I don't think they would drop it because emphasizing such social issues helps to keep people on both left and right of liberalism fighting it out whilst not
effectively threatening the core of the the capitalist system.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm...If, today, one follows a direct call to act, this act will not be performed in an empty space; it will be an act within the hegemonic ideological coordinates: those who "really want to do something to help people" get involved in (undoubtedly honorable) exploits like Doctors without Borders, Greenpeace, feminist and antiracist campaigns, which are all not only tolerated but even supported by the media, even if they seemingly enter economic territory (say, denouncing and boycotting companies that do not respect ecological conditions or that use child labor). They are tolerated and supported as long as they do not get too close to a certain limit.
...
Today’s blockade is that there are two ways open for the socio-political engagement: either play the game of the system, engage in the “long march through the institutions,” or get active in new social movements, from feminism through ecology to anti-racism. And, again, the limit of these movements is that they are not POLITICAL in the sense of the Universal Singular: they are “one issue movements” which lack the dimension of the universality, i.e. they do not relate to the social TOTALITY.
Here, Lenin’s reproach to liberals is crucial: they only EXPLOIT the working classes’ discontent to strengthen their position vis-a-vis the conservatives, instead of identifying with it to the end.52 Is this also not the case with today’s Left liberals? They like to evoke racism, ecology, workers’ grievances, etc., to score points over the conservatives WITHOUT ENDANGERING THE SYSTEM. Recall how, in Seattle, Bill Clinton himself deftly referred to the protesters on the streets outside, reminding the gathered leaders inside the guarded palaces that they should listen to the message of the demonstrators (the message which, of course, Clinton interpreted, depriving it of its subversive sting attributed to the dangerous extremists introducing chaos and violence into the majority of peaceful protesters). It’s the same with all New Social Movements, up to the Zapatistas in Chiapas: the systemic politics is always ready to “listen to their demands,” depriving them of their proper political sting. The system is by definition ecumenical, open, tolerant, ready to “listen” to all — even if one insist on one’s demands, they are deprived of their universal political sting by the very form of negotiation. The true Third Way we have to look for is this third way between the institutionalized parliamentary politics and the new social movements.
The ultimate answer to the reproach that the radical Left proposals are utopian should thus be that, today, the true utopia is the belief that the present liberal-democratic capitalist consensus could go on indefinitely, without radical changes. We are thus back at the old ‘68 motto “Soyons realistes, demandons l'impossible!": in order to be truly a “realist,” one must consider breaking out of the constraints of what appears “possible” (or, as we usually out it, “feasible”).
They are movements that are readily swept up into supporting politicians and supporting the state as it is with the ideal that it'll simply listen to them, taking the wind out of their sails as a movement. It gives them a few concessions, jumping back and forth in the long term, jumping back and forth on social issues with differing liberal politicians in power.
So in minor ways the state can change its form, whilst in content remaining essentially the same as always because these tug of war on social issues is masks the content of the state serving a capitalist class. It allows people to feel like they participate in their society and have a meaningful say through elections. When they become disillusioned with the liberal democratic process of voting not meeting their needs, they move to direct action yet still to prompt politicians to do their fighting.
Too many movements of people die early on because they get tied up with a politician leading their effort within the political/economic system. Because they ultimately agree with the capitalist system and liberal state but just think it needs a few tweaks, reforms to achieve their ends. They don't see how in the long term their reforms aren't sustainable and will simply be undermined once their political leverage is dissipated. If anything identity politics of the liberal kind are tolerated and in some cases temporarily supported until they get to close to threatening the core interests. In which case they've often been taken in under state and funded by it and their funding is simply cut or threatened if they oppose powerful interests, making them politically impotent to addressing the the cause of their identified problem. They propose band aid solutions, that they are of the type that creates charities to support treating the symptoms of a society.
And its in this sense that these groups that can be organized and in a sense are products of people from the bottom then designate certain concerns which the parties then make appeals to. They can play the game of I care about this racial or gender issue, I support these policies that help them in this way. And they may even implement somethings considered progressive, but they will always be minor concessions, nothing radical.
So in the end I can't see the democratic party dropping such political appeasement as it serves them quite well just as already noted it served reactionaries quite well as they're of the same type but on reaction to it. The entire political view is all within the confines of capitalism, still feeling the effects of what Maggie Thatcher's
TINA after the end of the cold war with disillusioned first world leftist who turned new left cultural theorists, where academics end up concerned with policing language and more offended by a word than the conditions of the working class.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
- By Doug64
- By Godstud