View this post on the web at [link removed]

Americans have now spent a month debating what Donald Trump’s victory communicates. Buried among the many different theories and opinions is one unequivocally positive takeaway: Identity politics took a major hit on November 5.
The history of identity politics in America stretches back a long way. Even before the Civil War, ethnic and racial identity contributed strongly to party loyalty. In the modern era, race and gender have been consistently strong predictors of who votes for Democrats or Republicans.
But the 2024 campaign and election results suggest that change is coming. For starters, Vice President Kamala Harris was the first Black and South Asian female to make a presidential run, but how often did you hear about that during the campaign? Criticisms of Harris had little to do with her identity—they were far more likely to rest on questions about her record as vice president or her handling of illegal migration across the southern border. And for her own part, Harris did not run on the fact that she is a Black and Asian woman—a far cry from Barack Obama’s 2008 White House run, let alone the “I’m with her” message [ [link removed] ] from Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential run.
But even more notable than campaign semantics is voter demographics. The GOP assembled its most diverse coalition [ [link removed] ] in modern memory. Forty-seven percent of younger Americans, those aged 18-29, voted for Trump in 2024; only 36% did so in 2020. Sixteen percent of Black Americans supported Trump this year; only 8% supported him in 2020. Forty-three percent of Latinos voted for Trump this time; only 35% did in 2020. Trump made gains with women of all races and notched increases with Asian Americans and Native Americans.
With the possibility of the first female and second Black president, many of Trump’s critics ask, how could he have increased his support from both groups? Such incredulity can only spring from a belief that people’s identities determine how they should vote. And whether you like Donald Trump’s politics or not, it’s clear that his pickup in support among a wide variety of minority groups happened because he didn’t appeal to identity, but rather to the day-to-day concerns of a diverse swath of Americans.
This is great news for our politics. What’s more, it appears that Americans’ tolerance for identity politics has reached its limit, and not just at the ballot box. Before the election, for instance, several large [ [link removed] ] companies [ [link removed] ] announced that they would be scrapping or scaling back their diversity, equity and inclusion programs—Tractor Supply, John Deere, Harley-Davidson, Ford, Boeing and, most recently, Walmart [ [link removed] ] among them. Going forward, expect to see more of this kind of thing in the private sector.
Getting back to politics, prioritizing identity as a determinant of the way a person’s vote will go is not only overly simplistic but insulting. Believing that people should vote based on a shared skin color, gender or background means boiling them down to whichever boxes they check on a census form rather than who they really are.
Identity doesn’t automatically explain a person’s vote: For example, in a spring 2023 poll [ [link removed] ], a plurality of Black Americans named the economy and jobs as their most important issue when voting for nationally elected officials, which explains why Trump, the candidate who most Americans deemed better on the economy, grew his share of the Black vote in 2024 .
There’s plenty to criticize about Donald Trump’s upheaval of U.S. politics, but he has clearly tapped into a way to reach groups that don’t typically vote for his party—and he didn’t do that by reading his opponents’ own failing playbook. Instead, he built a following on meeting voters where they are on issues, from the economy to culture, regardless of identity.
The lesson here is simple: Parties and candidates should treat all voters like the thinking adults that they are, rather than overconfidently assuming they’ll fall into a predetermined box. If Democrats don’t throw out their playbook, they may unwittingly ensure the GOP’s future not only as the nation’s dominant party, but as the one that best represents America’s multiethnic population.
Meanwhile...
What I’m watching: While my Thanksgiving weekend was filled with food and family, I was also able to make a little time for other things. More specifically, I watched a movie that I’d been wanting to check out for a few months: “My Old Ass [ [link removed] ]” (available to watch via Amazon Prime Video). Teenager Elliott (played by Maisy Stella, in her first film role) can’t wait to break away from her life on her family’s rural Canadian cranberry farm and get her life started. Then, thanks to an 18th-birthday mushroom trip, Elliott is able to meet her 39-year-old self (Aubrey Plaza) ... and the hijinks ensue. Well, sort of: Both are about to get more than they bargained for, and each has some lessons to learn from the other.
Though the ads and official trailer [ [link removed] ] for the movie played up its ample comedic aspects, I was surprised—in a very good way—by the film’s heart and depth. When older Elliott warns her younger self to stay away from a boy named Chad, I assumed that it was a throwaway laugh line, referring to some future dalliance-gone-wrong that would take place off-screen. Little did I know that this would turn into the emotional core of the movie, imparting some big life lessons about not becoming overly preoccupied with the course of one’s future—or one’s past. When I tell you I turned into a bit of a teary mess by the time the end credits rolled, I’m not lying. “My Old Ass” is an excellent coming-of-age comedy, but it’s also so much more than that.
Latest Stories
Jon Gabriel, “When the Family Flourishes, Society Flourishes [ [link removed] ]”
Michael Puttré, “Space Beckons Anew Under Trump’s Second Term [ [link removed] ]”
David Masci, “What We Owe One Another [ [link removed] ]”
Michael J. Ard, “We Need To Talk About the Draft [ [link removed] ]”
Addison Del Mastro, “Shoppers Find a New Outlet (Center) [ [link removed] ]”
Megan Jenkins and Charles Yates, “Muddying the Waters [ [link removed] ]”
Stephen Buck, “Prelude to a Sequel [ [link removed] ]”
From the Archives
Michael C. Behrent, “Progress, Pain and People [ [link removed] ]”
Henry Olsen, “Ukraine’s War Zone Election Conundrum [ [link removed] ]”
Sahil Handa, “Was Sam Bankman-Fried a Crypto ‘Televangelist’? [ [link removed] ]”
If you enjoyed this piece, please consider giving [ [link removed] ] to Discourse. Your contribution will help us to continue offering all readers, free of charge, the thoughtful and diverse content that you’ve come to love.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?