Daily Kos

Frameshop: The Identity Voter

Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:35:57 AM PDT

Despite its central place in the 2008 presidential election, identity politics has not really caught the attention of the big budget media. 

A simple glance at the current primary offerings reveals this oversight.  Even though the Republican Party has again produced a slate of white bread candidates, the Democratic

Party has drawn up an incredibly diverse menu of presidential hopefuls--a field of primary contenders that reads almost like an annual report on
workplace diversity.

Given all this multiculturalism in our midst, it is worth considering both the keywords and definitions Americans might use to make sense of it.

So, grab a pen and write down this definition on a Post-It® note and stick it to your laptop screen... 

"identity voter" - a person who chooses to support a political candidate primarily for the social and cultural aspects of the person (e.g., gender, race, geography, class, etc.), and only secondarily if at all for the policies of the politician.

Voting the social and cultural aspects of the person rather than their policies--this is the hallmark of the identity voter and if every there was an election cycle where this phenomenon will make a difference in election outcomes, 2008 is the one.

The reason for the rise of the identity voter could be very simple:  Voting is ultimately about choosing one candidate over another, and in an age where political consultants have become expert at blurring policy distinctions, identity could be the final frontier of clear choice for voters.

Being an identity voter does not mean, of course, voting for a candidate who is the same identity as oneself. Blacks vote for blacks,  women  for women, whites for whites--this would be more a form of mechanistic political tribalism than identity voting.

Identity voters are not simply voting for themselves, but are making a political choice--seeing distinctions in a fieldof candidates--based on identity variables rather than policy positions.

There are, in other words, plenty of white identity voters, for example, who will

support Barack Obama "because he is African-America" and plenty of male identity voters who will support Hillary Clinton "because she is a woman."   

Nor is being an identity voter reserved for voters who support non-white and non-male candidates.  Identity voters simply make the choice to vote for reasons that relate to those social and cultural aspects of the person--sometimes lining that choice up with their own personal qualities, but at other times matching that choice to identity issues they support in American society at large (e.g., "I really support the idea of the first African-American president," etc.).

On the surface, this is great news for a nation that has for decades taught our children about the value of diversity to American society.  Finally, after so many years of talking the multicultural talk, American politics may walk the multicultural walk. 

But given all the seemingly unsolvable problems we are facing as a nation, it might also be the case that more and more Americans will gravitate towards the role of identity voter as a way of hiding from more policy-oriented approaches germane to this difficult moment in world history. 

In a moment where so many candidates are triangulating so many policy issues, more and more voters may throw their hands up and say, "War, health care, retirement, environmental collapse, labor and immigration law--I can barely keep all those problems straight, let alone figure out which candidate's policies are the best to solve them!"

At a very basic level, the identity voter solves all the problems we face by not facing them at all--chooses to make his or her choice for President about a much larger, much more historic decision:  first African-American, first woman, first Latino, and so forth.  The identity voter pushes everything aside that occupies the day-to-day debates of activists and elected officials to make his or her next vote for President about big, historic change.

Crossing identity barriers in American politics is important, but should crossing those barriers be top priority for America right now? 

That is an uncomfortable question that I suspect both bloggers and paid journalists may be equally uncomfortable asking.

Instead, bloggers and journalists may ask another kind of important question--the question about the connection between the identity of a candidate and his or her ability to solve America's pressing problems. 

When asked, for example, if Barack Obama being black or Hillary Clinton being a woman has any bearing on his and her ability to get America out of Iraq or fix our health care system, most identity voters would probably say, "no." 

There is nothing inherent in being African-American or a woman or Latino or white, for example, that makes one more suited to solve the crisis in Iraq or more suited to fix our health care system. And yet, despite agreement at that very basic point, I suspect far more Americans will still cast an identity vote than either bloggers or paid journalists realize or are writing about at this moment.

And this raises a very vexing, very troubling conclusion:  Is the identity voter someone to be celebrated or criticized by political activists?

