The Democratic party's defense of Graham Platner, the oyster farmer and former Marine who has been embroiled in controversy over his past racist and sexist comments, highlights a concerning trend within the party's left wing.
At its core, Platner's campaign represents an attempt to rebrand the Democratic party as more inclusive and welcoming to men, particularly white, rural males. This vision is rooted in a misguided notion that the party has become too "feminine" and must adapt to appeal to these voters.
However, this approach is based on a false premise. The working class, which Platner's defenders claim he can help win over, is not monolithically male or masculine-coded. In reality, women make up nearly half of the low-wage workforce, and manufacturing jobs have largely disappeared.
Rather than trying to appeal to a mythical, all-American masculinity, Democrats should focus on promoting policies that benefit working-class families, regardless of gender. This includes investing in affordable housing, expanding access to education and job training, and addressing income inequality.
The defense of Platner also raises questions about what kind of power is considered legitimate within the party. Is it enough for a candidate to win elections with the backing of powerful consultants and pundits, or should they be held accountable for their past behavior?
Ultimately, the Democratic party's stance on Platner highlights a deeper cultural tension between inclusivity and authenticity. While Platner's defenders argue that his message is more "authentic" because it reflects his own experiences as a working-class man, this logic ignores the harm caused by his racist and sexist comments.
As the party moves forward, it must prioritize a vision of inclusivity and respect for all voters, rather than trying to appease a narrow segment of the electorate at the expense of marginalized communities. By doing so, Democrats can build a more just and equitable society that benefits everyone, not just those who fit a particular mold of masculinity.
At its core, Platner's campaign represents an attempt to rebrand the Democratic party as more inclusive and welcoming to men, particularly white, rural males. This vision is rooted in a misguided notion that the party has become too "feminine" and must adapt to appeal to these voters.
However, this approach is based on a false premise. The working class, which Platner's defenders claim he can help win over, is not monolithically male or masculine-coded. In reality, women make up nearly half of the low-wage workforce, and manufacturing jobs have largely disappeared.
Rather than trying to appeal to a mythical, all-American masculinity, Democrats should focus on promoting policies that benefit working-class families, regardless of gender. This includes investing in affordable housing, expanding access to education and job training, and addressing income inequality.
The defense of Platner also raises questions about what kind of power is considered legitimate within the party. Is it enough for a candidate to win elections with the backing of powerful consultants and pundits, or should they be held accountable for their past behavior?
Ultimately, the Democratic party's stance on Platner highlights a deeper cultural tension between inclusivity and authenticity. While Platner's defenders argue that his message is more "authentic" because it reflects his own experiences as a working-class man, this logic ignores the harm caused by his racist and sexist comments.
As the party moves forward, it must prioritize a vision of inclusivity and respect for all voters, rather than trying to appease a narrow segment of the electorate at the expense of marginalized communities. By doing so, Democrats can build a more just and equitable society that benefits everyone, not just those who fit a particular mold of masculinity.