The Politics of Identity

Identity politics has been something that has been around for a long time. This year, however, it is getting a real workout with an Aftican American, a woman and a Hispanic in the race (ok - I realize that Richardson is formally out of the race but bear with me here). As a result there has been a lot of campaigning directed at specific "target groups" in order to woo them to cadidate A or Candidate B. I ran across a couple of interesting stories in the last two days about the machinizations of the campaigns in order to win these target groups over. The first was in the Washington Times (HT Poligazette)

Even here at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton's alma mater and a historic bedrock of progressive feminist thought, support for the senator from New York hardly registers as unanimous. Instead, the election has inspired a debate at this women-only liberal arts college about what it means to be a feminist. Do you vote for a woman to shatter the glass ceiling and further the cause? Or do you make an empowered, individual decision that is not confined by gender?

As a Hispanic woman, daughter of the feminist movement, the answer to me is clear....you make the empowered, individual decision. A vote based strictly on gender is what the movement has been fighting for decades!

Rosa Brooks shows us (in the Los Angeles Times) that there are plenty of young people out there who are also making their choice based on issues, not race or gender.

"The number of inter-marriages has gone up dramatically over the last few decades, and as a consequence, so has the number of multiracial young Americans, who -- like Obama -- are neither this nor that, but a bit of this and bit of that, with a healthy dollop of something else. And regardless of their own status, younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to have dated inter-racially, to have close friends of other races and to live in families with relatives from other racial and ethnic backgrounds...Americans under 30 grew up in a world in which women are CEOs and secretaries of State, and in which women make up the majority of U.S. college students. And, as with race, most younger Americans can't see what the big deal is. Of course a woman can be president. Of course being tough -- or getting a little teary-eyed -- on the campaign trail doesn't make you more or less feminine, or more or less suited to power. For younger voters, "Do you think a woman or a black man could be a good president?" is the wrong question. As women and men increasingly work side by side and share power, as the U.S. becomes a more complex, multiracial and multiethnic nation, younger voters may increasingly be asking themselves a very different question: Can a middle-aged white guy possibly be qualified to lead us
into the future?

Ms. Brooks is correct when she says that the only people the race and gender issue seem to be important to is the media. That is one reason why the major media are becoming more and more irrelevant to the truly informed voters. Those folks are going to look at the pros and cons of ALL of the candidates and decide which candidate best represents their values.

Those that only look at the superficial - the race and gender of the candidate - need to ask themselves one very important question. Have I really learned the lessons of the past? Am I really judging the person on the content of their heart or just the color of their skin (or gender)? Sadly, I am afraid that as long as we have people like this (HT Capt Ed)...

If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.

we will have more focus put on the superficial and nothing put on the important issues of the day.