Hugo – who, needless to say, I have a lot of respect for – posted his endorsements for various political races in California, including the Democratic Party primary race for Lt. Governor in California. Hugo endorsed John Garamendi over his two opponents, Jackie Speier and Liz Figueroa. One of Hugo’s readers, Kyle, objected in comments:
How can you call yourself a feminist and vote for Garamendi? No one in that race has done more for women than Jackie Speier. She created the Office of Women’s Health in the Department of Health Services, she authored the Contraceptive Equity Act, and even carried the resolution adopting the ERA in California. Her list of accomplishments in this area goes on and on, unlike those of her competitor.
Kyle’s criticism is over-the-top; “How can you call yourself a feminist and…” type criticisms should be reserved for serious acts of sexism or anti-feminism, and I don’t think that voting for one feminist-friendly candidate rather than another qualifies.
In a new post, Hugo replied to Kyle’s criticism like this:
Feminism makes some serious political and personal claims on my life. That’s as it should be. But I don’t think that feminists must automatically vote for female candidates when they are running against equally qualified men.
Huh? Kyle didn’t say that Hugo should vote for Speier because she’s female. Kyle said Hugo should vote for Speier because she has the best record of feminist accomplishments.
But what Kyle never said, I’ll say: When all else is equal, feminists should always vote for a female candidate over a male candidate. There, now that I’ve said it – thus saving Hugo’s argument from the horrors of strawmanhood :-P – let’s continue reading Hugo’s reply:
Yes, I recognize that men still hold most elected offices. We can and should do more to encourage women to run. But that shouldn’t mean that a progressive woman has an automatic claim on feminist support when she runs against an equally progressive male candidate.
Why not? The two candidates are equal in their policies, but the female candidate (if elected) will slightly improve the problem of too few women in elected office. That makes her the better candidate, from a feminist point of view.
If you think about it, it sure puts women of color in a difficult position! If you’re a feminist Latina, does that mean you must vote for Liz Figueroa? Once we start playing identity politics, things get nasty fast.
Again, Hugo is attacking a strawman. Kyle never said “women must vote for women candidates” or anything approximating that; to extend from Kyle’s position (which was – paraphrasing – “feminists should vote for the candidate who has done the most for feminist issues”) to “people of color must vote for people of color” is illogical.
As for me, I don’t believe that “people of color must vote for people of color,” any more than I believe “women must vote for women.” I do think that, if the candidates are otherwise equally good, anti-racists should support a candidate of color over a white candidate. Why would we endorse a white male candidate, if we could choose someone who is just as good in every way, but who also helps solve the problem of overrepresentation of white men in elected office?
Now, if they’re not just as good in every way, then that changes things. Hugo, for instance, says that he favors John Garamendi because Garamendi is better on environmental issues. That’s fine; I’m not saying that feminists can’t support a white male candidate whose politics are better.
But I resent the hell out of the notion that feminism requires that all else being equal, one always must vote for a woman.
I get that Hugo resents it. I just don’t understand why.
I doubt Hugo would say that total sexblindness or total colorblindness makes for good public policy; in a racist and sexist society, the “blindness” approach often translates into not doing anything to fight the results of racism and sexism. So why should progressives be sexblind or colorblind in the voting booth?
In a world in which our political rulers are disproportionately white and male, supporting non-white and female candidates rather than otherwise equal white male candidates addresses a real and important problem. Shouldn’t we take that into account when we vote – not as the only factor we consider, but as one of many factors we consider?
* * * Please Note * * *
Comments on “Alas” are sometimes heavily moderated. If you want to avoid that, you can post comments on the identical post at Creative Destruction.
Pingback: Hot games
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
Because Hugo resents it whenever it’s pointed out that he’s doing something that doesn’t match up with his proclaimed values.
You don’t have to buy the idea ‘feminists should vote for women’ to see the problem in this. Hugo hasn’t, as far as I can see, shown why Garamendi is a better choice. He notes that he selected Garamendi because of better qualifications and his environmental record. Fair enough–but he then goes on to mumble about how of course Speier or Figueroa would be fine, but…dammit, stop telling him he has to vote for a woman!
Amp, I accept that I did erect a strawman out of Kyle’s remarks. I think where I differ with you is not in insisting on sex or color-blindness, but in the suggestion that all else being equal, we should ALWAYS vote for the member of the less well-represented group. We might consider sex or race, and there isn’t anything wrong with doing so. I just can’t accept the formula “All else being equal, one must vote for the minority/under represented.” I don’t think you’re suggesting that, of course — and I’m willing to agree that sex and race can be among many factors one considers.
