The problem with identity politics, as I pointed out in my pastorgate 2 post, is that is generates an intolerance of almost any criticism. Pastor Michael Pfleger interpreted Senator Clinton's very candidacy as an act of racist resentment against Obama. What is wrong with this is not so much that it is unfair as that it makes it very difficult to honestly engage with any critic or opponent. I remember a few years back when Native American mascots were a big issue. Many people argued that such mascots were demeaning to Native Americans, and they surely had a point. But when anyone attempted to argue the contrary, for any reason, the reply was always: "you just don't get it." That effectively cut off all conversation. How can you take someone's argument seriously if you know in advance that it arises out prejudice against yourself?
But it is not just the Obama camp that suffers from identity politics. E. J. Dionne has a piece posted at RealClearPolitics entitled "Women Scorned."
How much anger is there among women about how Hillary Clinton has been treated during this campaign? Some of the nation's leading female politicians will tell you: quite a lot.
"From the beginning, she's been treated very badly," says Therese Murray, the president of the Massachusetts Senate. "No woman would have run with Obama's resume. She wouldn't have been considered." But Clinton has been "demonized by the press and the talking heads. How do you get away with that?"
Dionne talks to a number of women politicians, all of whom feel that Senator Clinton has been treated unfairly by the media.
"The anger is aimed much more at you all," said Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts of Rhode Island. Added Murray: "Obama wouldn't have gotten to where he got today if it weren't for the bias of the male media -- no offense."
Apparently Ms. Ferraro's infamous gaffe was not just an idiosyncrasy. This is all flagrant Pflegerism. It is also nonsense. Senators Obama and Clinton stand at the center of American politics right now. One of them (surely the former) is going to be the Democratic nominee. It's just plain goofy to argue that they have been treated unfairly.
To be sure, they get unfair questions, and both race and sex enter in in all sorts of irrelevant ways. But no candidate, regardless of sociological identity, can escape that in the current climate. Therese Murray, the president of the Massachusetts Senate, tells Dionne that a reporter once asked what her lipstick color was. Many of her supporters were offended. But for heaven's sake, candidate Bill Clinton was asked whether he wore boxers or briefs.
No doubt there are some who will not vote for Senator Obama because he is Black, or Clinton because she is a woman. It is difficult to tell how significant this is. It is easy to show that Obama's race and Clinton's sex have been powerful assets in the campaign. There is nothing wrong with that because it is what politics is supposed to be about: building coalitions from a wide pallet of voters with lots of different reasons for supporting any candidate. We may be rightly offended by the motives of some voters, but that's the thing about a liberal democracy: people get to vote for whom the please and for any damn reason they please.
Both Clinton and Obama are really demanding special treatment. They won't get it, and it is adolescent of them to expect it.
Recent Comments