Democrats: Don’t abandon identity politics, get them right

In the post-mortem of this recent presidential election, a common critique is emerging: Democrats' reliance on identity politics has missed the mark, failing to resonate with a broad spectrum of voters.

But the issue isn’t with identity politics itself; it’s with the way we’re applying it. Our approach has become overly simplistic, compartmentalizing people into single dimensions rather than embracing the layered and intersecting identities that shape real lives.

What we have been doing is not, in fact, identity politics but identity pandering. If we want to build a lasting coalition, we need to engage with the full spectrum of who people are, not just checkboxes on a form.

For those who argue that we should simply abandon identity politics or claim it doesn’t work, there’s a real risk of overcorrecting. Without a thorough critique of what went wrong and a thoughtful path forward, we could end up discarding an essential tool for connection and understanding rather than refining it. A knee-jerk dismissal risks pushing us further away from the nuanced, inclusive politics we need to reach a diverse and multifaceted electorate.

The current approach to identity politics often uses traditional Venn diagrams to represent different aspects of identity, such as race, gender and class. These diagrams show circles overlapping in specific areas as if our identities are made up of separate, defined parts that just touch in certain spots. 

But in reality, our identities are more complex. They don’t just meet in a few places — they blend together, continuously shaping each other. 

A better visual metaphor is the Reuleaux triangle, a rounded shape that forms when three circles overlap more fully, creating a smooth, continuous area rather than rigid sections. It’s a shape without sharp boundaries, representing how identities interact and influence each other fluidly.

When we think of identity through this Reuleaux triangle lens, we recognize that a person’s identity isn’t just a combination of distinct labels. Instead, it’s a blend where race, socioeconomic status, family roles, community and other aspects merge together to shape real experiences. 

My own identity as a Black man is just one part of a broader identity that includes being a millennial, the father of an Afro-Latino child, the husband of a first-generation American, the son-in-law of Cuban immigrants, a son to a retired mother living off a public sector pension and a city dweller affected by the financial and social strain of raising a child in 2024. Each of these facets shapes my priorities, concerns and values, continuously influencing each other.

True identities contain both the things we champion and the things that give us consternation — the issues that wake us up every morning and those that keep us awake at night. Losing sight of that duality risks losing more elections, as voters will not resonate with an approach that only acknowledges part of who they are. 

As long as we only partly understand people, they will only partly align with us. For identity politics to be meaningful, we must go beyond surface labels and embrace the full, layered depth of people’s lived experiences.

Take, for instance, a Latino man who works a union job. His identity isn’t defined solely by ethnicity; it’s also shaped by his working-class status, his involvement in organized labor and his struggles with stagnant wages. Or consider a single, white mother in the suburbs — her identity is informed by her gender and race, yes, but equally by the specific challenges of raising a child alone and worrying about healthcare and job security. 

Each identity is an intersection of race, class, family and community, creating unique concerns that go unaddressed when we view voters through narrow labels. This is the Reuleaux triangle of identity — a model that represents how each layer of identity blends into the others, creating a dynamic, whole person.

Here’s an example: Democratic campaigns — whether presidential, congressional or gubernatorial — often focus their Black male voter outreach in barbershops. There’s something to be said for meeting people where they are, but even for a Black man who values a good haircut, we go to the barbershop maybe once a week at most. 

You know where we go more often than that? We go to work, school, church, and the gym. To volunteer, to take our kids to school, to bring our parents to their doctor’s appointments, to mentor and coach. Putting someone like Eric Holder in a barber’s chair to connect with Black men has merit, but it can’t be our only form of engagement.

While Republicans aren’t doing a great job of speaking directly to the whole person either, we risk an unintended outcome by also falling short. When people don’t hear themselves reflected in our messaging, they land on a default: “I’m not what they’re talking about, so I must be this other thing.” By failing to reach the whole person, we push some people away, leaving them to define themselves by what we’ve left out of the conversation.

And in focusing narrowly on isolated parts of identity, we’ve oddly centered the same stereotypes and divisions we criticize the other side for perpetuating. Instead of addressing people as complex individuals with intersecting identities and concerns, we’ve inadvertently emphasized the very stereotypes we aim to dismantle, reinforcing a simplistic view of identity that ultimately alienates the people we hope to represent. 

If we want to move forward, we need a more nuanced, respectful approach that understands and speaks to the full, real lives of the people we represent.

Democrats risk alienating voters when we engage only on the surface, using broad categories rather than recognizing people’s full lives. Our current, lazy logic of segmenting voters into categories like “Black,” “Latino,” “LGBTQ+” or “working-class” misses the complexity of real experiences and the issues that shape them. 

People’s identities encompass their economic realities, family responsibilities, healthcare needs, and their aspirations for a better future — these concerns must be at the heart of how we engage with them politically.

To build genuine connections, Democrats need to embrace identity politics as a framework for understanding people’s layered realities. Moving forward, we must redefine our approach — not as a checklist of race, gender and class, but as a commitment to understanding the intersections of people’s lived experiences. 

Only then, can we build the connections that resonate on a personal level, reflecting the fullness of who people are and what they need from their government.

Illinois State Rep. Kam Buckner (D) is a member and assistant majority leader of the Illinois House of Representatives.