The Crisis of Identity Politics

Like it or not, we are all identity voters now.

For better or for worse, the media competition between the top three Democratic candidates has become a contest of identity rooted in gender, class, and, race.  The Democrat who wins the nomination will do more than give voice to the party platform and move on to challenge the Republican nominee,  The Democratic nominee will also become the face of an America that found the courage to move beyond--something.

The identity frame of in Democratic nomination has been there from the start.

From the first moments that Hillary Clinton made it clear that she wanted to be President, her gender has been an issue.  From the first lines of Barack Obama's historic 'Audacity of Hope' speech at the DNC convention, his race has been an issue.  From the first steps of John Edwards' first campaign for President, his class has been an issue.

Each has been faced with certain paradoxes that have played out in the media.  Clinton has benefited from the mantle of 'first woman president,' but has had to wrestle with sexist of weakness.  Edwards has enjoyed his status as a people's president, but been dogged with accusations of class duplicity.  Obama has inspired people with the hope of fulfilling the promises of Martin Luther King, Jr., but been smeared by racism both covert and, at times, overt. 

Identity politics bring out the worst in American society because identity politics are about overcoming the worst in American society.  As a result, the Democratic campaign is now very emotional, very ugly, and very urgent.

No matter who earns the 2008 Democratic nomination, the media story will be about identity politics in America. As a result of what happens to the Democratic party, the story will be that America has leaped over one social hurdle, but tripped on two others. 

If Clinton wins, we will be the nation that beat the gender gap, but tripped on racism and classism.  If Obama wins, we will have faced our history of racism, but avoided classism and sexism. And if Edwards wins, we will have embraced a new era of economic justice, but shielded our eyes from the problems of sexism and racism. 

No matter the outcome, one of the big problems with a campaign anchored in identity politics is that it cannot lift up some without making others feel slighted.  Identity politics victories are bittersweet.  They fill us with great hope, but sow seeds of frustration and even cynicism. 

Which identity should triumph this time around? Of all the possible outcomes, which is best for all?  What is more urgent for this moment in our history?

Those are not just questions that lead us to pull the lever next to one candidate's name versus another.  Those are questions that foment arguments, divide households, and end friendships.   

Thus, while the Republican Party engages in a somber debate about tax cuts, military budgets, and immigration, the Democratic Party is locked in emotional debate about justice, equality, and truth.

What a difference we now see in the cultures of these two grand institutions the define the range of options for American voters.

Should this be the choice moving forward?  Does America benefit from a presidential election that revolves around identity politics?

Not so much.

When identity frames American politics, the result is not a great strengthening of our system, but a weakening of it.  When shot through the lens of identity, politics reveals divisions and fissures that we might not otherwise see.  Those divisions are there just the same, but when we shine the light of politics on them we see and feel them with an saccharine intensity. Pain that we had worked through returns.  Memories of betrayal resurface. Hope of hard-sought unity dissipates.  Identity and election campaigns in particular are the nitroglycerin of politics.

Whether or not a vast majority of the electorate can speak clearly about the problems of identity politics, they sense them in their gut and react to them accordingly.  It may be that the Democratic campaigns make short term gains by playing to identity politics, but in the long run the result will be very bad for the Democratic Party.

When faced with the choice between four years of identity politics in the White House and four years without it, voters will likely choose the latter.  Winning the Democratic nomination by playing to identity, in other words, could very well be the Democratic nominee's key step towards losing the general election.

We may all be identity voters, in other words, but voters need not accept the situation. As voters, we can reject the choices put to us by that small handful of people running primary election campaigns.  As voters, we can all insist on a more pragmatic, less divisive frame for American politics.

We can refuse to be drawn up in the rancor of accusations.

We can refuse to engage the futility of the blame game.

We can insist on talking about the core challenges we face as a nation: a failed foreign policy, a global environment in deep crisis, an economy in need of a transition overhaul.

Even if the election campaigns we see on TV are discussing identity issues instead of the pragmatic challenges we face, Americans can still drive the debate in the direction that matters most.

There are many social hurdles that we still need to face as a nation.  And we will continue to work hard to do so.  But for now, we must work together to make sure that our national politics does not collapse into a crisis of identity politics.

Let's make sure that does not happen.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Comments

[NABNYC]

This is like Rashoman. A person's perspective is affected or maybe distorted by their own circumstances.

The majority of people in this country are not white males. Half the population is female, and I don't even know the percentage that is non-white, but it's large.

Yet the most powerful positions in this country are exclusively white male, or maybe with a few non-whites or female tokens: white house, Congress. Most university professors. Top level management in all corporations. Prosecutors. Ambassadors. You name it, it's mostly white men. And none of them ever notice that. They don't look around and say "Oh my God: all the best jobs are held by white men, this is terrible, not good for the country." Nope, they like it just the way it is.

