The irony of identity politics
posted at 9:05 am on April 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The 2008 presidential election has proven historic, with a certainty that either a woman or a black man will head a major-party ticket this fall for the first time in American history. With identity politics in full play in the Democratic primaries, Gail Collins notes the irony of its end result. The key demographic for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has become white men:
It was probably inevitable. The historic contest between a woman and an African-American for the presidential nomination is now all about white men.
Not that the white male voters asked for this. They’ve been uncommitted, supporting Hillary in one contest and Barack in the next. But all that hemming and hawing has turned them into the deciding factor in the big upcoming primary in Pennsylvania. …
The candidates’ desperation to make contact is showing. Barack Obama goes bowling in Altoona — with disastrous consequences. Hillary Clinton attempts to compare herself to Rocky Balboa, prompting many people to note that Rocky lost to a black guy. Obama, rather cruelly, points out that Rocky is a fictional character. Clinton, in turn, reveals that she owns her own bowling ball.
It’s got to be irking women and blacks. This was supposed to be all about us! But in modern politics, the people who choose up sides are doomed to be taken for granted while the whole world goes running after the folks on the fence. That is why this fall the presidential campaign will be taking place in 13 states, and the would-be presidents will spend more time worrying about Iowa than New York and California combined.
Unfortunately for Collins, that’s about the end of the line for trenchant analysis in this piece. She figures that white men either have been too addled to make up their minds between Obama and Hillary or deliberately withheld their support to get some attention. At one point, she talks about white-guy frustration about seeing so many non-whites on basketball courts and manages to inject the Three Stooges and lawn care incoherently into the essay.
It’s unfortunate, because she almost makes a good point. When identity politics meant cobbling together disparate factions such as women, blacks, Latinos, and so on, these groups got more attention because of their lack of enthusiasm for the series of white male candidates that vied to represent them. Now that the primaries have come down to two non-white-male candidates from competing identity-politics factions, the two major groups left out are Latinos and white males, and not surprisingly, both candidates have focused on these voters.
Collins gets close to this when she mentions New York and California. Republican presidential candidates only cursorily compete in either state for general elections because the results are usually foregone conclusions. The voters in each state make themselves irrelevant by tipping their hands too early. The GOP won’t bother to spend a lot of money in New York, and the Democrats won’t spend a lot in Texas, either, preferring to save their money for states in which they have a reasonable chance to prevail.
This isn’t exactly ground-breaking analysis, but it does explain why identity politics winds up ironically making the voters in a represented bloc less powerful in the short run of this election cycle. If Obama wins the nomination, he will focus his attention away from his own base of African-American voters, which will mean that they will be especially taken for granted. If Hillary wins it, women’s issues will get little attention while she chases blacks and Latinos.
And now, for good measure, both will have to chase a voting bloc that has always been taken for granted — the bowling, lawn-mowing, cheesesteak-eating, Three Stooges-watching demographic that both candidates have made themselves look foolish in chasing the last few weeks. These voters finally figured out what really gets attention from politicians: ambivalence.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Collins writing is fairly addled itself.
RobCon on April 5, 2008 at 9:10 AM
It’s too early Ed…..the woman’s writing needs some attention to follow and I’m not awake enough yet for this ‘intensity’. Have a cup of coffee Ed, relax this morning, leave this stuff for later. It’s Saturday ya know.
dustoffmom on April 5, 2008 at 9:27 AM
She asks ‘what does the white male want?’ It’s tempting to make jokes but I think there’s some real possibilities here. A candidate could focus on why so many boys fall behind in school; why fewer boys are going to college and graduate programs; how to encourage those boys who don’t want college to apprentice at some of the high-value crafts Hillary mentioned on Leno: plumbing, carpentry, mechanics.
A niche issue that gets some play in Missouri is the law that forces men who are not fathers to pay child support if they signed the birth certificate under the false illusion they were the fathers, even after DNA tests prove otherwise. This gross unfairness harms the non-father who pays for a kid not his own and the actual father who doesn’t even know he has a kid. There’s a fathers’ rights case in that one.
Collins pitiful attempts at humor aside I think there are issues that white men care about. Perhaps many of them, like me, would prefer that candidates shut the F up about race. We don’t need a national conversation. We need a national break on the topic.
But the problem for the dems is that any overt attempt to woo white males as a voting block would run headlong into their bases. Can Pantsuit talk about getting more boys into college without the Feminists getting their panties in a wad? Can Barry talk about reforming affirmative action to focus on class and family income rather than race without the black pressure groups running him down? No and no.
