I do want to add to my previous tongue-in-cheek comment. I’m going to jump around a bit in my examples, so please bear with me. In this comment, I just want to point out the limitations of a focus on “imposters” and how such a focus is impossible to implement. I don’t necessarily offer a solution.
There are a lot of really sticky aspects to this imposter syndrome. In fact, I propose that most of us have been victimized by it at some point, either as trying to pass for someone we are not, or in being viewed as imposters, or in viewing others in that light. (By the way, spellcheck corrected my last use of “imposter” to “impostor”,huh?)
As much as I truly despise the present president, I have been hearing since my childhood that anyone, any American, can be president. That became an apparent lie when I realized the impossibility of being a woman president. That’s been proven once again, by the way.
However, now what I am hearing from many is that he is not presidential material, that “presidential material” being mostly made up of white, rich people’s etiquette, education, use of language — you get my drift. Of course, Trump has been exposed and has been in that world, but he is orange not white and therefore, an imposter.
I have known people of color who were stopped by police for walking through a neighborhood in which that person was considered an imposter. In my own experience, I was forced to be an imposter in my youth by being made to attend a church whose values I opposed, by having to act like a lady when I knew I wasn’t one.
It has been my opinion for a while that Democracy has its own demise inherent in it. Majority rule could mean that we end up with a total bozo as president. The electoral college, which was supposed to be the antidote to such a disaster, has the extreme, opposite effect of squashing the popular vote.
While those who call themselves Democrats run the gamut from all-inclusive politics to religious misogynists, it is extremely difficult to name imposters in pure terms. Left and right politics had to do with economic viewpoints, and the identification of the parties also had to do with economics originally.
Purists, like Bernie Sanders, would like to see a return to just the economic allegiance and a move away from identity politics. That’s actually quite absurd since issues like abortion, reproductive rights, and racism are inseparable from the economic lives of so many.
What is interesting about identity politics is that there are many areas in which it crosses the bipolar Democratic/Republican line. When I was block walking for Wendy Davis and Leticia Van de Putte who were running for governor and lieutenant governor respectively in Texas, there were so many Democratic African Americans who told me they would not vote for them because their pastors told them not to vote for pro-choice candidates. There were Republican white women who told me they were voting for them because of reproductive rights.
When I block walked during the Obama campaign, I kept coming across Latino Democrats who told me they would never vote for an African American for president. They didn’t vote Republican, but they just weren’t voting. There’s no doubt that the Republicans considered Obama an imposter.
My point is that identity politics brings out the flaws in strictly economic politics and it has ensured that our political parties will be fraught with “imposters” forevermore.
The allegiance is no longer just based on economic viewpoints. The inclusive view of the Democratic party ensures that those who oppose equal rights for women will be welcomed with open arms by those who don’t want to exclude misogynistic religions that are the recipients of hatred by others. So just who are the imposters?
I propose that impostership is in the eyes of the beholder. I also propose that we move away from a two-party system. It would still be subject to all sorts of stickiness, but it would be a bit more honest.