And just where did I do that?

Your example highlights the tendency of many people to assign the failure of one black/woman to all blacks/women, while assigning the failure of one white man to that white man alone. When people have a mental frame of women and blacks as incompetent, then successful women/blacks are seen as anomalies and failing blacks/women are seen as confirming that stereotype of incompetence. It is as George Lakoff says - people choose facts/anecdotes that fit their frame, and ignore others that don’t.

The subtext of this seems to be that if there is no way of knowing whether all else is equal, then treat the minority/woman with greater skepticism than the white male. There are many, many cases where white men have performed abysmally, but that is not used as an example to urge caution while voting for a white man.

What a racist idiot you are, Robert, and I don’t care if Ampersand decides I’m “uncivil” for saying so. It’s true. Only a racist idiot would dismiss everything that affects marginalized groups as “identity politics,” while implying that stuff that affects white males is somehow not identity politics and that something is only a “universal” concern and only relates to “the job” if it affects white males.

As far as you feeling disappointed in Ms. Braun’s performance, what wolfa said. I’d be curious what you were disappointed in about her, but I don’t know that this is the place to have such a discussion.

Of course I think that virtually all minority candidates would never discriminate against people who are not part of their ‘identity group’!

Yow! Jeefie, I’d love to know what area of the country you live in. Here in the Chicago area, it’s very common that an office holder populates their office with those of a similar heritage, regardless of whether the person is an official minority. It’s also quite common for voters to consider color over qualifications, performance or ability.

One example of the latter is the recent primary election for Cook County President. The incumbent, who is black, is presently in the hospital (or just out, I didn’t check today). He’s been there since about 10 days before the primary, when he suffered a stroke. He has not been seen or heard by the public since his stroke. His family is releasing no medical information. Doctors have said that he is highly unlikely to recover to the point of being able to resume office or serve a new term.

His administration has been notable for poor service, wasting money, and throwing business contracts at friends and cronies of the Cook County Democratic Organization. County healthcare and other services for the indigent suffers while a brand new Cook County Hospital was built and named after him. No news media outlet has anything good to say about how he’s done his job.

Meanwhile, a challenger with solid credentials ran against him. A Cook County Commissioner from the suburbs, he used to be the Chicago Housing Authority head (housing for the indigent). It had previously been a cesspool of corruption and crime, but he made huge strides in cleaning it up, winning both national and local acclaim.

But, he’s white. And Cook County Board President is a “black position”. So he lost, big time, to a man who can’t walk or talk or communicate or make decisions, because he’s the wrong race. And now that the primary is over, replacing the President with a candidate that can actually perform the office is the job of the Cook County Democratic Organization. The people being mentioned have few qualifications besides service to the organization (although one is his son). No one is even faintly considering a white man for the job, apparently; that seems to be an automatic disqualification.

Mandolin said:

well, perhaps that day Carol Mosley Braun will be president.

I voted for the woman. At the time, I was operating under the “all else being equal, vote for a women/minority” philosophy. From now on, though, I’ll be looking much more closely at the candidates. She performed abysmally, and I’ll no longer cavailerly presume that “all else is equal”.

Genitalia does not predict political leanings, and I think it is rather sophmoric to think that voting for female candidates only (or your minority du jour) is going to affect change in a meaningful way. Numbers alone won’t change political climate — which is obvious in 2006 where the majority of active voters *are* female and we still have a conservative, misogynistic administration wrecking havoc on those key issues that would give women greater equality.

Voting for females only is a band-aid approach to social change. It would affect the outward face of politics, but it would have dubious effect on political climate. Unless, of course, you think that women are somehow more virtuous or sympathetic or kind. Otherwise, women are just as susceptable to political sway, corruption, and the monies of big business as are men. (and as an aside to Robert, if big businesses like Monsanto aren’t “special interst” groups, or the military budget isn’t a “special interest”, than you can continue to pull your politics out yer ass).

Oh of course, silly me: white/straight/ablebodied/male are the only “real people” on this planet, right?

Here’s one: the white male straight ablebodied etc. candidate is likely to focus on the job, instead of on identity group politics.

Robert, I’d like to thank you for that brilliant (no doubt satirical) exhibition of just what white straight male ablebodied identity politics looks like. Bravo! Nothing says identity politics like assuming that everyone outside the dominant group is somehow less capable to do the job than the majority guy.