The most authentic way to appeal to white men is through unashamed patriotism, quiet strength, optimism tempered by a deep understanding of our threats and challenges, an appreciation of the dignity of sacrifice and the honor of tradition. These are not traits the Dems enjoy or are good at. But perhaps there is someone else …
Vote Sauron 08 on April 5, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Visit Michelle’s signature site, See-Dubya’s “Friday Night Fights” will get the blood flowing.
Zorro on April 5, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Hill and Obambi have the girlie-man vote locked up.
Real men, well that’s something else altogether.
fogw on April 5, 2008 at 9:32 AM
I prepare college students to be teachers in a NYC public high school. Thursday I had the bright idea to have the school police officer as a guest. His talk frightened everyone.
Relevant to this post he told us that our one Dominican teacher would be alright, but white teachers would have trouble. Latinos like Latino teachers, Dominican like Dominicans, blacks like blacks. To woo them, you have to at least learn to talk like them. Of course we cannot use the N word and B word like they do, but . . .
If we continue to use identity politics, no white person will be electable. That is not sad just for white people, it is sad in that it will cause resentment and cost quality individuals to stay away. Eventually, real disunity can result. The democrats are playing with fire. And fire can burn everyone. We need to take the color blind thing seriously or it will eat us up.
http://www.culturism.us
culturism on April 5, 2008 at 9:41 AM
His mother is white. It would be more appropriate to say that he is of mixed ethnicity.
dentalque on April 5, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Those evil White men and their conspiracies. Forcing Americans to deal with freedoms, liberty and the hard work of pursuing happiness is simply too much. Give us promises you can’t possibly keep, make me scream out against the White man and his demands to keep me oppressed with the reality of having to earn happiness.
Woman and people of color….choose your liar and sally forth against the looming fortress of realistic opportunity and the White males who represent its foundation in this nation!!!!
Hening on April 5, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Hillary-ous to watch the Dems try and out “regular-guy” the other. But alas, their efforts ring hollow. They have developed a persona that while it appeals to their niche constituents, it is inherently at odds with a world view that appeals to regular, mainstream white guys.
Very well put!
moxie_neanderthal on April 5, 2008 at 10:08 AM
To quote Chris Farley, “Kill Whitey!“
Vote Sauron 08 on April 5, 2008 at 10:09 AM
There’s no ambivalence–white men already have a candidate: John McCain.
Hope P. Muntz on April 5, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Identity politics (and multiculturalism) contains the seeds of its own destruction. A lesson of these primaries is that it can be turned inward to eat its own. My hope is we can learn to game identity politics (a la Operation Chaos) so that it will destroy itself before it destroys the rest of us.
petefrt on April 5, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Democrats WILL pander to white guys and it should work. Barak will go mucho macho in the next few months and the press will eat it up. Alas, Hope, I don’t think John Sydney McCain will do much to keep guys like me on the reservation. He is simply too old, irritable and bad on the issues. I plan to vote Republicans downstream, but McCain is NOT the candidate of white men. This is identity politics and white men don’t play the game. McCain is war hero-liberal working hard to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Much like his buddy, John F. Kerry, McCain has no appeal to the white guy base.
Angry Dumbo on April 5, 2008 at 10:40 AM
This reminds me of our local government university installing a “Womens Study” degree this year. A few weeks before the announcement of the womens degree the university had a big press release about the efforts they were making to enroll more young men, being that female enrollment is approaching 60%. In the press release the university made it a point to mention that despite the push to enroll more males the university wanted to assure the women that this would in no way harm them. And I still recall the elimination of a half dozen men’s sports over the last 30 years at this same school while womens sports were added.
Then I have to ask myself why most of the sports teams at the university are populated by blacks. I could be crass and use Obama’s “average white” theory that his grandmother’s bias was “bred” but I don’t want to be crass, at least today.
JonRoss on April 5, 2008 at 10:46 AM
More shots of him bowling a 37, perhaps? What a macho man!
dentalque on April 5, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Yep, Dems will pander to anybody, as expedient. Why else would Obama [try to]go bowling? Or John Kerry [try to] go hunting?
petefrt on April 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I think we can pretty much give up on attacking BarackObama for his past Muslim roots, or his current Nation of Islam church affiliations.
We need to expose BarackObama’s REAL deep, dark secret: the guy’s an inverterate yuppie. There’s no shame in being a poor bowler, but the average American finds it odd that a grown man seems utterly unfamiliar with the concept.
If BarackObama wanted a photo-op and didn’t want to look like a boob, he could have gone in for a bowling LESSON. But he didn’t. Instead, he tried to compete at a sport he’d probably never even seen played on TV before.
And why not? He figures: “Hey, if poor people do this, how hard can it possibly be?”
logis on April 5, 2008 at 11:19 AM
White men want a canidate that isn’t going to take their hard earned money and give it to identity groups who have done nothing to deserve it except be non-white or non-male. So that pretty much means they want anyone but Barack or Hillary.
