Identity politics ... that's what they call it. According to Wikipedia, the term is defined as "political action to advance the interests of members of a group supposed to be oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity." According to David Brooks's op ed piece in the The New York Times, both Clinton and Obama are playing the identity politics card ... and doing it poorly.
It's not just the Democrats. Vote for Obama because he's black. Vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Vote for Huckabee because he's an Evangelical Christian. They said Mitt Romney won in Michigan because he was the hometown boy. And it's not all the candidates' fault. There are just as many blacks, women, and Christians calling for the election of their candidate solely on the basis of this identity. Looking at the Republicans in the upcoming Florida primary, we find that Rudy has a lead in southern Florida because there are lot of snowbirds from New York there and he's from New York. We find that McCain has a large following because of the large numbers of retirees that identify with them. We find that Huckabee has a large following because of the large numbers of Evangelical Christians in the state. And currently there is no forerunner.
There are a couple of real problems here. First, none of these groups fall in the category of "oppressed". To be accurate, we'd have to say that they fall in the category of feeling oppressed, I suppose, but anyone who doesn't have everything their own way feels, at times, oppressed. The other problem is that none of these candidates with whom folks are identifying are suggesting anything on behalf of the "oppressed". Obama isn't offering to make things better for black people. Clinton isn't going to make things better for women. Huckabee isn't suggesting any steps to make Christians better off. And so it goes.
It's tempting. We might think that electing Obama will say, "We're no longer a racist country." It won't. It's tempting to think that a vote for Hillary proves that women have no limits. It doesn't. And Mike Huckabee's Christianity is no guarantee that he'll be what Christians want or need in office.
I think we need to step off a bit. It is just as wrong to vote for a candidate simply because he's a Christian like me as it is to vote for one who is black like me, old like me, or a woman like me. Stop looking for identity and try to find ideas. Do you want someone who will increase our taxes enough to give universal health care? Find that person. Are you hoping to get a president who will withdraw the troops from Iraq? Find that person. Do you think there is a candidate who will make a difference to our economy? Vote for that person.
Vote for ideas, not identity. The minute we begin to vote for someone because we identify them with our oppressed group, we verify that we haven't gotten passed the petty differences like race, gender, religion, or age. We simply demonstrate our refusal to think rather than feel. Think!
7 comments:
ummm...
There is a considerable difference between being 'black like me' and 'a christian like me'. 'Black' is an involuntary category with no necessary implication into the philosophy of the individual. 'Christian' (if true) includes a whole host of philosophical (and thus political) implications.
That being said, your focus on 'ideas' is correct. It is one reason why 'democracy' does not work in many parts of the world; they act by identity groups and not political ideas.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference between "black" and "Christian" like me. Very true. The problem arises when we hear "Christian" and assume "like me." They don't first ask, "Is he actually Christian like me?" (That is, does he have the same views, positions, perspectives, values?)
You're also right that it doesn't work in some places because of the identity groups. I'm beginning to wonder how well it works in America for the same reason ...
Then there are the ones who decide on who to vote for because of who endorses. I think I'll vote for Huckabee because of Chuck Norris. LOL
You have to admit that commercial with ole Chuck is quite funny.
Again, we have to ask ourselves if the qualities we long for in a leader can be encapsulated in a particular identity. Of course, the answer is no, but it's easier to affiliate ourselves and our allegiance with someone whom we perceive is "like us". Hence the proliferation of sound bytes and ads that claim to foster some type of kinship.
It's part of the reason there is a growing class of Independents--they don't see any natural affinity with either the Democrats or the Republicans, and have no wish to tag themselves as such.
science mom**It's part of the reason there is a growing class of Independents
Very true. "NOT like them" is becoming a growing "identity" itself. A strong third party candidate has a good chance at winning in 2008.
Von**'Black' is an involuntary category
Not so in this case. Black Republicans have fared little better than white Republicans in black districts. There is an ideological identity along with the "black" identity that is little different than the evangelical Christian identity. To the common African American, Obama is "black like me" and, say, Michael Steele, the MD Republican, is not. The common black identity is also liberal.
I think that is reprehensible by the way but all "identity" groups have the same problem - they are not tied together by higher thought, but by narcissism.
Von**'Black' is an involuntary category
Not so in this case. Black Republicans have fared little better than white Republicans in black districts.
This was my point. Being literally *black* (physically) is a separate and distinct thing from being *black* politically. The one is involuntary, the other voluntary.
The point on 'Christian' like me is a good one. Anyone naive enough to vote for someone just because they claim the name of 'christian' is naive indeed. Contrariwise, however, a true Christian will have something worth voting for.
"Anyone naive enough to vote for someone just because they claim the name of 'christian' is naive indeed. Contrariwise, however, a true Christian will have something worth voting for."
My point exactly.
Post a Comment