Ed Gillespie Is Now Sad About Campaigning on Identity Politics

[Milchshake]

If 2016 and 2017 taught us anything, its that Identity Politics is alive and well in the US.
The silver lining was Ralph Northam’s decisive win over Ed Gillespie in the Virginia governor’s race last month. A sound defeat for identity politics.
Had Gillespie won, in 2018 Republicans all over the country might have emulated his borderline racist ads about gang crime, ex-felon voting, and threatened Confederate monuments. This hatefest, after all, was widely thought to have pulled the normally boring Republican into contention after he nearly lost his primary to fire-breathing Trumpite Corey Stewart.

In his first interview after losing, Gillespie was asked about the nasty ads, and you’d have thought he had nothing to do with them:

“Are those the issues I would have chosen to run on as opposed to the tax cuts and frankly even the criminal justice reform innovative proposals I put forward?” said Gillespie. “That’s what I’d rather the race had been about, but those weren’t what was indicating was going to move numbers and help me win.”

Gillespie said his campaign message about Virginia’s economy lagging didn’t resonate as well in the prosperous D.C. suburbs — which is why he had to focus on public safety to sway votes.

“The issue that looked like it was going to move voters in the suburbs of Northern Virginia was public safety,” he said. “Clearly, [the MS-13 ads] didn’t work. Did it create a backlash? I don’t think so. But I don’t know.”

Looking back at arguably worst of these ads, which suggested that Northam was in cahoots with the Latino MS-13 gang, whose alleged “Kill, Rape, Control” slogan superimposed on images of gang members was injected into Virginia’s political bloodstream like a virus. Right there at the end appeared the legally required disclosure: “I’m Ed Gillespie, candidate for governor, and I sponsored this ad for a safer, stronger Virginia.”


Poor, sad Gillespie. He had to do this to “move numbers.” Could anyone blame him? How do we really put identity politics behind us?

[Thekri]

Poor, sad Gillespie. He had to do this to “move numbers.” Could anyone blame him? How do we really put identity politics behind us?

Uh, yes? Selling your morals for a chance at victory is absolutely the sort of thing anyone should be blamed for. Trying to paint your opponent as in league with MS-13 is only acceptable if you are running in Mexico and that is actually true.

No sympathy, Virginia will do fine with a democratic governor until the Republicans find someone with a spine and basic human decency to take back the seat.

[PC2]

Poor, sad Gillespie. He had to do this to “move numbers.” Could anyone blame him? How do we really put identity politics behind us?

I think the best way to beat identity politics is to first define what an identity message is by a politician. Does the message universalize or does it specialize? For example if one side says "black lives matters" then the other says "white lives matter" they are both specializing their message. "all lives matter" would be the correct message if you want be above identity(universalization) and reject specialization.

[Gestopft]

No, no, no, silly. It's only "Identity Politics" when Liberals do it.

I think the best way to beat identity politics is to first define what an identity message is by a politician. Does the message universalize or does it specialize? For example if one side says "black lives matters" then the other says "white lives matter" they are both specializing their message. "all lives matter" would be the correct message if you want be above identity(universalization) and reject specialization.

Spoken like someone that doesn't understand the point of BLM.

[Thekri]

I think the best way to beat identity politics is to first define what an identity message is by a politician. Does the message universalize or does it specialize? For example if one side says "black lives matters" then the other says "white lives matter" they are both specializing their message. "all lives matter" would be the correct message if you want be above identity(universalization) and reject specialization.

"All lives matter" is the opposite of a "universalization", it is actually identity politics in its purest form. It is a deceptive name slapped onto a movement to discredit a movement that is looking for equal treatment.

"All lives matter" would be an acceptable thing to say in context, but not in this specific case, because it is specifically intended to undermine the "Black lives matter" narrative. It is like if your friend says Nachos are delicious, and you launch into an angry diatribe about how all chips are delicious. Your friend doesn't necessarily disagree that all chips are delicious, but that wasn't the point he was making. Now I think "Blue lives matter" is a valid point, we don't want to endanger our law enforcement officers, we have to have a balance. "Blue lives matter" and "Black lives matter" can and should coexist, "All lives matter" needs to go away.

