Putz and "identity politics."

TS covered some of this below, but this paragraph about Paul Krugman's "Authenticity" article in the New York Times, is so completely Putzian and fact-free, I had to revisit it.

Back before identity politics, and the notion that "the personal is political," the idea of a rich guy representing poor people was entirely plausible. He could be rich, but still have ideas about poverty, and care about them. But now that we have identity politics and the like, that's impossible: If only a woman can represent women, only a black person can represent blacks, etc. -- Barbara Boxer even suggested that Condi Rice couldn't understand mothers because she was childless -- then obviously only a poor person can represent poor people. And since there are no poor people in American political office, poor people perforce go unrepresented. Thus, the "progressive" causes of identity politics and personalization mean that the progressives' key clients can't get "authentic" representation. This is probably bad for the country, but it's certainly a bed that the progressives have made for themselves.

This is just another example where Putz strings together a bunch of complete nonsense built on a phony premise. He's arguing that "progressives" uniformly support and adhere to his laughably half-baked notion of what "identity politics" is.

Democratic black people don't vote for Democratic white people? Liberal women don't vote for liberal men? Gay people don't vote for straight people?

Right.

But let's even assume that's true and look at what the "identity" is in "identity polics."

What is crucial about the “identity” of identity politics appears to be the experience of the subject, especially his or her experience of oppression and the possibility of a shared and more authentic alternative.

So even by Putz's own incorrect "only a woman can represent a woman" definition, Edwards can represent the poor, since he has extensive personal experience with poverty -- he grew up poor and is the first person in his family to attend college.

Really, "identity politics" is just a device to criticize liberals and Edwards.

As Atrios wrote,

"Identity politics" is largely meaningless phrase which is only ever applied to minority interests, even when it is being practiced to a greater effect and degree by the majority or otherwise politically powerful. For this reason, one rarely hears of Cuban-American "identity politics" in Miami, because they're they dominant political group. Therefore, they get to graduate from "identity politics" to "interest group," or simply "in charge." No one refers to the Christian Coaliation as practitioners of "identity politics" either, even though they choose to practice it while externally identifiable minorities are almost forced to engage in it.

Exactly.