.
Well, the only thing I disagree with in “All else being equal, one must vote for the minority/under represented” is the “must.” That sounds like giving orders, and I don’t think we should turn these things into orders, or into “do X or you’re not a feminist!”
However, I’d certainly say that in my opinion, all else being equal, one should vote for the minority/under represented. If all else is equal, what possible reason would there be to vote for a white male (ablebodied, straight, etc) candidate rather than a candidate from a marginalized group?
But why can’t you accept that formula?
What other criteria do you want to go by? Would you vote for the prettiest candidate, or the one most like you? If you decide that those things are important issues for you then you might claim that the candidates no longer are equal after all and vote for whomever you prefer anyway.
To me the resistance to Ampersand’s formula just sounds like avoidance. An avoidance to aknowledge the real reasons we chose men and/or white people over people belonging to more underrepresented groups. And I believe that it is important that we think a little bit further and aknowledge the reasons why we choose one way and not another.
if all else is equal, what possible reason would there be to vote for a white male (ablebodied, straight, etc) candidate rather than a candidate from a marginalized group?
Here’s one: the white male straight ablebodied etc. candidate is likely to focus on the job, instead of on identity group politics.
Well, I’ve thought long and hard about a related issue that this is bringing up:
As a Christian, all else being equal, should I vote for my fellow believers? Obviously, Christians are not an under-represented group as a whole, but left-wing evangelicals definitely are. I’ve always been reluctant to say yes, even while longing for progressives who could talk about human rights, economic justice, racial reconciliation, the dismantling of oppressive structures — and his or her enduring faith in Christ.
The good news is that the “all else being equal” moment rarely happens in politics. Do enough digging, and one can usually be tipped one way or another without needing to rely on sex or race or proclaimed faith. In Garamendi’s case, it really was the longer environmental record that tipped me. (And, for those who live in California, Jackie Speier’s unfortunate tv ads that trade on her wounding during the Jim Jones massacre when she was an aide to murdered Congressman Leo Ryan. Tacky, Jackie — just like when Dianne Feinstein ran ads reminding folks that she was nearly slain in the Moscone-Milk killings in San Francisco in 1978).
Actually, if I’m honest, I haven’t ever really seen an “all else being truly equal” primary or general election. I’ve seen some close calls, but with a little homework, I’ve been able to make the call. It was my fault in my original endorsements for suggesting flippantly that I was only supporting Garamendi because he played football at my alma mater.
Even mythago wouldn’t believe I could be so shallow as to make a decision based on that, right? ;-)
Robert, your statement includes three baseless assumptions:
1) That “identity group politics” (your term, definitely not mine) removes or encumbers an elected official’s focus on other aspects of his or her job.
2) That concern for discrimination and marginalization of certain groups is not part of the elected official’s job.
3) That these issues somehow fall less heavily on white, male elected officials.
and 4) White straight males do not focus on identity-group politics.
Robert, I’m not quite sure how to read that comment. If ‘focusing on the job’ is incompatible with giving equal consideration to issues that affect minorities, the job itself looks like an example of white male straight ablebodied etcetera identity group politics. But if by ‘focusing on identity group politics’ you mean that the candidate would consider their identity group’s interests and disregard all others, that’s not a case of all else being equal. Your belief that they wouldn’t treat all people as their equals would be a perfectly good reason not to vote for them, but nothing to do with their being female, PoC, GLBTQ or disabled.
Of course I think that virtually all minority candidates would never discriminate against people who are not part of their ‘identity group’! I found it puzzling that Robert seems to think they do (unless I misread his comment).
Ampersand-
Thank you for reiterating that my comments to Hugo’s endorsement of John Garamendi never said that he should vote for Jackie just because she is a woman. In my response to his response (Go visit Hugo’s site. ), I tried to make a case that Hugo was simply choosing Garamendi over Speier because he had a personal inclination to vote for the Insurance Commissioner that had nothing to do with any facts that were important to the race. He seems to recognize the validity of my argument when he agrees that “when one is faced with equally excellent choices, one sometimes has to make a deecision based on ‘personal beliefs'”. Unlike Hugo, I think you are right in that if we come across these “equally excellent choices” (although I still think Speier is the better choice), we should vote for the underrepresented group if we truly are serious about trying to solve some of these historical problems.
First off, Amp, excellent post.
Second, though it’s already been addressed, white men do focus on group identity politics. Having the advantage doesn’t mean that you won’t act to keep the advantage when given the opportunity. Haven’t you ever heard of ‘the good ole boys’ network, Robert?