[PC2]

"All lives matter" is the opposite of a "universalization", it is actually identity politics in its purest form. It is a deceptive name slapped onto a movement to discredit a movement that is looking for equal treatment.

"All lives matter" would be an acceptable thing to say in context, but not in this specific case, because it is specifically intended to undermine the "Black lives matter" narrative. It is like if your friend says Nachos are delicious, and you launch into an angry diatribe about how all chips are delicious. Your friend doesn't necessarily disagree that all chips are delicious, but that wasn't the point he was making. Now I think "Blue lives matter" is a valid point, we don't want to endanger our law enforcement officers, we have to have a balance. "Blue lives matter" and "Black lives matter" can and should coexist, "All lives matter" needs to go away.

If you agree with the premise that all lives matter, there is no need create the specialized message of "black lives matter" or "blue lives matter". It's just an excuse to send a message based on group identities and not on attributes that everyone in the society shares.

[Thekri]

If you agree with the premise that all lives matter, there is no need create the specialized message of "black lives matter" or "blue lives matter". It's just an excuse to send a message based on group identities and not attribute that everyone in the society shares.

Did you even read what I posted? Obviously all lives matter, it is a truism that was used to create a false dilemma. "All lives matter" distracts from the significant issues that a certain portion of the US population face on a daily basis. It is a message based on group identities because the problem was caused by focusing on a group identity. If Police were shooting everyone equally then it wouldn't have to be an identity based movement.

It is much like using "Pro-Life" to mean anti-abortion. Obviously everyone is Pro-life (Except maybe necromancers), but those that want it legal don't consider it to be "Pro-Death" in the first place. Likewise "Pro-Choice" is the exact same thing on the other side.

[Acidbaron]

I think the best way to beat identity politics is to first define what an identity message is by a politician. Does the message universalize or does it specialize? For example if one side says "black lives matters" then the other says "white lives matter" they are both specializing their message. "all lives matter" would be the correct message if you want be above identity(universalization) and reject specialization.

Identity politics is populism and populism is always a bad platform to run on if you want to be respectable. It also assumes your voters are idiots that buy into it and sadly a lot of people are easily convinced.

Also, if you want to be taken serious you don't need to act as if white people are suddenly in a weak position in society they are not, since you live in the states and not in south africa. The only place where you can actually honestly say racism towards white people exist and a complete lack of awareness, so much that black youth does not believe it is happening and finds that white people should simply work harder to get further in life. Sound familiar?

You should visit there, would be eye opening for you to see the opposite at one point. If you dare to challenge your world view that is.

[Gestopft]

If you agree with the premise that all lives matter, there is no need create the specialized message of "black lives matter" or "blue lives matter". It's just an excuse to send a message based on group identities and not on attributes that everyone in the society shares.

Look at it this way: "We Feel That Society Doesn't Value Black Lives, But Black Lives Matter Just As Much As Everybody Else's" is way the hell to long to put on a banner, so they shortened it.

[PC2]

Look at it this way: "We Feel That Society Doesn't Value Black Lives, But Black Lives Matter Just As Much As Everybody Else's" is way the hell to long to put on a banner, so they shortened it.

All that does is invokes identity twice as much. It doesn't represent an actual policy that should entice anyone to vote for the politician who invokes it.

[Edge-]

All that does is invokes identity twice as much. It doesn't represent an actual policy that should entice anyone to vote for the politician who invokes it.

Because it's not a "policy", it's a popular movement that seeks to enact various policies to achieve their goals.

And how does that invoke it twice as much? Your posts read like you're intentionally trying to avoid addressing the points everyone is making on this.

[PC2]

Because it's not a "policy", it's a popular movement that seeks to enact various policies to achieve their goals.

And how does that invoke it twice as much? Your posts read like you're intentionally trying to avoid addressing the points everyone is making on this.

It's an identity movement that is tribal. If you have a movement that seeks to make everyone equal you don't need a message with specialized identity attributes. But go on, this is the only way that the DNC could possibly pick someone even less desirable than Hillary.

[Edge-]

It's an identity movement that is tribal.

How? It grew out of specific events and expanded well beyond just black folks and the specific issue of police violence against the black community. I mean, I get that the reaction from many to the notion that there could be problems that black people face that white people don't has been very hostile, but you're going to need to expand on how this is "tribal". I'm talking about mainstream BLM, not the fringe folks who advocate aborting white babies etc. Those people rightly get shunned in polite company and mainstream BLM supporters.

