3 hours ago
One of the defining features of American politics today is the weaponization of identity. This trend, which once focused mainly on social issues like race, religion, and sexual orientation, has now extended into economic policy.
Populist candidates on both sides often claim to represent the working class—regardless of their actual backgrounds—and criticize insiders and oligarchs. But this approach raises several problems.
First, the terms used in these discussions, especially in economics, are often fluid and poorly defined. Take the term "working class," traditionally defined as individuals who contribute only their labor, whether in an office or physical work, excluding those who earn income from others' labor.
By this definition, a lawyer at a large New York City firm would be considered working class, while a 70-year-old Maine homeowner who runs a contracting business with employees would not. Additionally, owning rental properties—even if owner-occupied—disqualifies someone from this category.
Similarly, terms like "white-collar," "blue-collar," and "millionaire" can be misleading. Many people are millionaires on paper because their home or business is valued at a million dollars, but that doesn't mean they have a million dollars in cash or earn that amount annually. Income, net worth, and cash assets are distinct measures of wealth.
Because of this ambiguity, these labels are not particularly useful for serious economic policy discussions. Yet politicians often embrace them because their vagueness allows for broad appeal. Vague terms like "hard-working" can resonate with nearly anyone, helping candidates avoid detailed policy debates.
When a candidate pledges to defend the working class against oligarchs, they often use identity politics to divide Americans rather than offer precise, realistic solutions. This tactic mirrors appeals based on race, religion, or gender identity, which tend to exploit fears instead of addressing specific problems with productive proposals.
That said, using these terms is not inherently wrong, nor does it mean a politician lacks real ideas. It is possible to employ such language while presenting concrete policy plans.
Politicians who use divisive rhetoric typically have two goals. First, they seek to keep Americans divided and fearful, encouraging people to see each other as adversaries rather than partners. They want voters to believe they are on their side while portraying others as enemies.
Second, many use this rhetoric primarily to get elected and gain power. Actual implementation of their proposals and helping the people they claim to represent often becomes a secondary concern. Even those with genuine policy ideas recognize that enacting them requires broad public support.
The best way to address the country's challenges is through unity and realistic solutions that benefit everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender identity, or socioeconomic status.
We must reject divisive rhetoric from all sides and support candidates who offer specific, effective solutions. There are principled individuals on both sides of the political spectrum who want to help all Americans, not just their voters. Returning to this approach could lead to electing leaders focused on the common good.
