With the fierce primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and today’s announcement of McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin, this presidential election has been and will continue to be thick with identity politics. That is, individual members of historically marginalized groups are finally at the point of sharing real power in our country and other members of those same groups are taking notice and often voting according to that shared identity. Being a member of a marginalized group, I can appreciate the desire to vote according to that identity.
I absolutely believe that other folks with highly visible physical differences (like my dwarfism) and mobility disabilities (like my use of a power chair) understand a part of “what it’s like to be me” in ways that an able bodied person never could. Close friends and family have a strong sense of empathy and do feel my outrage or pain when they are present as I am being marginalized or ridiculed, but they do not know what it’s like to live every moment of your life with such marginalization or ridicule right around the corner. For those that are close to me, their empathetic suffering is a temporary condition.
So it is that I understand that even complete strangers who are genuine members of a marginalized group can profoundly and uniquely understand each other’s lived experience in some ways (but CERTAINLY not all ways). Because of this feeling that other members of our group “get it” just because they share this identity, it’s easy to want to support them in their political ambitions. We trust people like ourselves more easily and we see their success as intimately bound up with our success. That is why people of color and women came out in droves this year to support Barack and Hillary, respectively.
However, if we were to practice identity politics in a completely uncritical way, we run the risk of tokenizing ourselves. In fact, I believe this trap is what John McCain is betting on in choosing a female Veep today.
When someone is tokenized, they are deliberately placed in a social or political position that gives the appearance of inclusiveness. In other words, it is a dominant group’s attempt to satiate a subjugated group by throwing them a bone. A tokenized person with a disability in a mainstream classroom provides ammunition for a school board to claim that they are not discriminatory by segregating everyone else in a “special” education back room, “But look! We are inclusive where that kind of thing is appropriate!”
As voters, if we vote for someone just because they superficially share our marginalized identity, even if they support policies that strike directly against our interests, we tokenize that candidate. Sarah Palin has the biology of a woman, but the troubling brand of fiercely conservative politics that she shares with John McCain does nothing to help the ordinary working class American woman, who is trying to make good amidst a foreign and domestic crisis. Conservatism does nothing but preserve the status quo, which is largely a system of oppression for everyday women.
It’s curious that MCain is not willing to tokenize himself by talking publically about his disability. Perhaps the stigma of disability is too strong and too internalized for him to come to terms with the idea that he himself is disabled – he sustained permanent injuries from his time as a prisoner of war and collects a disability pension from the Navy. Or, it’s likely that he (rightly) believes that disability is not as unified an identity as gender or race and so most people with a disability would not vote for him based on that identity. One thing is certain, as long as John McCain opposes policies that would free our people (like the Community Choice Act or universal health care), I won’t vote for him no matter how cripped out he is.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:14 am
I have a question and a comment.
My question is would you consider john McCain to be like you, even if he had embraced his disability? Could you identify with him out side of his politics?
I agree with what you’re saying and understand where you’re coming from. I understand because I am voting for Obama and others peg me for doing so because I am a “minority”. And while that’s not why I’m voting for him, that’s the way it is perceived. I think your point of identity is strong and correct in my opinion but what you miss is that the roll of identity has mad a stronger impact then in any other election in history. Race, gender and to a lesser extent class have made a big entrance and don’t want to leave the room. Those who are effected by its appearance not only in this election but plagued by it every day have found this to be the pivotal moment. There are some who can’t see anything but that. And while I would never vote for some one who is black, and you for some one with disability just because, it is very tempting at this particular point in history. This campaign will make history one way or the other the question is, are people able to put down their mantels and think rather then jump? It is history and pain that is driving a lot of people these days and It’s a bad way to pick a president.
Sebastian Ebarb
Social Conscience Graphic Design
SebastianEbarb.com
http://brooklynaesthetic.blogspot.com/
August 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Whenever I think about this topic, I come back to a song by Immortal Technique called Poverty of Philosophy— “So in conclusion, I’m not gonna vote for anybody just ’cause they black or Latino. They have to truly represent the community and represent what’s good for all of us proletariat.” (You like how I’m always quoting Tech???)
Definitely agree w/ what Sebastian said in the comment above. The mainstream media has destructively oversimplified this election by mixing up real hope/support communities of color have for Obama with the idea that folks are gonna look down at their arm and check the box based on their melanin (though I’m not denying that people will vote based on race— why else would McCain still be near Obama in polls?).
