DFK! wrote:
Moving goalposts.
You wanted to define the term, so you did. This was not in your original definition.
Furthermore, take these as further representations: "the big insurance companies are against this." "The luxury insurance plans are bad." "This is 'for the people's benefit.'" Etc, etc. All of those, in their original context, are identity statements, using your definition.
Aye, I suppose I was overinclusive in my initial attempt at a definition. I did include "class" initially, but in a subsequent post I clarified that I'm not really sure how class identification fits the model, since class involves more than simple income differences. Even if class should be in there in some form, though, it's important to keep in mind that Obama's use of class resentments doesn't involve putting himself out there as a representative of the class he's appealing to. He doesn't say, "Those rich guys are keeping us poor guys down!" Palin, on the other hand, does position herself as a stand-in for the broader identity group she's appealing to.
I don't know exactly how it all shakes out, but it seems pretty obvious to me that there are meaningful differences between Obama's political appeal and Palin's political appeal, and I think those differences have a lot to do with the kind of identity politics and resentments that I'm talking about here. Do you guys really perceive no difference between the two other than Obama's a Dem and she's a Rep?