Is voting for someone primarily because they are black or a woman or a mormon, etc. really that much better than not voting for someone because of these things?
I don't think it is, but it seems to me that it is much more acceptable to get jazzed about the "first black/woman president" than it is to say that you won't vote for someone because they are black or you don't like their religion or whatever.
To me, logically, voting for someone because they are X is pretty similar to not voting for someone else because they are not X. Voting for a woman because of her sex is also not voting for someone because he is a man, yes?
This is just an open ended musing I'm throwing out there.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
it depends on context.
I'ld vote for Barack Obama not just because he's black but because of what he stands for, him being black is a bonus inregards to that every single president for the last 300 years has been white.
If Hilary stood for principles as Barack did and Barack a little less itld be the same, her being a woman would be a bonus.
Its just that its the perception that were voting for them because of these things, it just happens we talk about their indentity more then their issues, issues are one thing we can agree to issues and issues can change but him being black is whats get us hooked and talking.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
To be honest, I rather suspect that many people that say that they will vote for X because they are the first X really mean something slightly more nuanced. They probably mean something more like, "when all other things are roughly equal, then I will vote for the one that is X."
To bring this to a concrete example. I'm an atheist. If I had a choice of two candidates and all policy decisions were roughly equal between them but one was atheist and the other was not, then I would vote for the atheist. However, that does not necessarily mean that I would vote for an atheist that has significantly negative (from my POV) policy decisions from the non-atheist. Policy trumps similarity of background, for me anyways.
I think the reason why some may have a more negative view of voting *against* x is that the "when all things are equal" clause is ignored. That is, people may vote against someone that trumpets policies that seem to be similar to what they want, but value similarity of background over policy.
Thats part of my preliminary hypothesis anyways, note that I'm explicitly not making any value judgements yet since I am also "musing."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bigot!
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Not me, I fully intend to vote Democrat for the sole reason that either choice would be the first X in office. For me though, the reason is that in the History books, people are going to remember that aspect a LOT more readily than they will remember anything else they did in their 4-8 years in office.
Unless either candidate manages to practically destroy the US (which I'm not all convinced they have the power to do), then their term will most likely be viewed as a landmark, and a good thing. I would (and shall) bet my vote on that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is a difference between voting for someone because they are "like you" and recognizing that, in context, certain identity issues have value.
I would enthusiastically support Senator Obama no matter his race. At the same time, I cannot help but think of African Americans who were threatened and beaten and even killed for the right to vote. I see people a generation older than Senator Obama who hoped but it would come but never believed that they would see the day. It is a powerful thing. In addition to all the other reasons to vote for Senator Obama, I believe that electing him would be an act of real healing for this country.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with your sentiment, MrSquicky, and I'll relay your logic to my wife for the next time someone asks her why, as a feminist, she's not voting for Clinton.
sylvrdragon, why do you care what the history books say? Why don't you vote for the candidate who can do the best job, and the hell with the history books?
Playing devil's advocate, though, and kind of in line with kmbboots's post, once a door is open it tends to stay open. Right now when you tell a black kid or a girl that she could grow up to be president, it's basically an optimistic lie. Before this year, Geraldine Ferraro notwithstanding, there was no reason to believe it was true. And that fact, I think, impacts the possible futures for themselves that black kids or girls see; they see that in America some doors are not open to them, and maybe there starts to be an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy there. If we have an African American or female president, though, then kids can believe that they really do have a world of opportunity open to them. I hope we break both of those barriers sooner than later.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I vote by policy. If I like their ideas and their positions they get my vote. Party doesn't matter, gender, race, religion, it doesn't matter. There are some groups and what not that I tend to lean towards because they tend to be the ones that I generally agree with, but it's coincidence.
Who you are doesn't matter to me. What you stand for does. If there were two equal candidates that I seriously had no preference over, they were equal in every single way except their gender or ethnicity...I'd look at personality. If I still liked them both equally, I might consider not voting if I really didn't care who won.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Take Lyr's post and put my name on it.