So when women get involved, or non-whites do, we hear this outcry from the white males: this is too much, you're demanding too much. People are afraid of you. Go back into your cubicles and leave us to decide who should run things.

This is so absurd. Women should be 50% of Congress, 50% of the ambassadors, all the top positions, all top management in business, universities. That would be fair.

I note that no one pays any attention to blacks in this country except when it's time for an election, then there's a lot of pandering. Whatever their percentage is of the population, they should be that percentage in those positions as well. And Hispanics.

Absent exclusionary policies, all people with equal opportunity will end up in equally positions. Our society excludes the majority to the benefit of white men. Who, according to this article, are very disturbed at the sight of one woman and one black man running for president in a field of -- 16 candidates to begin?

The party that talks favorably about tax breaks for the rich, outsourcing and the use of slave labor, is the party of privileged white men. Don't admire the Republicans. They represent the worst part of our country.

[Nutcase]

It would be nice to be a part of an historic event but the government's main problems are reversing Bush and establishing a just system, not putting in office a Black or a woman.

Both Clinton and Obama are creatures of the DLC (Republican lite). They are both owned by the corporations. Look at their policy positions.

Both have health care plans that increase the income and profits (guaranteed by the taxpayer) of the health insurance and drug companies. Look at their primary donors (defense contrators, health insurance companies, drug companies, financial institutions).

Seeing an historic moment would be nice but the country has so many critical problems that aren't addressed by such historic possibilities. The Black and the woman are flawed. They will, as at least the last four Presidents, represent those whose interests mean harm to you and me. We need someone to represent us.

cognito ergo populistae

[hrayovac]

Transcend Feldman. Turn off the television and keep it off for a week. The people you hang with are also watching too much television. There is nothing in what Obama offers that suggests we will move backward into sexism or classism.

[mickeyrat]

given that the Republicans only have one identity, white, male, upper class origins, it's awfully hard to see how they could have an identity struggle within their ranks.

That said, if we are to have an identity-candidacy, doesn't it make sense to have the one that stands the greatest chance of winning?

And wouldn't that be the economic class identity that John Edwards is pushing?

We're either in or rapidly headed towards a recession, depending on what economist one hears. In either event, it's it safe to bet that the identity which correlates most closely with the actual issues that will resonate amongst americans in November is Edward's economic populism?

His message has been steady and clear from the start. In the meantime, Hillary and Obama engage in mudwrestling.

Edwards can win, and will win. Hillary can't win, Obama probably can't win.

But Obama would make a great VP candidate for Edwards--a ticket that could, in conjunction with Katrina, flip Louisiana.

Edwards/Obama '08

[vsign]

I'm happy that Bill Clinton is standing up to Barack on race. He can do it. No one seems to have the b---- to do it. Especially the media! Barack is the one playing the race card. It is his whole strategy. Barack is trying to get 40% of the white vote so he can win. Vote for me and you can feel good about yourself for "being above race" - like me.
Is Barack talking about issues? No. He claims if we join his personality cult, and believe he has superior judgement, we can win. And that is all that matters - right?

[OhgReaTone]

Olamost right on article. There are realities in every campaign. McCain is old, Huckabee is a Theocrat, Ronmey is a Mormon Scientologist for Jehovah on the 7th Day. Barack Obama is Glack, Clinton is a woman. It is the duty of each of the campaigns to manage the persona of their candidate. Nothing more and nothing less.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/28/racism-just-another-campaign-challenge/

[kirotahoe]

the fault in your thesis lies in trying to separate identity from policy. the two are so intricately intertwined that i don't think they can be separate. though i can agree that an amalgam of the three would be a formidable candidate indeed.

[Rocketmind]

Oh, We would wish, if we could, that it were actually Just a case of such simplicity as our votes in an honest election, but its not. So this essay, though it concludes on a note of 'denoumonte', falls short of illuminating the falsehood of mere coincidence of opinion somehow being equated with true representation. That aside, mere inappropriateness of Clinton tactics ignores the Mena cocaine fiasco, Whitewater, and treason. How soon the people forget what went down with Bush & Clinton 20 years ago. To do more justice to the subject, I submit: http://war360.spaces.live.com

[LoloZ]

Race, class, gender identity only up to a point. The Democrats are lucky that the entire field of candidates is excellent. Candidates have to be first and foremost viable, and only after that, and as the race goes on, do we start talking race, class, gender. I first heard Obama speak on the radio in 2004, when i had no idea who he was. But listening to him I thought, "this guy is amazing, he should be president." He is a great candidate who happens to be black. Edwards is a great candidate who happens to be from a certain class... It is not solely because he is black that we embrace Obama, but what a bonus!! What a role model for anyone whom the deck has been stacked against. He is the very embodiment of hope.

