That’s why elite institutions like universities make an effort to recruit black people as well as white into the ruling class. They’re seeking to legitimate the class structure, not abolish it.

Identity politics not only justifies inequality, it also works to prevent solidarity in the working class.



It assumes that social groups—say, gay or black—are homogeneous monoliths with uniform interests. And when class isn’t taken into account, socialist critics rightly note that “identity politics” has become a vehicle for the interests of elite leaders who substitute diversity in the White House and on Wall Street for substantive justice. Poor black people and poor white people both face increasing economic precarity and thus share many of the same grievances. Conversely, wealthy black elites share economic interests with wealthy people as a whole—interests opposed to those of the much larger number of black people who are economically marginalized. The same goes for wealthy women or wealthy LGBTQ people.

So it becomes problem when Sanders supporters start demanding that we help out the working poor. You can't signal your virtue, while being against the working poor too (some of them are women and minorities).

Recall that you've spent years mocking and demonizing the white working-class, even to the point of openly celebrating their early deaths.

It's a tricky social status problem. Hypocrisy doesn't translate well.

So what do you do? Or should I say, what do you do in a way that costs you nothing?

Well, for starters you slander Sanders supporters for being racist and misogynist while questioning their motives. No evidence required.

Meanwhile, have your Ivy-league attack dog shills misrepresent Bernie's economic positions.



The slamming of Sanders reflects an enduring status quo defense mechanism which usually begins with allegations of extremism, then mixes in charges of lack of qualification and realism, and ends with assertions of un-electability.

That usually works, but for some reason it didn't work this time.

So you moralize about how progressives aren't helping, that demanding economic justice is the same as "stumbling toward liberal purity", while letting your rabid attack dogs loose.

Meanwhile you enlist your number one weapon - late night comedians - to belittle and condescend progressives for not falling into line and doing as they are told.

What would happen if progressives were to stop listening to those who disrespect them, and start thinking in terms of class interests?