While I think it would be "cool" to have a black, or woman, or Jewish, or Mormon president, I'm not going to let that influence my vote in any way. It is ALL about the positions and ideas and to a lesser extent the character and personality of a candidate to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr. Squicky: I agree that your reasoning is sound, but for many some people getting a woman or an African American elected to that high office for the first time is a moral victory worth voting for. It would also be a greater accomplishment than many an administration has secured in both 4 and 8 year terms.
On a separate note, politics is such a tricky topic as it makes for strange bed fellows. In many cases voting for a candidate who shares the same race, or religion, or gender instills in the voter the belief that that candidate is going to be sympathetic to THAT group. I've read several reports of Latinos voting for Clinton because they believe Obama is going to favor black voters and ignore or even suppress the Hispanic community.
It seems almost a given that politicians talk alot about what they are going to do to change the world and then go off on a strange tangents the whole time. If they are at least the same race, gender, ethnicity, then you can believe that they aren't going to sell your group out.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
If you believe that they're not going to sell you out just 'cause you're the same ethnicity, you don't follow much politics.
Isn't it, like, a qualification for being a career politician that you should be willing to sell people out right and left?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The funny thing is, that with a tug between minority and female voters...white men are the swing vote for Democrats.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'd vote for the black guy on the off chance that he'd be more likely to give a damn about why so many black kids are in jail, dropping out of school, or jobless. I'm a race guy. I think if you figure out what's going on in black America, you'll also address some of the thornier moral problems of plural democracy, education, and citizenship.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I have to be honest, part of why I don't want Hilary so strongly is that I don't want HER to be the first woman president. I don't want the history books to record that our first female president won primaries by crying and in some ways because of who her husband was. I think Obama is the better leader and on the few differences between Hillary and Obama on policy, I side with him more than her. So, if I ignored gender and race, I wold vote the same way, which makes it a very easy decision.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
While her show of emotion has helped, I don't think it's a secret that thus far, Bill has been anything but a key to success for her. Shutting him up and cleaning up his messes have cost her a lot of points. I wonder how much of that is him and how much is the campaign and their strategic faux pas.
I think it's very possible that if she'd never met Bill, she'd have made it to the Senate in the 90's, and might very well be running today, albeit without the immense resources she started the race with. But given Obama's success, starting off with resources ain't what it used to be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: If you believe that they're not going to sell you out just 'cause you're the same ethnicity, you don't follow much politics.
Isn't it, like, a qualification for being a career politician that you should be willing to sell people out right and left?
You better hope *I* don't get elected to public office your majesty. We may be the same race, ethnicity, religion, etc. But I'll sell your whole family out first chance I get! Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
See? I told you. Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't think it is, but it seems to me that it is much more acceptable to get jazzed about the "first black/woman president" than it is to say that you won't vote for someone because they are black or you don't like their religion or whatever.
I think the reason most people consider one more acceptable than the other is that almost all of the people who are excited about the first black or woman president are NOT saying "I won't vote for a white president or a male president." In fact, the vast majority of them have voted for white male presidents in the past. So it's not really a comparison of like vs like.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's a human.
I know you'll all mark me as a speciest, but I have to be honest to how I am. I could never bring myself to vote for a mongoose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Don't worry Javert. There are plenty of people who are voting for McCain because he's an undead zombie. Lots of people vote for species first.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm not voting for a Democrat because I don't hate America. So would that be the same as voting for Republican because I love America?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm not voting for a Democrat because I don't hate America. So would that be the same as voting for Republican because I love America?
No. You only vote Republican if you hate everyone who isn't Republican. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I disagree. I think that's merely a secondary motive.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I disagree with everything you have said Lyrhawn about Hillary. I know that right now Bill has made some bad moves, but ultimately she ows it to her husband that she has any name recognition. That is the only way I can see why she has won in NY or where she started out as front runner and comes close to winning the Democratic nomination.