[clevelandchick]

I don't think picking any one of these three Democrats mean we failed to end either racism or sexism or classicism. That's a serious half-glass way of looking at it and not realistic at all. Electing any of the three to office hardly means an end to any of those 'isms'.

Doesn't the fact all three are supported by large groups of people of various gender, race and class illustrate that we've progressed? Obama has white supporters. Hillary has male supporters. Edwards has wealthy supporters (and female ones as well, me for one).

I think the traditional media likes to focus on identity politics because it's more 'sexy' as the Brits would say. Creating conflict gets ratings and let's not forget traditional media is owned by those who prefer a Republican in office. They have a vested interest in degrading the progress Democrats have made.

[Esgarqui]

OBAMA"S DREAM IS UNIVERSAL

Today, once again, I read this horrible classification of candidates. Mrs. Clinton represents gender; Mr. Obama represents race; and Mr. Edwards represents class.
How untrue! They have many things in common. Their offers for change are almost the same, but their difference is that Mr. Obama inspires.
Without trying to educate anyone, I would like to share with you the definition that my Oxford pocket book dictionary gives of the verb "to inspire", which among other definitions, says: animate or instill (a person) with a feeling; prompt, give rise to. I also lists the following synonyms: move, arouse, awaken, uplift, encourage, energize, invigorate, etc. The only candidate that can communicate all of the synonyms is Mr. Obama, and he does it with truth and clarity.
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards the can move their followers with the same feelings listed in the synonyms, and I sincerely congratulate them. However, I would suggest that they look into their souls and hearts and ask if their candidate really moves, arouses, awakens, uplifts, encourages, energizes and invigorates them as Mr. Obama does for me.
Obama"s dream in universal, it has no gender, class or race. It embraces everyone who has a dream and wants to follow that dream. It"s never too late to embrace this great cause. Join in this universal dream, and be a part of this true and only dream and hope for a better country for Americans and better world for our brethren.

[meeneecat]

Why don't the three in the race now all join in on the same ticket, It doesn't really matter i what order, Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Obama, Edwards, Clinton, or Edwards, Clinton Obama etc. etc. President, VP, and Secretary of State - and other cabinet members can be made up of other respected politicians, maybe Richardson, or Kucinich etc. You get the idea, I think instead of this bickering divisive "identity politics" the Democrats should join together in a way that would almost guarantee a victory in November.

[standforpeace]

It's always identity politics stupid. It's just that when all the players are rich/upperclass, straight, white men -- that identity is taken as a given. It's only when those who have been assigned to be cheerleaders, support personnel, and powerless bystanders demand a chance to compete for power that identity politics enters the realm of the visible.
Yes, the Republicans aren't talking about the identities of their candidates because they are all pretty much the same. The sole exception is the deviation from mainstream Protestantism with Romney. And there has been plenty of discussion and division over that among Republican pundits and voters.

So unless we're ready to say that no women, African Americans, Mormons, gays and lesbians, etc. need apply, we are going to have to have some open struggles over these issues. By pretending that these differences don't matter, we actually give all of the power to those who would engage in race or gender baiting because candidates who don't meet the traditional profile will easily be defeated by subtle attacks that appeal to the worst in us but still leave the attacker with plausible deniability.

[balance]

And in corollary, accusations of racism against the Clintons may be backfiring for the Obama camp.

I don't know the absolute reality, whether the Clintons are racist or not. And I can't read minds and know for certain if the Clintons deliberately played the race card. But years & years of political service shows that they are life long friends & allies of the African American community.
But well, if they aren't racist, they were certainly blindsided, because they didn't measure their words carefully.

To accuse the Clintons of racism, would backfire among white voters. Because the calculous is this: If the Obama camp accuses even the Clintons -- longtime allies, of racism, then it would not be credible -- among many voters. It would turn off and polarize.
It can give the impression that the accusation of racism is being launched too easily.

The problem wouldn't be about Obama -- Mr. Obama hasn't been pushing this, but the extreme intra-democratic partisanship & rhetoric from surrogates may repel many voters.

[johnmorris]

"Identity Politics" is a right wing theme used to denigrate any Democrat. It works because it sounds so reasonable. What it really means is that Democrats are cheating by standing up for equal rights for all those people who are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to vote. You know, the "voter fraud" people. Part of the argument, made in the above piece, is the Republicans are so much more effective politically because they are so much more cogent in their beliefs. While we argue about policy issues and their effects on women and minorities, they are happy to ignore both "identity" and policy and concentrate on their own inherent aristocracy. We've never been hurt by standing up for the exploited and downtrodden and its not hurting us now.