Whose Identity? Which Politics?

Ann Friedman has a great column on the subject of identity and solidarity in politics, pivoting off the Clinton-Obama race:

After all, Clinton and Obama and their supporters aren't playing "identity politics" any more than John Kerry's supporters did in 2004, or George W. Bush's did in 2000. It's absurd to suggest that the Andover-Yale-Harvard-bred Bush adopting a swagger and thickening his Texas accent, or John Kerry riding a borrowed Harley onto The Tonight Show set, was anything other than identity politics. And after several early primaries, as it became clear that white men most strongly supported John Edwards, nobody accused them of playing identity politics. Nope, that distinction is reserved for people who have historically not been in positions of political power.

Well said. Given that most people don't have particularly fine-grained or coherent opinions about political issues, questions of identity and solidarity are destined to play a large role in voting behavior. But certain efforts to mobilize concepts of identity are stigmatized, while others are treated as just plain ol' politics.

Comments

Matt is too polite to tie this up, so I will: guys like Tweety and Russert can play identity politics all they want, celebrating McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson, but that's OK, because they're manly white men. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama want to celebrate their experiences, respectively, as a woman and a black man, that's unacceptable pandering and might give black people and women unacceptable ideas about breaking into the clubby little world that actually rules the rest of us. Sick stuff.

Posted by scottreads | February 29, 2008 12:27 PM

Given that most people don't have particularly fine-grained or coherent opinions about political issues, questions of identity and solidarity are destined to play a large role in voting behavior. But certain efforts to mobilize concepts of identity are stigmatized, while others are treated as just plain ol' politics.

It seem to me this argument overproves, or at least needs to articulate a limiting principle. Certainly the Dixiecrats and the Nation of Islam both made an effort to "mobilize concepts of identity politics" and were rightly stigmatized for it. I'd argue that wasn't the sort of politics that we ought to want to embrace in the mainstream. Maybe the distinction to make is comfort with political violence or advocacy for separation/segregation, but clearly identity politics can go too far.

Posted by southpaw | February 29, 2008 12:41 PM

If you look at the comment thread for Ann's article, you'll understand why it was necessary that she wrote it.

Posted by scottreads | February 29, 2008 12:42 PM

Given that most people don't have particularly fine-grained or coherent opinions about political issues, questions of identity and solidarity are destined to play a large role in voting behavior.

Yeah, most people. Cripes.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 29, 2008 12:47 PM

Ann has a point, and Bush's Texas twang is probably more of an attempt at identity politics than anything that Obama or Clinton have tried thus far.

That said, if you accuse, say, John Edwards of engaging in white identity politics, you come perilously close to calling him a racist. The same charge leveled against a black candidate is much less incendiary. (It doesn't call to mind Jim Crow with all its attendant bigotry and brutality)

"Identity politics" us usually thrown out by the press to indicatee that the candidate's appeal is otherwise lacking in substance. They made much the same point about John Kerry's duck hunting and other risible macho posturing, but they simply avoided the phrase in question because it would have implied something they did not believe was true.

(As an Obama supporter, I obviously believe that there is considerable substance to his appeal, but a good portion of the press corps disagrees)

Posted by heedless | February 29, 2008 1:07 PM

Another great post from MattY. This one seems to have involved 10 seconds of thinking, up from his average.

As for riding a Harley, I didn't know there were racial/ethnic/religious/gender/etc. requirements for that. Here's a cast in point that even MattY can understand:

video.movies.go.com/wildhogs

There also aren't racial/ethnic/religious/gender/etc. requirements for speaking Texan.

Now, contrast that with this recent minor example from a nobody, or this wonderful example from BillRichardson:

youtube.com/watch?v=MiszkrzoOs0

Or this:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610739/posts

In fact, I could spend hours finding Dems engaging in identity politics relating to immutable characteristics rather than simply those who engage in a certain activity regardless of racial/ethnic/religious/gender/etc.

Posted by TLB | February 29, 2008 1:19 PM

"...as it became clear that white men most strongly supported John Edwards, ..."

Was this true to any significant extent (or even at all)? I would think he would have done a little better if it was.

Posted by Njorl | February 29, 2008 2:17 PM