I wouldn't vote for her because she is Democrat. However, even assuming that wasn't the case I don't think she would be a very good politician compared to the other candidates running. On the other hand, Obama is winning practically on his own, although race does have a lot to do with it.
Identity politics is the main driving force behind this election. More than any others in history I would even say. McCain won the Republican nomination more from the outcome identity politics than what the majority of the party wanted. He is the only presidential candidate I know of in history (although it would be interesting if someone could find other examples) where the party loyalists hate him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does it count as identity politics if you support someone because they don't look like you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Technically, no, but it is what I'm talking about. I didn't know of a term that better conveyed voting for what a person is rather than what they stand for, etc.
I've been wondering if it's a minority thing, too. Like, LDS voted overwhelmingly (what was it, like 95% in one state) for Mitt Romney, but considered it bigotry when Protestants voted for Mike Huckabee. Is it different because they're a minority. I think that issue comes into play with women and blacks.
An expansion. Voting for someone who is centrally concerned with your issues...how different is that from voting against someone who is going to focus on some other groups issues?
For example, voting for Barack Obama because you think he is going to focus on black issues. How different is that from votign against him because you don't want a candiate who is going to focus on black issues? Is this similar to the identity thign above, or is it fundamentally different because we are talking about actual issues?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Don't worry Javert. There are plenty of people who are voting for McCain because he's an undead zombie. Lots of people vote for species first.
I dunno. John Kerry got a lot of votes and HE is an undead zombie.
Heck, Algore won the popular vote and he's a peice of wood!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Gore! It's Gore, he's big he's heavy he's wood! Gore! Al Gore, he's better than bad he's good!
Thanks, Pix, now I have the Log song stuck in my head.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
". . . but considered it bigotry when Protestants voted for Mike Huckabee." Although it is arugabley a question mark, the difference is there. If Mike would have shut his mouth and simply won then such an argument would be less potent. However, those who understand Evangelical talk know darn well Huckster was using anti-Mormonism as a rhetorical tool. When he said things like he was running as the True Christian(tm) and that he was the one who spoke in the Evangelical language, adding in the whole "innocent" Jesus as Satan's brother question, there is few conclusions one can make.
Maybe you have to be Mormon to understand the Evangelical language meanings he used. I don't know. But, Mormons did take the hint and did some identity voting of their own.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky,
I suppose that for me it is a matter of focus. If I want someone in office because they focus on minority issues and I am a minority and I want them to make my life better, that feels different to me that wanting someone to focus on minority issues because I recognize that, regardless of how it impacts me, those are issues that need attention to better the community as a whole.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: If I want someone in office because they focus on minority issues and I am a minority and I want them to make my life better, that feels different to me that wanting someone to focus on minority issues because I recognize that, regardless of how it impacts me, those are issues that need attention to better the community as a whole.
I think that's sort of where I lean to, but doesn't that call into question a fundamental idea of representative governments? Should people be faulted for electing representatives specifically because those people are goign to focus on making their lives better, even if it is to the detriment of some other people?
Let's take a state situation, as it is less charged. Is a representative for PA putting the interests of his state and constituents over that of others, even to the point where he's sort of screwing over NJ on a semi-consistent basis doing his job well or failing in his responsibilies?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's a human.
I know you'll all mark me as a speciest, but I have to be honest to how I am. I could never bring myself to vote for a mongoose.
I'd vote for Rikki Tikki Tavi Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I suppose that a philosophy of individual good balanced with the common good applies to representative government just as it does to life. If I recognize that my good is dependent on good for others, then I will want my representative to "represent" that.
I think that, practically, it is a balance for state representatives. They are there to do both. I think that the balance falls differently for the House and the Senate as well.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I agree with a lot of this. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
A vote for Hillary is a vote against Feminism? She's got my vote then.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: A vote for Hillary is a vote against Feminism? She's got my vote then.
May I be the first to officially announce my shock and disbelief.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)