The Follies of Identity Politics
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Republicans — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Erick's response is below the fold.
When Dick Morris once punditized that Condolezza Rice could take siginificant voting chunks away from Hillary Clinton because she was female and black, Steven Warshawsky of American Thinker famously quipped in response:
[T]his is nothing but crude identity politics masquerading as political analysis.
If Erick's source is correct about the reasoning the White House is using to arrive at a Garza SCOTUS nomination, it appears that forces within the White House have fallen prey to the same seductive, yet false political reasoning that Warshawsky rightly skewered. Not only will nominating Garza to the SCOTUS not be effective, politically speaking - if he is nominated simply because he is Hispanic, it is also the wrong thing to do.
More below the fold:
Now, it will fairly be noted that I'm not above playing dirty in politics to win. I fully realize that there are critical issues at stake, and winning elections matters when it comes to implementing the policies I believe in. However, before I'm willing to engage in the kind of politics that's not necessarily completely on the high road of ideology, I like to make sure that the tactic I'm using works. The reality is that mordern history has shown us that playing identity politics has little to no efficacy.
Remember when the fight at hand was the fight over Clarence Thomas? The conventional identity politics wisdom of the time was that the Democrats would not dare to bring out the bloody knives against an African American - and if they did, we'd really be driving a wedge between them and their base. Turns out that didn't really work so well, as a virtually identical percentage of the black vote voted Republican in 1992 as they did in 1988. The percentage voting Democrat actually INCREASED from 83 to 86, a statistic which is made all the more startling considering the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992. In contrast, when Clinton had two opportunities to appoint SCOTUS justices, he did not select an African American for either. This hurt neither his percentage of the vote in 1996, nor Al Gore's in 2000.
Now, as Erick has noted, Hispanics are a very different ballgame, politically, in that they have shown to be much more receptive to party change, based on personality. It's also difficult to judge a historical reaction to Democrat character assassination, since the only case study currently available to us is Miguel Estrada, who is hardly a household name within any demographic group. However, I challenge anyone to provide a single historical incident of identity politics being successful. Whether we're talking Geraldine Ferraro, Clarence Thomas, or whoever, whenever these games are tried, they tend to fail miserably. I contend that if it ever will actually be successful, it will be through the basis of an elected nomination, not an appointment.
But even granting the assumption that this time it might work, I still maintain that it is the wrong thing for us to do, for at least two reasons.
First, the very discussion that we are having here gives ammunition for the other side to use against us. "You see?" they will say. "They're just trying to impress you by nominating tokens. Don't be fooled, they don't really have your best interests at heart." When we start seriously discussing putting forth a candidate on the basis of his race and not his qualifications, we immediately lose any credibility with the people we're trying to impress. What's more, we deserve to lose it.
Which ties in nicely with the second reason why this kind of politics is wrong. We've taken quite a political beating over the last several decades for rightly standing up against racial discrimination, which some other people call "affirmative action" or "quotas." Remember all those arguments? Remember how employers should choose the most qualified person regardless of race? Remember how it's insulting to minorities to assume that they can't perform at the same level on their own? Remember how it's ludicrous to punish the children for the sins of their great-grandparents?
I didn't just say all of those things, I believed them. And for us to so openly and blatantly surrender them now for the sake of some cheap (and probably ineffective) play at a segment of the Democrat vote is degrading to the integrity of our party. If that's how little the principle really meant to us, we could have given up fighting affirmative action a long time ago, and done ourselves a lot more political good in the process.
It may be that Garza is the person best qualified for the job - I don't know enough about him to make the case very strongly one way or the other. If he is, then I'm glad to let him have it without a peep. But what I won't be on board for is nominating him because he's Hispanic and we think that'll be a clever thing that will help us next November.
I say it's wrong, and further that it won't work.
Update [2005-7-1 9:57:50 by Erick]:
if he is nominated simply because he is Hispanic, it is also the wrong thing to do.
Garza is not going to be nominated simply because he is Hispanic. If that was true, I'd be right there with you, Leon. But, that was never the point. Garza is going to be nominated because he is a strong conservative. Given three choices, 1, 2, and 3, all of whom have conservative credentials, we have the political calculus of who will be easiest to get through.
1. is an Ivy League grad, circuit court judge, strong conservative, male,, and white.
2. is an Ivy League grad, circuit court judge, strong conservative, male, and white.
3. is an Ivy League grad, circuit court judge, strong conservative, male, and Hispanic.
Hmmm . . . which one of these three will give me the most bang for the buck? Well, considering I have a strong supply of white men in my stack, adding a white guy to the bench will change nothing.
Considering (1) polls have repeatedly shown that Hispanics are starting to notice Republicans, (2) we have a readily available strong conservative who is Hispanic, and (3) we can keep the conservative base happy and possibly expand it, which of the three possible nominees should I go with?
To not go with Garza would squander an opportunity.
If I'm reasonably confident that O'Connor is going to retire and I want to replace her with a conservative, it'd also put the Dems in a tighter spot if I replaced her with a conservative who also happens to be in an ethic group that the Dems do not have as tight a hold on as they would like.
None of us like identity politics. But we are not playing identity politics. We're making a smart move with a guy who just happens to be in a different ethnic group. It's not because he is Hispanic, but it certainly helps. And, why not? Given three equally qualified guys, why not choose the non-white guy? Isn't that true affirmative action? If three people are very near identically qualified, why not then and only then consider that it might be time to put the first Hispanic on the court.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Gonzales: unseemly campaigning — Comments (17) »
The Follies of Identity Politics 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
And note that women actually outnumber men. So it's a bit weird to call them a "minority".
..is that Rice is actually a conservative. Anyone who is an absolutist on the Second Amendment gets my vote. The fact that she is also female and black happens to be a bonus. But that's beside your point.The question then becomes this: is Garza no believer in Original Intent? A Souter in Scalia's clothing? You report, we decide....
That is not the question. The question is, do we nominate Garza simply because he is Hispanic?
well, Estrada was an incredible story and hispanic and an immigrant and a brilliant judge, and he was stopped. So obviously being a minority doesn't get you approved automatically.
Secondly, I agree with some posters who are opposed to race- and sex-based decisions on these matters. To date Bush really hasn't been too bad in this regard, but with the Supreme Court situation that might end.
Yeah, it does. Garza, like many others, seems to be a fantastic candidate. But does it help your case when you're doing something historic, like putting a minority on the Supreme Court? When you're putting a "First" up there? Yeah, it does.
Putting Garza up there is not so much a clever thing for Republicans-- it's the only sane way to take a powerful weapon out of the hands of the Dems. If the President replaced a minority on the Court with someone other than a minority, do you think Democrats wouldn't notice and unfairly villify the President and the candidate, no matter how qualified the candidate was?
And this is not merely about racial identity politics. If it was, then there would be no problem with Gonzalez. Judgeships, statewide and federal, are political positions because the political process determines who gets them. Those playing the political game only suffer if they're not aware of how to play it.