I’d like to try some identity politics satire now. Hey, men are stupid, incompetent weasels who are only interested in their own selfishness! Any man who complains in any way, shows me his Mensa card, or tells me he does charity work is engaging in identity politics — whining really — and it just won’t stand!

not down here. when the new d.a. got in 4 yrs ago, he totally gutted the office of as many white lawyers as he could. he was later found guilty of racially motivated dismissals and the people he fired were either rehired or paid damages.

Ah, the joys of full-contact politics in New Orleans. Makes me glad I left.

As for your comment about Nagin — remember that party affiliation in Louisiana is a strange creature. Duke (the person, not the university) had been a Democrat up through the 70’s and switched to being a Republican in the 80’s.

But on to the topic –

All else being equal, I vote for the most qualified candidate because everything is never equal. If the woman-of-color candidate has impecable feminist credentials and can’t get anything else done because she’s focused exclusively on women’s issues, to the detriment of everything else, I’ll vote for the straight white Christian guy if he has a positive, productive, progressive track record in every other issue.

(And how do I turn off the annoying “automatic preview” function? It’s inducing all sorts of lag into my typing and making my life (and computer) miserable.)

Hah! Exactly. If that isn’t a bridge to cross when we get there….

Indeed they do–they just focus their identity politics on other things. Class, religion, ethnicity. They can afford to ignore race and gender, of course, because they have the privilege of those things being considered ‘normal’. And they don’t call it ‘identity politics’ because that’s a term used to shut up the uppity broads and the minorities.

To be honest, I’m aware of similar situations in California, though not in politics. I don’t really know what to say about it, other than people are human, and minorities are human, and minorities sometimes act like asses.

So, I guess, if all things appear equal, but you suspect the minority/woman to be an ass, you can vote for the white man? ;)

…(though how could you possibly know?)

Now, I know that people are correct when they say that two candidates are rarely equal, but I still think this is an interesting intellectual exercise for examining one’s beliefs and committments. I know such hypotheticals drive some people nuts, though, which makes sense to me.

The argument that’s been brought up here which seems, to me, to hold the most water is the idea that there are many underrepresented groups which it would be good to see more representation for in government. So if one is presented with a situation in which otherwise equal candidates represent a diverse number of minorities, one is going to have to pick between the:

LGBT candidate
woman candidate
candidate of color
candidate with liberal faith (I’m taking your word that this one’s important, Hugo, though it seems to me from my position as an atheist that people of faith’s interests are adequately enough represented that liberal people of faith aren’t in as much danger of having their rights abridged as, say, blacks… it also seems to me that atheists would have an interest in protecting the rights of minority religions…)
atheist candidate
disabled candidate
transgendered candidate

and so on.

I can also think of several other apparently arbitrary factors which might be important to me which aren’t related to traditional identity politics…

But honestly, I’d probably vote for the woman.

not down here. when the new d.a. got in 4 yrs ago, he totally gutted the office of as many white lawyers as he could. he was later found guilty of racially motivated dismissals and the people he fired were either rehired or paid damages.

that’s not unusual for things down here.

it’s also not unusual for things in alaska, only there it’s native americans and not african americans. my mom broke through all the ‘we’re not hiring’ static immediately when she presented her tribal registration.

i understand it totally that once in office or authority, there’s a natural desire to ‘help your own.’ i don’t even really fault it. i don’t think there’s anything morally wrong (annoying but not wrong) with having to jump through a few more hoops to get a job or family assistance. it’s about time the majority get a little taste of what the minority went through.

hopefully it will even out to where it really doesn’t matter. probably not in my lifetime, but hopefully for my kids.

In a world in which our political rulers are disproportionately white and male, supporting non-white and female candidates rather than otherwise equal white male candidates addresses a real and important problem. Shouldn’t we take that into account when we vote - not as the only factor we consider, but as one of many factors we consider?

Sounds like (personal) affirmative action for me. As a foreigner I often have trouble understanding the utter wordliness of American blogs.

If it wasn’t for this affirmative action aspect, I would disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that feminists should vote women, all else being equal - this would be a (personal) testification that (one’s personal) feminism isn’t about equality, but identity politics.