Identity Politics -- Who Wins?

BE ELECTED
by Christine Bowman

The Chicago Tribune ran a lengthy page-one story on Monday titled: Clinton focusing on females: Democrat playing up gender to motivate base, analysts say. It offers a compelling look at the Clinton campaign's recent steps towards embracing gender instead of running from it.

The report includes some valuable insights from Clinton supporters Pat Schroeder and George McGovern. McGovern has said he believes it would be easier for a black man than a woman to be elected president.

A Clinton adviser, "who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly on strategy," acknowledged the campaign's more direct appeals to women.

The reporters also asked Lynn Sanders, a U Va. associate professor of politics, to weigh in on the potential risks and benefits to the Clinton campaign's embrace of gender. She makes an observation that should make feminists and egalitarians feel reasonably good:

"What's interesting is that for whatever else Hillary is seen as - 'a monster,' according to some, 'the terminator,' according to others - she's seen by almost no one as a joke. The fact that no one is simply ruling her out is a very big indicator of how far female candidates have come."

But Sanders also comments on data that show younger, more educated women trending towards Obama:

"Women know that, historically, when minorities are positively influenced, so are women."

Polls have shown quite convincingly that Clinton is doing very well among women, and especially among women of her own and older generations. On the other side, Obama is doing very well among black and younger voters. Not exactly shocking revelations.

But does identity politics stop at race and gender, or age, for that matter? No, of course not. At the silly extreme, Clinton's new ad seems to be a rallying cry for Pinochle players, and Obama evidently had hopes of rallying bowlers.

But identity politics is something campaigns take seriously. Identity politics is an electoral strategy whereby campaigns hope to gain some kind of edge that is non-rational but potentially powerful. When voters see "someone like me," that builds trust. It also provides voters a much easier path to making a decision than does extensive research or relentless attention to politics.

What if we ask, then, who in this race stands to benefit more from mining identity politics? The campaigns themselves surely have looked at this quite closely, but we're not privy to their data and analysis. Obama arguably may have an edge in one respect. Due to his and his family's complicated heritage and trajectory, Obama is in many ways an American "Everyman." If voters seek an identity bond with him, most could find one:

Are you white?
Are you black?
Are your people immigrants?
Are you young?
Are you middle class?
Are you educated?
Are you male?
Do you go to church?
Are you a newcomer?

Clinton, too, can bond with voters on numerous counts, but doesn't Obama seem to have the edge?

One way or another, all the "yes" answers to identity questions do add up. To be sure, both campaigns will work each of their candidate's identity points to maximize advantage, and they'll also work against the opponent's identity points.

At a time when only white-haired, wealthy white guys could get into a race, minority voters and women often could tip the scale. This time, at least in the Democratic primary race at this point, that isn't the case.

Will that make identity politics a bigger factor? And if so, who wins?

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/identity-politics/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

BE ELECTED

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash | delicious | digg | yahoo | technorati