That was a terrific editorial. This part really resonated with me.
Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop.
I think you give the Republican way way too much credit for being able to put together much less execute a sophisticated strategy like play rope-a-dope. The reaction against identify politics is visceral and is pretty much universal among all types of Republicans, as well as some older Democrats.
One of the primary focus of my Pearl Harbor organization is education. In particular helping teacher educate students on WWII. In reviewing some of our programs, I was astonished to look at high school textbook on the WWII. One of the top ones had a side bar on the Japanese internment, another on on Woman in WWII, a third on blacks in WWII and the Tuskegee airmen, a fourth on the dropping of the atomic bombs and survivor stories. Now the sidebars were pretty well done for the most part. The problem several of the sidebars were the length of the main article on WWII. The main article had a couple of sentences about Pearl Harbor, Midway, a paragraph on D-Day, a few sentences about island hoping and finally the end of the war. The problem isn't this identity stories aren't important, it is that the bigger story gets lost. To the point where after doing some testing, we found most students couldn't correctly identify who fought on the allies or the axis.
If America is going to become the land of the hyphenated Americans; African-American, Gay-American, than White-American is going to be the biggest group.