They don’t have to, being members of the most privilaged race and gender. Also, class because most elected officials are pretty well off financially too.
And of course, any issue that does not pertain primarily to maintaining the higher status of White men, is of course given the convenient label of “identity group politics”.
Isn’t the obvious point that things are never going to be equal, and – even if you can’t see any difference between the two candidates – electing a woman is going to make it more likely that the person in office will represent women’s interests than not.
It seems a bit of a no brainer really.
the worst example of voting reflexively on identity politics is what happened here in new orleans. the african american candidate won over the white candidate. black people i talked to said either nagin should be given a 2nd chance or that he was just a place-holder so that the mayor’s office would stay black once nagin’s term limits were up.
nagin is a democrat-come-lately and was a republican until he ran for mayor in 2002. landrieu has a history personally and family for strongly supporting african americans & other minorities. when people down here talk about how horrible the landrieus are, especially mitch’s father, moon, what they’re really saying is that ‘moon landrieu let black people get power in the city and we won’t let his family forget it.’ when moon landrieu was mayor, he was derided as ‘moon the coon’ for his pro-desegregation policies. he actually had the temerity to insist that black people be allowed to use the bathrooms on canal street before it was federally mandated. that’s what’s really behind the “landrieus ruined the city of new orleans” argument.
but instead of voting for the candidate that would do the most for the poor and minorities here in nola, the combination of the african american vote with the republicans who knew that nagin was their puppet, voted in a complete failure to office.
given two candidates of equal standing on feminist, racial, lgbt issues i’ll always vote for the minority candidate. however the mayor’s race here didn’t have two candidates of equal standing. unfortunately, most voters were blinded by skin color. i just hope that the ‘place holder’ thing works out. i was hoping oliver thomas would run next time, but it’s likely he’ll run for dollar bill jefferson’s congressional seat when he’s kicked out on his kiester.
right now, it being the start of hurricane season, i just hope we’ll all be here to worry about what happens 4 yrs from now :-/
I don’t know if agree that it’s “good news” exactly, but it sure as hell is rare.
I think people get squicky on this mainly because there is not “all else being equal” – it’s TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE with TWO DIFFERENT HISTORIES, etc, even if their platforms are the very same. And, if their platforms are the very same, I’m going to be questioning what each one feels s/he personally feels s/he has to bring to the election, i.e. is this person running out of any conviction or just so s/he can have a decently-paid, interesting job?
Sounds like (personal) affirmative action for me. As a foreigner I often have trouble understanding the utter wordliness of American blogs.
If it wasn’t for this affirmative action aspect, I would disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that feminists should vote women, all else being equal – this would be a (personal) testification that (one’s personal) feminism isn’t about equality, but identity politics.
Jeefie Writes:
Of course I think that virtually all minority candidates would never discriminate against people who are not part of their ‘identity group’! I found it puzzling that Robert seems to think they do (unless I misread his comment).
not down here. when the new d.a. got in 4 yrs ago, he totally gutted the office of as many white lawyers as he could. he was later found guilty of racially motivated dismissals and the people he fired were either rehired or paid damages.
that’s not unusual for things down here.
it’s also not unusual for things in alaska, only there it’s native americans and not african americans. my mom broke through all the ‘we’re not hiring’ static immediately when she presented her tribal registration.
i understand it totally that once in office or authority, there’s a natural desire to ‘help your own.’ i don’t even really fault it. i don’t think there’s anything morally wrong (annoying but not wrong) with having to jump through a few more hoops to get a job or family assistance. it’s about time the majority get a little taste of what the minority went through.
hopefully it will even out to where it really doesn’t matter. probably not in my lifetime, but hopefully for my kids.
“not down here. when the new d.a. got in 4 yrs ago, he totally gutted the office of as many white lawyers as he could.”
To be honest, I’m aware of similar situations in California, though not in politics. I don’t really know what to say about it, other than people are human, and minorities are human, and minorities sometimes act like asses.
So, I guess, if all things appear equal, but you suspect the minority/woman to be an ass, you can vote for the white man? ;)
…(though how could you possibly know?)
Now, I know that people are correct when they say that two candidates are rarely equal, but I still think this is an interesting intellectual exercise for examining one’s beliefs and committments. I know such hypotheticals drive some people nuts, though, which makes sense to me.