Candidates, I suspect, won't much care why people support them as long as they support them.   But the identity voter may cause somewhat of an identity crisis amongst the activist base of the Democratic Party.  In that rising world of technology-driven, media-engaged, political activism, identity politics has been largely absent.  The netroots in particular has been a movement driven by a Utopian idea of political participation that has--albeit not by any conscious choice--kept distinctions on the basis of race, class and gender to a minimum.

So what will happen?  What will be the overall impact of the identity voter not just on the candidates themselves but on the emerging power structure of the political left in this country?

Time will tell. But for now, it may be wise to keep the definition close at hand.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Tags: framing, 2008 elections, identity (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 60 comments

  •  Lost an hour of sleep... (9+ / 0-)

    I feel your pain.

    ---
    Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:37:02 AM PDT

    •  Good observations (0+ / 0-)

      But I don't share your enthusiasm, if I read you correctly.

      While there are certainly many benefits of an Obama/Clinton ticket in attracting identity voters, I see it as a diversion from issues. As most cultural diversions are.

      The real beneficiaries of a campaign diverted by multiculturalism are the proponents of the status quo. Instead of having a campaign about issues that are threatening to the established order - like trade liberalisation, corporate power, wealth inequality, the  looting of the national treasury with out of control defense spending etc., we are looking forward to an Oprah ready campaign about how Hillary looks in a pants suit.

      THis is just the continuation of the strategy to keep the plebes distracted with inflammatory, cultural distractions while the financial interests haul the furniture out the back door.

      My hope is that, in this time of great danger and conflict, where the status quo is just no longer acceptable, the public won't take the bait. But I'm almost certain they will. After all, Obama looked great on Oprah.

  •  Identity voting makes no sense to me. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    bigchin

    Why vote for someone based on superficial characteristics?  Vote for them on the merits and on their character.

    •  fair enough, but what (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      I

      being a woman or being black or latino or southern or a veteran superficial"  That's the part of your point I don't quite get.  

      ---
      Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:43:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those are physical/geographical characteristics.. (0+ / 0-)

        ...and groupings based on a shared experience (veterans).  They say nothing about what the person is really about.

        Would you say that Jesse Jackson and Clarence Thomas are essentially the same?  

        •  Forgive me here (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          MTgirl, I

          but what gives you the right to dictate to other people  what is and isn't important about a candidate?

          If a person views a social or cultural factor as important--it is arrogant of us to say it is not important.  Better to try to understand the choices that people are making and work with them than to dismiss them as beneath us.

          And no place in my article did I say, "OK, I've described this phenomenon, therefore I want everyone to go out and become this kind of voter."

          So, please...don't try to put me in a corner with silly questions like "are two black men the same."

          ---
          Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

          by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:03:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  All I'm saying is... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            undercovercalico

            ...that to make a decision about someone's character because of a physical characteristic is nonsense, demeaning to that person and denies their individuality.

            I'm not dictating to anyone -- you can accept this or not.

            •  I don't accept it (0+ / 0-)

              Isn't it ironic that you say we are all individuals only if we all reject the choice to vote based on identity.  Doesn't that make us all the same?

              ---
              Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

              by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:04:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I never said that. (nt) (0+ / 0-)

              •  I think you're reading things into his statements (0+ / 0-)

                that aren't there. I didn't see him dictating. Just expressing the view that he thinks choosing a candidate based on superficial characteristics is unwise.

                But I agree that superficial is the wrong word. Perhaps he is saying, and I may be projecting here, that considering the deep shit our country is in, maybe now's not the time to be playing identity politics.

                After all, at least as I see it, someone's going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to get us out of Iraq without leaving the whole region in turmoil. I don't see Richardson, Obama or Clinton as having the skills to pull it off.