Feminists leaders have alienated many many many people by explicitly saying we have to choose between race and gender in favor of being loyal to our woman parts. (I thought we were finally done with that mess but looks like the identity politics game will be played til November.) Though obviously a lot of hope for Obama is based on the fact that folks can identify with him and that he represents change most didn’t they’d see in their lifetime, I think people realistically know what he’ll be capable of doing (and not doing) within this system, especially with the post-racial rhetoric of the elections. Obama has done a good job connecting people with his campaign and it seems like these identity/division politics have been a racist strategy used by the mainstream media to simplify support for Obama. Of course, my point that people vote less by identity politics than most think may be totally off considering I’ve heard a handful of crips already say Palin was good for the disability community (wtf). Very appreciative of your opinion on this topic.
If anything I think McCain picking Palin shows how ridiculous this all has been, y’know? HEY, maybe he should have picked Condi— then he’d get the race and gender vote, huh?!
August 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
*puts up balloons and streamers for philocrip’s blogday party*
August 31st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
McCain has obviously chosen Palin as a token female and ultra-conservative. As a “feminist” myself, I don’t see most women falling for it! Here in the “bible belt” however, Palin’s staunch conservatism may be a plus for McCain.
This is the first time since I’ve lived in Virginia that it has been identified as one of the “swing states”. It will be tight, but I think Obama can actually take this state despite the racial and religious bigots.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Hi Joe. What a hilariously awful idea it is to put this woman second-in-command behind McCain. If he gets elected (very real possibility) and dies in office (also very real possibility), our new president would be a woman who has spent the better part of her political life toiling away in a town of 5,000 in the most far-flung state in the union, most of that spent on city council, and partially as a tv sports reporter. That could be even scarier than a third Bush term.
At least she won’t take mah guns away!
September 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I completely agree with you about your overall point that one shouldn’t vote for a candidate just because of identity. And I think the vast majority of people would agree too. But the question is how much does the symbolism (of the first black/female/crip/whatever President) still lead people to be attracted to a candidate, and then perhaps justify that vote on other grounds. (i.e. Obama’s racial identity helps to bolster his campaign’s contrived aura of bringing change. “Change” is the natural catchphrase for a young candidate coming from the non-incumbant party, but does Obama’s being black (or young) necisarily mean that he will be a more effective reformer than the more experienced McCain?)
Now that the McCain campaign has a female VP candidate, there comes the advantage (for the election process in principle, though obviously strategically for the McCain campaign) that voters must examine deeper their candidates stances on whatever issues are important to them, and their perceived capacity to follow through with campaign promises. In other words, I wouldn’t want anyone to vote fort he Republican ticket just because one is female, just as I think its short-sighted to vote for the Democratic ticket just because one is black. Congratulations to both parties - the symbolism race ends in a tie!
As an independant voter who is sensitive to some conservative-labelled causes, what I don’t appreciate is an unqualified statement like “Conservatism does nothing but preserve the status quo, which is largely a system of oppression for everyday women.” If you have the image of conservative women as meaning a stay-at-home mom, its simply not accurate. Sarah Palin is proof of that, and she isn’t the only successful woman who happens to be pro-life or pro-military or pro-business. Take up any issue that you like, but labelling an ambiguously defined “conservatism” as oppressive to everyday women is to ignore the sincere thoughts of many of America’s women.
As for crip issues, I appreciate your opposition to McCain because of his refusal to support the Community Choice Act, which you’ve nobly taken up as a banner issue. Nonetheless, would you not credit some points to Palin for her choosing to deliver her son with Down’s syndrome?
On the opposite side, while I do appreciate this Palin for her symbolism (though I vow to practice what I preack and not vote just because of symbolism), I agree that she is relatively inexperienced. So what we have on our hands are two tickets each with a really experienced white male, and a relatively inexperienced “first”. No one can deny that either Obama or Palin would have gotten to where they are now if it weren’t for being black or female. So now that we’re gauranteed to have a “first”, lets stop debating it and just talk about issues.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments! The only thing I want to clarify here is POB’s accusation of my “unqualified” statement about “Conservatism does nothing but preserve the status quo, which is largely a system of oppression for everyday women.” My argument was not that conservatism was explicitly oppressive to women as an ideology, this would require more argument. Rather, I posit that the social-political status quo is implicitly oppressive to women (and racial minorities and people with disabilities and homosexuals and all kinds of other marginalized groups). That is, sexism is real in our society and is largely institutionalized in a myriad of political/social/cultural ways. Because conservatism aims to “conserve” the political/cultural/social status quo, it, by definition, preserves a system of oppression. If it did not, it would not be conservative.