It's Only Identity Politics When Y'all Do It.

Ann Friedman hits the nail square on the head in a recent column on identity politics in The American Prospect.

It’s high time we acknowledge that every candidate has an identity: a race, a gender, a cultural background. It may not make or break every voter’s decision, but a candidate’s identity is always an electoral factor — even when that identity is white and male. Clinton’s female supporters and Obama’s black supporters don’t get enough credit. They are making tough decisions on how to reconcile their political beliefs with their gut reactions upon seeing someone who looks like them up on the dais. In fact, all Democratic voters are wrestling with this. Very few Americans have ever had the opportunity to vote for anyone other than a white man for national office. After so many years with “white male” as the default political identity, we’re all suddenly forced to think about how much a candidate’s race, gender, and background should matter.Let’s make this election about the issues, everyone says — and rightfully so. Our presidential nominee should be chosen primarily on the issues. But most of us don’t separate issues from identity as cleanly as we’d like to believe. When it comes down to it, everyone is an “identity politics” voter. The problem is that phrase, as commonly used by right-wingers and some on the left who are tone-deaf on issues of race and gender, has the effect of cutting down the political choices and involvement of women, people of color, and gays and lesbians.

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. In short, you can’t be a white guy voting for another white guy and still play the identity game.

She’s right, and goes on to point out how much support John Edwards had among white men versus Clinton and Obama.

And let’s not forget the religion card, either. Karl Rove tried to drum up support with evangelicals — remember George W. Bush’s famous “There is a higher Father that I appeal to” response when asked about how much George H.W. Bush input had in his administration?



Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
  • Tasha

    OMG did Bush play identity politics! His downhome southern bwoy aw shucks ma’am facade sickens me. the 2004 ellection was a complete play into christian evangelicals i swear i was in shock when family memebrs confessed to voting for him so gays can’t get married…!…!!!!!

  • Well, duh.

  • Aisha

    Clinton’s a woman, Obama’s Black, Edwards is rich, Romney is Mormon and McCain was a POW. They all have a narrative that they want to latch on to.

  • LH

    Maybe it’s my imagination but it seems more fashionable to accuse Obama supporters of putting race first than it is to accuse Clinton supports of putting gender first.

    Has anyone else gotten this impression?

  • This is great. It makes me think of stuff I read about white being normative and everything else being “other.”