    •  Ok, I agree, but... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      undercovercalico, marykk

      ...it's basic psychology that we tend to prefer people who are similar to us on a wide range of extraordinarily superficial characteristics. That naturally extends to politics. If you're well-informed about the candidates and their politics, you might be able to overcome those default prejudices, but most voters aren't well-informed at all -- how could they be if they're getting their information from fifth-hand sources, libelous ads, and the MSM?

      •  Unfortunately true. (nt) (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        wiscmass
        •  why is it unfortunate? (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          zeroooo, heartofblue, wiscmass

          Again...fail to see the logic, here.  There are many good and many bad ways to identify with others.

          No rules.  Identifications with others based on race/class/gender can be positive, and they can be negative.

          In my own experience, I know people who identify with other Jews in ways that are positive, and those who do the same in ways that are destructive.  To impose some general rule on that would not make sense.  Better to try to understand it than to judge it.

          ---
          Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

          by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:29:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are certainly some positive ways. (0+ / 0-)

            Culturally speaking.

            But I see no positive way to infer a personality characteristic from a skin color.

          •  I think that's the point (0+ / 0-)

            To impose some general rule on that would not make sense.

            There is an extent to which this is exactly what identity voters are doing -- they're imputing their personal preferences to some candidate based on the candidate's superficial similarities to themselves or their preferred racial/class/gender group. In an era of such crass media manipulation and where most voters don't know much beyond the superficialities about the candidates, that's how presidents are chosen.

            Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. But in today's environment, a candidate like FDR would never get even the Democratic Party's nomination, largely because of factors associated with "identity," and we'd all have lost out on one of the greatest leaders our country has ever known.

            •  FDR-like candidate wouldn't get the nod? (0+ / 0-)

              Are you saying because he's a white guy? It seems that the democratic party has been pretty consistently nominating white guys---just 'cause this one year it might not be a white guy doesn't mean that the landscape is now anti-white guy.

              •  Not because he was white (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                I

                Because he didn't project a visual image of electability. If the voters knew in the 1930s and '40s that FDR used a wheelchair, even if it wasn't all the time, he never would have been elected president. Today, he'd never get the nomination -- he'd be labelled a health risk and "unelectable" and enough people would listen to defeat his candidacy.

                •  ah yes, he wasn't a made for TV candidate (0+ / 0-)

                  But then he didn't need to be at the time. FDR was a smart man, and if he was running in today's climate, he might have adjusted.

                  •  That's the point (0+ / 0-)

                    He'd be the best candidate, but that doesn't matter if voters make their judgments based on "identity" or what they see on TV.

                    •  but these things aren't necesarily in opposition (0+ / 0-)

                      nt

                      •  In FDR's case... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...I think it's safe to say they would be, and I think that's what dov12348 was trying to say: when these factors decide who is going to be elected rather than who has the best ideas and qualifications, we end up with BushCo.

                        •  I think that's something of a leap (0+ / 0-)

                          I don't buy that it is safe to say the FDR would be unelectable in a TV age, one really doesn't know what a TV-age FDR would look like.

                          And I don't think that adding "identity" to your list of concerns necessarily leads directly to BushCo. After all, JFK was sort of the ultimate TV-era candidate, also propelled by identity voters. I believe Bill Clinton benefitted from some identity voting, many responded to his connection to poor african american southern culture.

                          •  As I said earlier... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...sometimes it works out. But that doesn't make it a good way to choose a president.

                            •  If ID voting accomplishes something (0+ / 0-)

                              then I'd say it has place in the decision process. See the upthread comments about Irish identiy voters, and below about Hillary introducing women's issues to the natinoal agenda.

                              •  And if all ID voting does... (0+ / 0-)

                                ...is give us a less qualified candidate, then it's not altogether beneficial. I think you're missing dov12348's point altogether.

                                •  well if you set these things up in opposition (0+ / 0-)

                                  then they are problematic. If you choosing candidates based ONLY on superficial qualities without also checking to see how your identity perception jives with their actual quailties (positions, policies, etc.), well yes, that is problematic.

