Distinguished academic Stanley Fish came out last night with another thought-provoking post on his New York Times blog, Think Again, about the use and abuse of identity politics. As both the Clinton and Obama camps sling mud at each other for playing the gender and race cards, the topic seems particularly relevant to the current state of political discourse.
Fish, typically, uses some slippery logic to make his argument that voting according to the race, religion or gender of the candidate is not very much different from voting for a candidate based on a particular interest such as the candidate's stance on abortion. This "interest" conception of identity politics is, to quote Fish, "based on the assumption (itself resting on history and observation) that because of his or her race or ethnicity or gender a candidate might pursue an agenda that would advance the interests a voter is committed to." Well, okay, but why assume this if it's not the stated policy of the candidate? As almost everyone knows, there are stronger forces at work shaping a candidate's policy than his ethnicity, race or creed. And what are these special identity-dependent interests? He gives the example of American Jews supporting a candidate who wants to maintain strong ties with Israel. Of course, this has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the candidate and in fact most Republicans and Democrats support Israel to varying degrees without being Jewish. Jewish votes for a pro-Israel candidate are policy votes for what amounts to a special interest group; this isn't identity politics as Fish defines it or as it is commonly understood. Finally, is it acceptable that people vote solely on issues that affect their group? What about the common interest?
But that's just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I actually think Fish's Israeli example is a good one. He may mean any group that is a group based on heritage, which Judaism -the dominant religion in Israel- is. But overall I totally disagree with Fish's post. If identity politics were as prevalent as he suggests then wouldn't Alan Keyes have beaten Barack Obama or at least won more votes?
But identity politics as he defines it doesn't fit with his example of Jews supporting candidates who are pro-Israel, since that's a policy choice, not a choice based on ethnicity. I don't know if Alan Keyes is a fair example because he's a Republican black man and not from Illinois. I don't think Fish is saying identity politics determines politics. But it certainly is a perennial issue. Look at how Hispanic leaders have reacted to Hilary firing her campaign manager.
But Keyes is technically blacker than Obama, and neither of them are from Illinois.
um...Obama was a long time resident of Illinois and did work in the public sector there for years. Keyes came in for the race. There's a difference. And as I said, I don't think Fish anywhere claims that identity politics are the determining factor in all races.
I think they play a major role though.
Post a Comment