Why David Hogg’s Age-Based Politics Miss the Mark: The Real Test for Candidates
The Promises and Pitfalls of Identity Politics in the Fight for Representation
Identity politics is a way to get votes but it will not get results, at least the results that average Americans want, need and hope for.
Identity politics is when voters organize around shared aspects of identity that can include deep cultural meaning and important life experiences especially around marginalized groups. In the case of David Hogg, it’s around the issue of age. Younger voters have historically been a marginalized group, even excluded.
David’s logic is this:
Many Democrats are very old.
These very old Democrats do not understand OR care about the needs of younger people and instead maintain an entrenched system unresponsive to the needs of average Americans and young people.
These very old Democrats care more about holding onto power than they do about helping the younger generation.
Therefore, we need to replace these very old Democrats with younger Democrats.
The younger Democrats inherently understand younger Democrats and will therefore do the right thing.
Term limits will improve policy outcomes for every-day Americans.
Things will be better and continually get better after we get younger people into office.
When the logic is laid out like this, it is easier to see the flaws in his way of thinking. Here’s the first: electing a younger congressperson does not mean that they will be a better representative of young people, and it certainly does not equate to doing the right things or best things for everyday Americans.
There are other problems with identity politics, for example, where is the cut-off from young-enough and being too old and who gets to decide? Will Hogg support a 50 or 60 or 70 year old candidate? Do younger voters have the same age cut-offs as Hogg? What about 25 or 35, is that too young? When it comes time to cast their vote, will young voters worry about experience, even plain old life experience in the end?
A third problem is the lack of agreement amongst young voters about priorities. Is there enough alignment in the Democratic party (including left-leaning independents) to get behind “younger” candidates?” For example, Joe Biden relentlessly fought to erase tens of billions of student debt, an extremely popular policy action across the generations, especially since most of the debt is owned by people over 40 who have little if any ability to ever pay it back, as well as new grads who have less buying power due to student debt. Biden worked very hard and careful to get a 2 Trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed, something Republican completely rejected but took credit for. Yet Biden was weak when it came to stopping Israel’s incessant bombing of women and children in occupied Palestine, something also very important to younger voters, but not as much with older voters and more moderate Democrats. In the end, Harris was seen as Biden 2.0, with Palestine, her moderate economic policies, and appealing to conservative women about abortion being her fault lines.
Assuming that a younger candidate will be perfect is foolish; not that Hogg assumes this, but identity politics have severe limitations. There is a much more dangerous aspect to identity politics that Democrats could fall victim to, and that is a Democratic version of Donald Trump. Trump is the quintessential identity politician. His populist campaigns have catered to White male Americans who harbored racist, sexist, anti-establishment, and anti-intellectual attitudes while at the same time, presenting himself as The prototype of the successful American businessman of the 1980’s, self-centered, braggadocios, charmingly over-confident, with an untouchable ego. People in many age groups across many different areas of the country saw in Trump what they wanted to see and ignored the rest. They filled the emptiness of his vague communication style with what they wanted to hear and believe.
Trump is the best example of the fundamental problem with identity politics and why Democrats should avoid focusing on the age of the candidate and instead focus on a fair evaluation of their performance. Unfortunately, many of those who have identified with Trump are now finding out that he is not who they thought he was, and the impact has been no less than devastating for those who have lost their businesses, their employees, their farms, income, food or health insurance.
The problem is that Congress, the President and the Supreme Court represent the Super Rich, an actual fraction of America’s 902 Billionaires. For example, Donald Trump represents just two Billionaires more than all others combined, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Musk funded Trump’s campaign by over 200 million dollars. It was Peter Thiel who funded J.D. Vance’s Senate campaign, launching his political career. The policy alignment between these billionaires and Donald Trump is near perfect as evidenced in DOGE, Starlink, and Palantir. Palantir is contracted with ICE to find persons in real-time for deportation. Palantir will use data collected by DOGE to develop a dossier on every person in America and will be able to flag unusual behaviors for investigation, in their system. Musk and Thiel’s corporations will avoid investigations and receive billions in government contracts. Meanwhile, food stamps, farm subsidies, education, public health, science and arts, national parks, EPA, FEMA, Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare will be cut.
Could Democrats fall victim to a Trump? It’s unlikely that Democrats would elect someone as sociopathic as Donald Trump. Democrats are inherently open-minded, loving, caring people which forms the basis for their valuing of equality and equity. For Democrats, the risks are different. The following problems are more likely to happen to Democrats if they focus on electing younger candidates without other tests, such as voting for (1) phony Democrats, that is, persons who pretend to be more liberal in order to get votes, but then change parties or vote along moderate to conservative lines (think Bill Clinton & Barack Obama), (2) candidates who accept large donations from Billionaires and end up working for them to maintain their seat (Think Chuck Schumer and Corey Booker), (3) candidates who have good intentions but their personalities are effective enough to work through conflictual political systems and build coalitions around important policies (think Huey Long and Jim Traficant), and (4) persons who see their candidacy as a career over a sacrifice with a genuine interest in helping people (think Diane Feinstein and Ruth Bader Ginsberg).