                                  But it doesn't need to work that way. You can consider both their qualities and in addition their identiy. And, I would argue, considering their identity often adds to your ability to judge what sort of president they will be. No one exemplifies this more than W.

                                  Evangelicals who voted for W on identity grounds got so much for their vote. Bush has done TONS for evangelicals, everything from funneling public money into faith based programs, holding contraception at the FDA, attaching crazy anti-abortion policies to foreign aid, putting gay marriage on the agenda, the list goes on and on and on...

                                  These are not issues that W talk about in his campaign, they are not things that he promised, you couldn't have known he would do them merely by studying his record or his policy statements. But he is an evangelical, and he did them as part of being consisitent with his identity as an evangelical.

                                  •  You're assuming... (0+ / 0-)

                                    ...that people actually think about who they vote for. In a lot of cases, that's not true.

                                    Suppose W could run again and the election was tomorrow. I guarantee you he'd get at least 40% of the vote, even though his approval rating is hovering around 30%. The 30% are largely the Repub base who would vote for a cheese sandwich if it had a R next to it on the ballot. Similarly, there is a Dem base, probably about 15-20%, who would vote for anyone the Dems nominate, even if the hypothetical Republican candidate was to the left of Kucinich and the Dem was, say, Joe Lieberman.

                                    Now consider the remaining half of the voters. Figure at best half are actually familiar with the candidates and the differences between them. Recent history indicates that the half that remain will decide who to vote for based on which candidate can more effectively slime the other by appealing to targeted identity features. Those voters aren't going to bother to check the veracity of such claims as "Candidate X wants to confiscate your Bibles and guns and force your kids to watch pornography in public school," or "Candidate Y wants to increase your taxes to fund abortions, terrorist groups, and day care for the children of illegal immigrants." They'll accept those claims as facts.

                                    That's how identity politics haved worked in the US in recent years -- they target specific groups of voters who either aren't going to bother checking the veracity of the claims they hear or simply don't care because they want to believe them, and they make those voters afraid of what will happen if "the other guy" wins. Those claims have little bearing on reality, and even less on how good a president the candidate who sponsors them will be; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised in there was an inverse correlation between making such claims and qualification for higher office.

                                    So yeah, identity politics have a place in the system, but it doesn't change dov12348's initial point that they're a dumb way to choose a president.

                                    As for W being "evangelical," I'd say that unfairly tarnishes evangelicals. W is a poseur, not a genuinely religious man.

    •  I think identity voting (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      heartofblue, dov12348, I

      may be a hallmark of a minority group that is just beginning to participate in the process.  For example, early Irish candidates in large northern cities could count on votes from the Irish population just on the basis of their names.  As the Irish became more assimilated culturally, economically and politically, the need to "vote Irish" diminished.  (Which, unfortunately, is part of what has permitted some of them to stray from green to red - forgetting where they came from)

      Over time, I'd venture to say we've seen similar trends in other demographic groups.  For example, no longer can an African American candidate count on the African American vote simply on the basis of race.

      If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

      by marykk on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:49:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. But also (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        marykk

        I'd say there will be a new kind of identity voter this time out:  the person who is not of a particular group who nonetheless supports a candidate for reasons relating to the candidate's identity rather than the candidate's policies.  

        I have met many white folks, for example, who privately tell me that it would be great to elect Obama because he is black. That, too, is an identity voter.

        ---
        Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:51:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  parsing definitions (0+ / 0-)

          The handy definition you gave us above says that an identity voter will make their choice primarily on identity considerations. I think that leaves a lot of room for folks who find idenity to be important, but only one of several important elements. Your example might fall into that class.

      •  Interesting point. (nt) (0+ / 0-)

      •  what did ID voting accomplish for the Irish? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        marykk

        Can ID voting accomplish something similar for modern examples of underrepresented groups.

        •  Count the Irish names in Congress (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          I

          it did a lot. And yes, I think it can help underrepresented groups.  The problem early on, however, is that you get often get some yutzes before the groupthink develops some discernment necessary to select really good candidates.  That begins when there are enough candidates within the group for hot primary contests.

