If you don’t center the interests of white people, you’re engaging in IDENTITY POLITICS

Cynthia Nixon, the Democratic candidate for governor of New York who actually wants Democrats to control the state Assembly, said something obviously true in a recent interview:

The fact of the matter is, our working class doesn’t look like the working class from 1955. Our working class is largely women and people of color—it’s people like social workers and daycare workers, people who run senior centers and after-school youth programs and people who work in schools. We need to fund those things.

This basic statement of facts makes Damon Linker VERY ANGRY:

Why say our working class is "largely" women and people of color? Why not talk about our working class coming in all races and genders? There are a lot of white working-class people in upstate NY. Why exclude them? It's both politically stupid and morally wrong. https://t.co/eiQGfeQFaP

— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) March 25, 2018

Nixon’s statements, in addition to being unassailably accurate, did not in fact “exclude” white people. On the other hand:

You’re going to be absolutely shocked (😐) that @DamonLinker thinks noting actual working class demographics is “politically stupid and morally wrong,” but he has no problem going on about the “white working class.” pic.twitter.com/s0JuPjzQJx

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) March 25, 2018

If you talk about how New York’s working class is predominantly people of color, you’re being exclusionary. If you talk about the “white working class,” you’re being inclusionary and impartial, because you’re talking to the default human. OK. The rain on your wedding day, of course, being that people who think this way are the people most dedicated to railing against IDENTITY POLITICS. (Cf. Mark Lilla’s conflation of “women” with “white women.”) The accusation is generally a confession.