We need better tests for candidates, starting with from whom do they take donations? We can find this out at ProPublica, FEC.gov, OpenSecrets, FollowTheMoney, VoteSmart, and MapLight to name a few. Candidates should only accept individual donations of less than $200 each, and donations from Unions.
Second, we need to learn about their history. Do they have a legislative history? Many people complained about Hillary Clinton being moderate or secretly conservative, but if you look at her legislative history in the U.S. Senate, she was an extremely active Senator who attempted a lot of progressive bills, although her more moderate legislation was what made the news. Some lawmakers have a slim legislative history but have other areas where they demonstrated solid policies to benefit most Americans. Bernie Sanders is a good example. In his long Senate Career, Bernie did not propose a lot of legislation, but he co-sponsored or supported a lot of great bills. More importantly, he represented the Progressive (FDR) caucus of the Democratic party during election years, using his large national voter-base and endorsement power to push through a more liberal platform for the Democratic party. Arguably, Biden would not have fought for any student loan forgiveness or infrastructure bill without the persistent prodding of Sanders.
Third, we need Candidates who reach out to voters in effective social media campaigns, but also go door-to-door and engage with voters. One important, and often overlooked reason why Democrats lost to Trump in 2016 and 2024 was due to voter suppression, Republican voter suppression laws to be clear. In swing States like Wisconsin voter ID laws took effect and over 300,000 voters did not vote in their last election because they lacked what they worried was inadequate identification. Voting drives that address this type of voter suppression is a necessary tactic for success. In 2016, social media campaigns by Russia and Republicans through Facebook cost Hillary enough votes in the Blue Wall States to lose the election. In 2024, Harris lost enough margins in some States due to Jill Stein’s bogus social media campaigns because she failed to address important issues with Muslim voters. Meanwhile, Trump received endorsements from two large Muslim organizations, one of which also disclosed that they supported Trump because they were chauvinist! Harris had what she thought were the best and brightest social media talent, but there’s more to it than hiring young persons to run those campaigns, you need to be bold in your convictions. Harris was anything but Bold.
What made Barack Obama successful wasn’t that he was the first African American to win the Democratic presidential primary, it was that he ran a very progressive campaign where he often spoke about the needs of “Main Street” and the need for Universal healthcare. Americans overwhelmingly want a system like Medicare for All. Black or White, voters showed up for Obama for two terms because their first and best impression of Obama was from his progressive rhetoric. The reality almost immediately after the election, Obama replaced nearly all of his progressive team with conservative Clinton throwbacks. Most American didn’t notice, since they are not aware of just how conservative Bill Clinton was and lack depth. In fact, in the areas of immigration, public aid, foreign policy, and many others, Clinton was much more Conservative than the Republicans of his time in major policy areas. Clinton even started developing a plan with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security toward the end of his second term that apparently was foiled thanks to Monica Lewinsky (you can find this story online, it’s very interesting).
My argument is this: we don’t need young or old candidates, we don’t need male or female, we don’t need rich or poor, what we need are candidates who will fight for the policies that benefit the majority of us. But we need tests to determine who is authentic. We need candidates who engage in Grass Roots campaigns.
At its core, identity politics emerged from a deeply human need to be seen, heard, and valued in a system that too often ignores those on the margins. Identity politics has given voice to communities long excluded from power, and when grounded in shared struggle and solidarity, it has led to transformative change. But like any powerful force, it can be misused. When identity is reduced to a marketing tool or a shortcut for trust, it becomes ripe for exploitation, especially among vulnerable populations seeking belonging or hope.
Figures like Candace Owens and Joe Rogan demonstrate how identity can be weaponized to sow division or advance agendas that harm the very communities they claim to represent. Owens reframes the experiences of Black Americans to push a Right-Wing agenda that comes around to seriously hurt Black Americans who have about the same percentage of the nation’s wealth today as they did in 1866. While younger politicians may bring fresh energy, youth alone is no guarantee of progress, and it is being used in the same way Owens uses it to hurt the people she seeks to have identify with her ideas of what Black identity should be but not what it actually is. We must resist the urge to project our aspirations onto leaders simply because they resemble us, and instead demand more: alignment in values, clarity in policy, and integrity in action.
Identity should inform our politics but it should never replace substance. In the end, voters deserve leaders who not only reflect their communities, but who are willing to fight for them with courage, skill, and accountability. Anything less is not representation. It’s a performance. This is why Bernie Sanders, regardless of being a very old White male is so popular amongst minorities, he is a true FDR throwback, the real New Deal, if you will.
Term Limits
I’ve written about term limits in past articles, but I’ll touch upon again here. Term limits will not fix Congress. In fact, I believe that term limits would dangerously degrade our political system.
The argument for term limits is this:
Long-term incumbency leads to the accumulation of power and influence, creating an imbalance of power in Congress.
