Quick Hit: The Identity Blame Game
Lately I've noticed some pundits fretting that if "identity groups" (women, people of color, gay people, immigrants, basically anyone who's not a hetero white man) ask for a cabinet that looks like America, they are endangering Obama's presidency and the Democratic coalition. In a piece up at the Prospect today, I call bullshit.
In the context of this debate about cabinet appointments, "identity politics" is more or less derisive shorthand for "women, people of color, immigrants, gay people speaking up for themselves." But if not now, when are we supposed to raise these issues? After the decisions have been made? People who have traditionally been cut off from the highest avenues of power are well within their rights -- and, I'd argue, responsibilities -- to demand a seat at the table, before appointments have been made. I'm not going to retread the arguments for why diversity is important. I will say, however, that there is rarely the right person for any given position -- most jobs could be done competently by any number of people, and some of those people are no doubt women and people of color. Pointing out this fact must not be seen as threatening or petty, but as productive and necessary.
Read the rest here.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: The Identity Blame Game.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10523
The tonic is to not to cast a pall generally over the selection process, but ask specific questions about why specific candidates aren't getting specific positions; e.g. Why not Janet Napolitano for Attorney General?
This method works even better in the world of college football, where crappy white head coaches get recycled but talented black coordinators rarely get a sniff of the top job.
As I typed that last paragraph, I thought of the crapulent Democratic vote to allow Lieberman to retain his Homeland Security chairmanship.
Meanwhile, of the 18 main Senate Committees, only the Californians (Boxer and Feinstein) have a chairmanship, and those are of the relatively unimportant Rules and Environmental Committees. Maybe someone should look at the disparate impact of the seniority rule.
That's a really good point. Because the most prestigious committees are led by senators who have been around for decades... when the percentage of women was even more dismal.
Thanks for writing this, Ann -- if only because I am tired of the concerns of women, minorities, and gay people being labeled "identity politics" while the interests of white straight men are framed as that of the normal archetypal human.
I believe this divisive and antiquated attitude found in the preceding article rather unfortunate. I suspect that these sentiments stem from the tiresome, yet lingering notion that beliefs and/or agendas held by minority bodies have to be autonomous, working against the grain of all other widely held social and philosophical concerns. The media, also, has not helped in displacing this false idea. For it is ingrained in the publics consciousness that "special-interest groups" want to reorient priorities to their own while displacing the needs of the general populous. Our polarized two party system reflects this deeply held conviction: If you're a minority the Democratic party is for you, but if are like the rest (the adults that really run this country) the Republican party is where it's at. How did we as a democratic nation allow this toxic sentiment to continue, believing that championing the needs of the exploited or underprivileged eroded the process for everyone else? In the spirit of the new administration, this period in our history is coming to a close. I welcome the attitude that any concern, no matter how small or idiosyncratic, is included in the greater conversation concerning our nation's future.
http://annhathaway.blogspot.com/
At first, I just glanced at your post and read the excerpt from the article. When I glanced at the first part of the post again, I read line about the article at the Prospect as saying you were calling bullshit on the article (totally didn’t see that you had actually written it!) So, I go over to the Prospect article because the quote seemed very pro-diversity and I thought it sounded great – I couldn’t figure out why you didn’t like it.
As I am reading the article, all I can think is “Did I miss something? I must have missed something because this article is great! It’s beautifully written and spot on. Why is Ann calling bullshit on this?” I went back to your post here and reread it. That’s when I realized that you wrote the article Yep, reading is fundamental.
Your article was a fabulous take-down, btw. It was honest and left little room for argument. I will definitely be forwarding it on.
Thanks for writing this, Ann. Really insightful.