          If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

          by marykk on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:59:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  fear of groupthink seems overblown this year (0+ / 0-)

            We have three(!) serious presidential candidates that call upon identity politics voters: Clinton, Obama and Richardson. And each one of them is knockout candidate besides their identity considerations.

            Indeed, it seems to me that this year we have the luxury to be an identity voter without compromising on fundamentals. Does this violate Feldmans' definition of an ID voter?

  •  I guess Rudy Guiliani has a lock on the (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Jeffrey Feldman, heartofblue

    cross-dresser vote.

  •  This diary is a little weird (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    I

    By far the most common kind of identity voter is the right-wing white Christian.  Why is so much space taken up talking about Obama and Hillary?

    Ortiz/Ramírez '08

    by theran on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:54:42 AM PDT

    •  why is it wierd? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      heartofblue

      I don't understand that reaction...

      ---
      Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:04:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read it yourself (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        vivacia

        At a very basic level, the identity voter solves all the problems we face by not facing them at all--chooses to make his or her choice for President about a much larger, much more historic decision:  first African-American, first woman, first Latino, and so forth.  The identity voter pushes everything aside that occupies the day-to-day debates of activists and elected officials to make his or her next vote for President about big, historic change.

        Crossing identity barriers in American politics is important, but should crossing those barriers be top priority for America right now?

        This represents a relatively small fraction of ``identity voters.''  What point are you trying to make?  You aren't discussing the main kind of identity voting.

        If this is a Wes Clark or John Edwards diary, then just say so.

        In general, I think your understanding and formulation of identity issues is confused.  You are trying to understand identity politics without understanding white supremacy.

        Ortiz/Ramírez '08

        by theran on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:19:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're jumping to false conclusions (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          I

          I am not supporting any candidate in this post.  I argue both sides of the case.  Selecting that quote out from the rest of the discussion is not fair.

          It's a balanced discussion.

          ---
          Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

          by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:30:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  White supremacy? (0+ / 0-)

          Why is it white supremacy for people to vote for candidates they perceive as being more like themselves?  Shit, I want somebody who's gonna represent my interests, and if the white guy favors most of the things I favor (which, generally speaking, is more likely than the black guy favoring most of the things I favor), why shouldn't I vote for him?

          Now, I think you make a good point in your first post in this thread, which is that the white vote (not only right-wing, but often left-wing as well) also is based on a lot of identity politics.  I don't know why you had to go all white-supremacy on us, though.

    •  It's being used against Obama and Hillary (0+ / 0-)

      Is Barack Obama black enough for black people to vote for him?  It's a bullshit question. He's black enough for Governor Wallace. It's also working.

      Is Barack [Saddam] Hussein Osama [bin Laden] too Muslim for America? Aren't Muslims scary? It's ridiculous bigoted bullshit and it's working.

      Is Hillary Clinton Democratic enough for the Democratic Party? Is she liberal Progressive enough? Another bullshit question. Take a look around the Hillary threads on Daily Kos. It's working.

      •  The "is Obama Black enough" kerfuffle (0+ / 0-)

        Seems to be to say a lot of what ID politics is about. There are a bunch of folks who want to ID vote for an African American. But, some of those folks define African American-ness in terms of skin color and race, and others are defining it otherwise, in terms of some cultural american blackness.

        Thus Obama poses a minor dillemma to the would be identity voter, he clearly belongs to one of these groupings, but the other grouping is more ambiguous.

  •  Do you think this phenomenon is different (0+ / 0-)

    from the usual?

    I've heard it said -- maybe by Lakoff or Luntz or one of those types, I really wish I could source it -- I've heard it said that the majority of voters vote for candidates based not on their positions, but on their character.  That is, people tend to vote for people they would like to be associated with, rather than people who have the most sensible policy plans.