Staying in office leads to a career politician mindset, where the goal is to stay in office. This leads congresspersons to become more responsive to lobbyists and special interests instead of their voters.
Term limits would promote fresh ideas and keep congresspersons responsive to the needs of their voters.
Term limits reduce the advantages that incumbents have, making elections more competitive and fair.
Term limits can help reduce corruption and complacency.
Term limits sound promising, but they fail to address the fundamental problem in our campaign process: the influence of money. Term limits would actually accelerate our broken system. Here’s how:
Candidates would run for office taking in the most donations from whomever, and if they win, they have no incentive to do anything for anyone other than those who give them the most money to help them get elected to their remaining 1-2 terms.
Once elected, congresspersons would have no incentive to do anything; they could even vote in absentia for whichever bill their lobbyists wrote. At least in the current system, if you want a career in politics, you have to do something for your voters if you’re a Democrat (Republicans get a pass, their voters operate not on information but on blind loyalty and trust to their ow peril).
With Term Limits, the Super Rich would recruit candidates that they would brand in whatever way they needed to get them elected (gun tote in’, clean cut, wearing make-up, etc., whatever is needed to get elected. They would be well-funded and well-known. Once elected, they would do whatever the Super Rich wanted them to do. If they lost their next campaign, who cares, they’d be rewarded with a good job; either way, they only could serve a couple-few terms.
Congress would end up losing all of its institutional memory and become full of candidates who are there to represent the Super Rich. Everyday Americans would not be able to keep up with the constant changes in politicians. Fact is, 15% of Americans didn’t know who Benjamin Netanyahu is yesterday (June 19) even though he’s been around since 1980 and is currently dragging American into an unprovoked war against Iran! Do you think they’ll be able to keep up with changes with term limits? There’s something to be said about building trust with politicians over time.
With or without term limits, we still need more middle and working class people to run for office. Term limits will not automatically further that end.
If Democrats end up electing a bad candidate based on identity politics, who are the likely candidates? Corey Booker, Gavin Newsome, or Kamala Harris. The reason I mention these three is because they are not FDR Democrats, they are Candidates who will continue to pass trillion-dollar military budgets, spend tax payer dollars on unjust or unnecessary wars, and favor corporate de-regulation and privatization. Unfortunately, there are very few candidates who really want to help the Middle and Working class, and the poor - 99% of Americans.
No, term limits will make things worse, and the Super Rich know this. They’d prefer Congress just step aside and let their President govern by Executive Order, which Trump is trying to do. The Republican Senate actually added an amendment to their "big beautiful bill” to make it impossible to sue Trump over his E.O.’s. They all work for a few Billionaires.
Propaganda is expensive. The working class and middle class cannot afford it. Billionaires are the only ones who can afford to push propaganda. If you hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if you don’t like Democrats and want a third party like Jill Stein, it’s likely you’re a victim of Super Rich divide-and-conquer propaganda.
TheThe Democratic Party is not perfect, but it is the best, most viable vehicle for the middle class, working class, poor, and all the other people Jesus cared about, to have a chance.
_____________________________________
Role of the DNC:
Support Democratic Candidates
Provides funding, data, training, and strategic support to Democratic candidates for local, state, and federal office—especially during national elections.
Organize the Democratic National Convention
Every four years, the DNC organizes the convention where the party formally nominates its candidates for President and Vice President of the U.S.
Set Party Platform
Helps shape and promote the official Democratic Party platform, which outlines the party’s policy positions and priorities.
Fundraising
Raises money to support Democratic campaigns and maintain party infrastructure nationwide.
Voter Outreach and Mobilization
Runs initiatives to register voters, boost turnout, and engage underrepresented communities.
Coordinate National Strategy
Works with state Democratic parties to align messaging, campaign efforts, and electoral strategies.
Manage Party Rules and Structure
Oversees the party’s rules, bylaws, and internal elections (such as the selection of DNC officers and committee members).
Role of the DCCC:
1. Candidate Support
Recruitment: Identifies and encourages strong Democratic candidates to run in competitive or open districts.
Training: Provides guidance on campaign strategies, messaging, fundraising, and digital operations.
Funding: Offers direct financial support and helps candidates raise money through national networks.
2. Campaign Infrastructure
Field Operations: Helps build on-the-ground voter outreach efforts, including canvassing and phone banking.
Digital & Data: Supplies advanced data tools and voter targeting technologies.
Media Strategy: Produces and airs TV, radio, and digital ads to support candidates or counter Republican opponents.
3. Protecting Incumbents
Focuses resources on vulnerable Democratic incumbents through a program called “Frontline”, which supports members facing tough reelection battles.
4. Flipping Republican Seats
Invests in districts where Democrats have a realistic chance of defeating Republican incumbents—these are often labeled “Red to Blue” races.
5. National Messaging and Strategy
Coordinates overarching messages and talking points that reflect Democratic values and priorities, helping to unify the party’s communication across races.