If you have a movement that seeks to make everyone equal you don't need a message with specialized identity attributes.

Except you do when that group is disproportionately singled out. See - women's suffrage movement, civil rights movement etc.

The only way to argue that is to completely ignore pretty much the entirety of the history of oppression and the reactions of oppress communities.

But go on, this is the only way that the DNC could possibly pick someone even less desirable than Hillary.

Literally what?

[ohiostate124]

Let’s not forget

[Edge-]

Let’s not forget

Except Northam had nothing to do with that ad, hence the lack of endorsement at the end of it.

Compared to the MS13 ad, which Gillespie endorses at the end (ignore the Bible quote, it's just in this video)



Bit of a difference in one ad being supported by the Gillespie campaign, and the other not being supported by the Northam campaign.

[Gestopft]

All that does is invokes identity twice as much. It doesn't represent an actual policy that should entice anyone to vote for the politician who invokes it.

It's a social movement, not a policy platform. Sure, there are politicians that support the (mainstream of the) movement, but nobody's runs on BLM. It's simply a community that feels undervalued by society and they're bringing attention to their concerns.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

No, no, no, silly. It's only "Identity Politics" when Liberals do it.

I think the best way to beat identity politics is to first define what an identity message is by a politician. Does the message universalize or does it specialize? For example if one side says "black lives matters" then the other says "white lives matter" they are both specializing their message. "all lives matter" would be the correct message if you want be above identity(universalization) and reject specialization.

Spoken like someone that doesn't understand the point of BLM.

Ur both fucking morons

True universalization that rejects specialization includes people who are into specialization, justifying everyone including the hateful gobshits. That means you're both wrong and both right, which means that the OP is wrong to question the bound hands of a person who's genuinely trying to stop the constant drug pushing cartels that DO exist in America, but even more wrong for not accepting the fact that things just have to be this shitty way.

[Felya]

What the hell are you talking about? The entire democratic platform is identity politics. The bigger the victim you are, the more free shit you’re supposed to be handed. We literally have a group of people creating new pronouns to one up each other and be a snowflake. Calling out that uncontrolled immigration is detrimental to the country and a problem isn’t identity politics. Nor is it bigoted.

Now watch as a bunch of progressives call me a bigot, proving my point.

Is cuck a pronoun? What about Kek? Real American? Then you ask to be called a bigot, because others are playing identity politics? No, bigot isn’t the word coming to my mind... oblivious hypocrite, sure... bigot? I don’t know... keep talking...

[Felya]

I’ve never used cuck.

The group you seem to agree with does. Can’t I say some groups of people are creating new pronouns, when they agree with you?

I never ganked lowbies and typed “kek” and I never use the true Scotsman fallacy. So try again?

I’m sure you don’t... but, I’m placing you in a group that does, for no other reason than you agreeing with them on this subject. Does that upset you? Does it make you mad?

Intersectionality is an entirely leftist platform. And the Democrats openly embrace the far left. No Republican is endorsing the neo nazis or whatever you want to call the dipshits having rallies. There’s maybe a couple thousand of them country wide. There’s several hundred identity politics acolytes at every college campus.

Bullshit... the quoted above is contradicting it self. It makes no sense, unless you are trying to define hypocrisy.

Don’t confuse me with the dipshits because I don’t adhere to the left’s group think. And the dipshits who use cuck aren’t trying to pass speech codes and toss people in jail for not playing make believe.

I’m not confusing anything... you belong to the group think that adheres to your own set of rules. Oh and yeah, they are... they are even passing laws to check your junk in bathrooms... You are one of them, just like everyone you disagree with, is a liberal.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

This pronoun thing really, really gets under the skin of tighty righties.

I just dunno, though. I've volunteered with trans groups, I worked with a high school LGBT group with a handful of trans students, and I work with homeless LGBT youth now. Never heard anything beyond "they" and that was pretty fucking rare.

It's almost like a bunch of people saw something online and started screaming at it. Thanks for moving Overton's Window on the issue, though, righties. Us boring ole binary trans folks are enjoying the shift from your bathroom obsession just a year or so ago.