The questions were rhetorical but the rhetoric seems to me to flow logically and was not offered for the purpose of scoring points. I’m too old for that shit.

You do understand, I presume, that the UAW was a different animal from the labor movement generally, and I mean that in a good way. Of course, I was working with the UFW when their primary funding was coming from the UAW….and then along came the Teamsters, before which I had never heard the phrase “sweetheart contract.”

But I digress. You offer a critique of which you appear to be certain as in “anybody should be able to see that” but your whole point in replying to my description, as far as I can tell, is to persuade minorities and women that there is a more important game afoot than their purblind efforts to defend themselves.

My point in writing in the first place was it would be nice to quit blaming the victims of racist or sexist policies for so-called “identity politics.” As I said originally, I’ve been unable to observe a downside to people defending themselves — it appears to raise turnout, which I take to be a good thing.

We all know some minority pols commonly described as “furniture,” perhaps because “potted plants” is already taken. Those folks get elected the same way white furniture gets elected: safe seats created by gerrymandering, where those drawing the lines prefer a safe African-American seat to two or three seats where it’s necessary to attend to those nasty old identity politics issues to get elected.

I just realized I am going to have to police my use of the term “minority” more carefully. I meant nonwhites. It will be a long time before majority status sinks in.