Buford on April 5, 2008 at 11:19 AM
the irony of identity politics…
coincidentally regarding white men seeking to represent America, in the news this weekend out West…
In Eldorado, Jeff’s young females from the FLDS are removed from their “temple” compound PEACEFULLY without tanks and inferno killing everyone like Clinton’s thugs accomplished at Mt. Carmel.
Meanwhile, further West, Monson takes over the LDS church in SLC (actually reformed following their Manifesto in all of its revisions and re-interpretations). And if memory serves, Monson’s early role as a Mormon general authority involved PR presenting them all as a kinder, gentler sort.
As per regarding this year’s POTUS campaign, one can gather how many generations it takes for a body of people (any church with any doctrine) to CHANGE following a unified consensus.
Mormons have bragging rights for having CHANGED from their polygamous heathenism into a STRONG socialist fabric that absolutely supports the American Constitution so long as business is left behind curtains. Romney himself has NEVER avoid or practiced or excused contemporary polygamy, so is without fault on those grounds that the MSM would crucify any white male.
The Black Social Gospel, meanwhile, has yet to CHANGE to accept, let alone promote, the God of Peace, demanding instead the god of destruction until the white are purged from their midst. Obama himself has documented his own racism in his published for profit and propogation of blinded mentality book that the MSM would crucify any while male OR FEMALE especially for thinking, let alone speaking or PUBLISHING. Obama, the MSM front man, will only CHANGE things for the worse.
The MSM purpose is to divide and conquer fractions of our world’s population in order to RULE with more complete POWER, as those who own the MSM also own the world BANKS and political parties.
maverick muse on April 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM
avoid/AVOWED
maverick muse on April 5, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Like his predecessor, the haughty John Kerry? The picture of Obama throwing gutter balls is telling enough, but wait ’til you see the one of him windsurfing.
petefrt on April 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Ed, you missed her derision for the Average Folks in this graf:
Wow. Gail, your Manhattan ego is showing. Just—wow.
Meryl Yourish on April 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM
That would make him halfrican-American
Corsair on April 5, 2008 at 12:15 PM
So what Gail is saying is Barack has no chance whatso ever, cause why would a white male vote for a candidate that had NO PROBLEM listening to how evil WHITE MALES are for the past 20 years.
BroncosRock on April 5, 2008 at 12:20 PM
As a white guy, I’m sticking with my own kine
Kini on April 5, 2008 at 12:31 PM
maverick muse on April 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM
That was just…weird.
melda on April 5, 2008 at 12:32 PM
It’s a bit early to be hitting the crack pipe on a weekend. Seriously.
ErikTheRed on April 5, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Isn’t it almost by definition true that the key demographic will be the so-called “majority”?
mikeyboss on April 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Karma works.
The one “demographic” that both of these candidates and their MSM tools have insulted, bashed and denigrated with such gusto and zeal is the one “demographic” they so badly need in this election.
The elitists and their candidates know nothing about America outside their Gulfstream ghettos and it is way too late for them to even start pretending that they do. All it does is to further insult us “great unwashed” out here in “Jesusland”.
Nahanni on April 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM
The silent majority will win again this November.
Entelechy on April 5, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Doubtful. These groups has been paid more attention to than they have in any other election. There are no more “security moms,” but now there are younger women, older women, minority women, etc. The same with African-Americans. And the issues and grievances have gotten more play as well. This analysis seems out of date and doesn’t really hold up to the evidence already produced in this election cycle.
Taken for granted? Seriously? All elections are geared specifically to this voting bloc and others are expected to fall in line or do some research for themselves. Historically general elections have been focused on the white male with women and minorities as an afterthought (in recent years there has been a focus on the aforementioned “security moms”). To act as though white men have been “taken for granted” is simply foolish and incorrect.
Nonfactor on April 5, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Yea – If things are “being left behind curtains”, someone should have realized that LDS General Conference that’s on this weekend is on DirectTV, DISH, Galaxy 25, Comcast, Internet, etc…
SkinnerVic on April 5, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Nonfactor,
you’ve lost it if you think that men of European ancestry haven’t been left behind by the Democratic Party’s “identity politics.” It’s the party that has called white men ‘evil’ and that it would be good for society for white men to take a step back and let other groups have their turn.
Disgusting… nothing in the Democratic party is about equality… it’s about divisions and segregation/balkanization.
njrob on April 6, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Those poor poor white men. The Democratic Party just doesn’t care about their issues; they’re always talking about the issues of women and minorities (except when they’re taking minorities and women for granted).
The true irony of identity politics is that the term “identity politics” was created for use in referring to the votes of–gasp–white men.
Nonfactor on April 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Comment pages: