Briahna Joy Gray makes a thoughtful, cogent case about an issue that permeated the 2016 primaries and has already been one of the first sources of heat in sizing up potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.
This is an issue that was difficult to discuss in the midst of the 2016 primaries, as any discussions about a particular issue became entangled with a plethora of other issues and brawls that were specific to that contest. The 2016 primary race is long over, but bitter embers still glow, so even today it can be difficult to have thoughtful discussions on subjects if they touch at all on that contest.
Nonetheless, such discussions are necessary, and Gray approaches this subject in a temperate way. Though she herself — being a leftist who is female and African American — is clearly among those whose perspective (and existence) she argues have tended to be “whited-out” by the Bernie Bro meme*, the article mostly avoids self-reference. She writes like an attorney (she is a Harvard-educated lawyer) methodically laying out her case. (If you appreciate such writing, you should check out another recent Gray article, “Bernie Sanders Doesn't Have a Black Problem—He Has a Pundit Problem.” You don’t have to be a Bernie supporter to appreciate her razor-sharp argumentation skills.)
She begins this article by embracing the term “identity politics,” which was benign in its academic origins, but in mainstream discourse has often been misused and wielded by some as a cudgel, so that nowadays in Democratic/progressive forums like Daily Kos its usage is generally eschewed:
Having an “identity politics” is incredibly beneficial. Identity politics, which emphasizes the unique concerns of different communities and demographic groups, shows how historical inequities have been distributed across different races, genders, religions, abilities, and sexualities. In doing so, it allows us to better understand how to critique and reform the systems that replicate those inequities. It reveals how the foreclosure crisis disproportionately hurt black home owners, how health issues manifest differently across populations, and how various forms of “hidden taxes” penalize women in professional life. To ignore identity is to ignore injustice. Yet there are risks to viewing the world through the prism of identity. If people are defined by their demographic characteristics, they can be reduced to those characteristics in a way that obscures differences within groups. If “identity” becomes synonymous with “perspective,” dissenting members within the identity group risk having their viewpoints erased and their humanity diminished. And when used cynically, as a political weapon, a simplistic view of identity can allow people of a particular political faction to wrongly imply that they speak for all members of their racial or gender group.
Gray discusses recent critiques from the left of potential 2020 candidates, with particular focus on Kamala Harris — and the backlash to those critiques. She then weaves in an analysis of parallel themes in the 2016 contest.
No one can credibly deny that Clinton’s gender has affected the public’s perception of her since the very beginning of her career, including the early political hostility she faced in Arkansas when she refused to give up her maiden name, and the time in 1992 when she was publicly pressured into proving that she liked to bake cookies.
But writing off Clinton’s leftist critics as necessarily motivated by gender bias was sexist in itself. It reduced Clinton to her gender and implied that she had no agency in her own decision-making.
Gray writes:
It’s strange that we’re at the point where this needs to be said: a black politician is not necessarily the best politician to promote black interests, and a female politician will not necessarily serve women’s interests better than a man would. Race produces a set of lived experiences that inform our political perspective, but identity cannot be used as a mitigating factor for political shortcomings. … Brittney Cooper of Cosmopolitan, in her defense of Harris, makes a good point here: Cooper says that, despite a history of performing the role, black people should not be cast as “the conscience of the nation.” The burden is too heavy for any group, and it certainly exceeds the capacity of any single politician. Belonging to a protected class does not immunize a politician from error, nor should it insulate her from criticism.
She ends the article with this:
It’s fair to ask of a critic: are you able to articulate a reason why you are wary of a candidate? Do, they, for instance, cite the candidate’s conservative “tough on crime” approach to criminal justice, or do they trade in gendered stereotypes, dog-whistles, or vague statements of “feeling” that suggest an ulterior motive? This analytical step is crucial: a critic should not be impugned on the basis of a candidate’s identity, but on the soundness of the critique itself. Nor should a critic be ignored because of their own identity, without anything more. After all: biology is not (political) destiny.
Harris, Booker, Patrick, Biden, Warren: all deserve scrutiny. So does any other potential candidate. That scrutiny should be applied evenly, in proportion to a candidate’s likelihood of success and the quality of their record. It’s not an act of racism to question whether the Democratic Party should select as its presidential nominee a career prosecutor with a controversial record on misconduct issues. Pretending that these candidates are criticized solely on the basis of race or gender is, in itself, a lesser form of prejudice: it erases their flaws, and flattens their humanity. Treating people as people requires acknowledgment of their imperfections. To err, after all, is human.
_____
*If ever there was a comment that perfectly proved someone else’s point, this one posted yesterday on Daily Kos is it:
Briahna Joy Gray’s article would be more impressive were it written by a person of color. Instead, it’s yet another screed written by a white progressive to explain to people of color just how wrong they are. If I hadn't looked up a picture of her, I’d call it mansplaining.
Here’s something that white progressives just might consider: Resist the compulsion to lecture and listen to what people of color are saying. You might come to understand the deep reservations that many African-Americans — especially southern African-Americans — have about economic populism. And — believe it or not — that might enable you to bridge a gap.
That comment exemplifies so much of what Gray discusses in her article. Not only is Gray African American, but in the article itself she writes at length about how the Bernie Bro stereotype, in addition to casting Bernie supporters as “disproportionately sexist,” implies that women and people of color who supported Sanders and share his economic populist views don’t count or don’t exist. Gray even mentions in the article how people on Twitter will often claim that black leftists like herself are actually white.