    I'm not sure if this idea arose in response to the election of a charming and decisive, but absolutely policy- and idea-free President, but Our Dear Leader is a perfect example.  I don't think it was possible to vote for him based on his ideas, since he didn't seem to have any.  What he did have was a swagger that a lot of people liked.

    Do you think the identity politics you refer to are a subset of this, a superset of this, or something else?

  •   Identities are framed themselves.... (0+ / 0-)

    I guess I do not relate to the idea of an identity relationship with a candidate because the identities they may or may not forge are so broad themselves they don't have much meaning. For that matter so is the "character" question. I work with plenty of people who call themselves "Christian" as if that in itself was proof of inate goodness. I actually think at this piont I cannot draw much conclusive evidence about the character of any given candidate since even the folks I might like are pretty much "manufactured". I pay attention to themes: the ones they do talk about and the ones they do not.
    I seriously doubt I would vote for somebody "just like me" because there are no middle class candidates who haven't socked away enough for retirement and who are genuinely affected by broader economic themes. Like it or not this is still a rich man/rich women's game.

    •  I specifically say (0+ / 0-)

      in the diary that some identity voters do not vote for candidates that look like themselves.

      Think of the white male voter who decides it's time in American history for a woman or an African-American to be President--then makes that choice.

      But I appreciate the description of your views. I vary in my personal view on this...it's a trick issue.  Very personal.

      ---
      Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:32:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the comments so far demonstrate (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Jeffrey Feldman

    how true this is

    That is an uncomfortable question that I suspect both bloggers and paid journalists may be equally uncomfortable asking.

    It never ceases to amaze me just how uncomfortable so many are about talking about identiy politics. If someone just broaches the subject so many get so fractious and prickly right away.

  •  One more tool to use against the Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans vote for Republicans because they are Republicans. Detach the Republican candidates from the Republican voter identity.

    Detach them from the Christian identity.

    Detach them from the American identity.

    Detach them from the militarist identity.

    And the Democrats are the people who support things you believe in. The better choice.

  •  the substative policy implications of ID voting (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    undercovercalico

    In principle, there shouldn't be any reason that a candidates identity would much impact how they do their job, like you said

    When asked, for example, if Barack Obama being black or Hillary Clinton being a woman has any bearing on his and her ability to get America out of Iraq or fix our health care system, most identity voters would probably say, "no."

    But in practice, I think differences often arise. Look at Clinton, she has just recently introduced legislation to shore up Equal Work/Equal Pay laws. If you go to her issues page, you see the she gives high prominence to work/life balance issues and making the workplace more family freindly.

    Now, there is no reason that a man couldn't put these issues on the national agenda, but they don't.

  •  Fascinating (0+ / 0-)

    that the one comment I received on HuffPo to this piece read me as being condescending to identity voters--while most of the comments in this thread took the position that I was advocating for them.

    Amazing...

    ---
    Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:46:14 PM PDT

  •  AMAZING! (0+ / 0-)

    This is totally amazing.

    Check out the comments over here.

    Whereas here, the prevailing wind of the comment thread had me as essentially endorsing identity voters--HuffPo readers have pegged me as an elitist speaking down to them!!  Exact opposite conclusions from the same article!

    This is truly a taboo topic from all sides--incredible!

    Dare to specify the issue of people voting identity politics and you get pegged as either elitist or naive.

    I really did not see this one coming...

    ---
    Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:04:00 PM PDT

    •  don't worry, it's not you (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jeffrey Feldman

      This is was a nicely balanced and careful piece of writing. It is just that on some subjects, the reader brings so much to the table, that it is hard for them to see anything other than the baggage that they themselves brought in. This is one reason why the discussion of racism and sexism hardly ever gets anywhere.

      I think just keeping the conversationg going helps. Usually these discussion get red hot right away and then burn out quickly. But if you can keep the temperature down low enough that the conversation keeps rolling, then eventually everyone has already said their piece (dealt with their baggage) and you can get on to discussing the issue at hand.

Permalink | 60 comments