The argument that’s been brought up here which seems, to me, to hold the most water is the idea that there are many underrepresented groups which it would be good to see more representation for in government. So if one is presented with a situation in which otherwise equal candidates represent a diverse number of minorities, one is going to have to pick between the:
LGBT candidate
woman candidate
candidate of color
candidate with liberal faith (I’m taking your word that this one’s important, Hugo, though it seems to me from my position as an atheist that people of faith’s interests are adequately enough represented that liberal people of faith aren’t in as much danger of having their rights abridged as, say, blacks… it also seems to me that atheists would have an interest in protecting the rights of minority religions…)
atheist candidate
disabled candidate
transgendered candidate
and so on.
I can also think of several other apparently arbitrary factors which might be important to me which aren’t related to traditional identity politics…
But honestly, I’d probably vote for the woman.
And, um, the day that I’m voting in an election between a disabled black man of liberal faith, a transgendered atheist, and an Indian-American lesbian who was born in another country and has studied and has a great deal of respect for other cultures… ahh, well, perhaps that day Carol Mosley Braun will be president. ;)
They don’t have to, being members of the most privilaged race and gender.
Indeed they do–they just focus their identity politics on other things. Class, religion, ethnicity. They can afford to ignore race and gender, of course, because they have the privilege of those things being considered ‘normal’. And they don’t call it ‘identity politics’ because that’s a term used to shut up the uppity broads and the minorities.
And, um, the day that I’m voting in an election between a disabled black man of liberal faith, a transgendered atheist, and an Indian-American lesbian who was born in another country and has studied and has a great deal of respect for other cultures… ahh, well, perhaps that day Carol Mosley Braun will be president. ;)
Hah! Exactly. If that isn’t a bridge to cross when we get there….
I entirely agree with Amp’s point that, all else being equal, you should vote for a woman (or a racial minority, etc.). But I don’t think that’s particularly helpful, since as several people have pointed out, all else is almost never equal (though you may encounter some races where you don’t *know* what the candidates’ other differences are). So the really important question is *how much* weight to give to this kind of consideration. In a race between a man and a woman, how much worse would the woman’s stance on (say) abortion have to be before you’d pick the man? Unfortunately I’m not sure how you’d go about establishing, or even just stating, the weight you give to gender, etc., unless perhaps you’re willing to pick your votes through a hyper-rationalist Decision Theory method. You’d probably have better luck hashing it out in the context of particular races (e.g. given the gender composition of California politics, is the gain in women’s representation important enough to you to forgo the advantages of Garamedi’s better environmental record?).
Depends if it’s a primary or a normal race. In primaries I find that the distinction is often really slight with regards to politics. Portland gubernatorial democrat primary was an example of that. Two of the stand-out liberals were a white man and a black man. They seemed to share many endorsements around Portland. Unfortunately the sitting governor ended up winning the nom, but those two men politically were very similar in political stances with perhaps a bit of emphasis placed in different areas for each candidate.
Ah, the joys of full-contact politics in New Orleans. Makes me glad I left.
As for your comment about Nagin — remember that party affiliation in Louisiana is a strange creature. Duke (the person, not the university) had been a Democrat up through the 70’s and switched to being a Republican in the 80’s.
But on to the topic —
All else being equal, I vote for the most qualified candidate because everything is never equal. If the woman-of-color candidate has impecable feminist credentials and can’t get anything else done because she’s focused exclusively on women’s issues, to the detriment of everything else, I’ll vote for the straight white Christian guy if he has a positive, productive, progressive track record in every other issue.
(And how do I turn off the annoying “automatic preview” function? It’s inducing all sorts of lag into my typing and making my life (and computer) miserable.)
Robert said:
Robert, I’d like to thank you for that brilliant (no doubt satirical) exhibition of just what white straight male ablebodied identity politics looks like. Bravo! Nothing says identity politics like assuming that everyone outside the dominant group is somehow less capable to do the job than the majority guy.
I’d like to try some identity politics satire now. Hey, men are stupid, incompetent weasels who are only interested in their own selfishness! Any man who complains in any way, shows me his Mensa card, or tells me he does charity work is engaging in identity politics — whining really — and it just won’t stand!
And way to assume that attending to the interests of people like the disabled, women (last time I checked, the MAJORITY pretty much everywhere), minority ethnic groups, GLBT people, etc. is somehow “not doing the job.”
Oh of course, silly me: white/straight/ablebodied/male are the only “real people” on this planet, right?
I don’t quite know where to begin. Let me first say that I find it offensive that men would suggest which candidates women (feminists) should vote for based soley on genitalia. Way to reduce feminist politics to our bodies and essentialism! But, hey, that’s an entirely different rant there.
Genitalia does not predict political leanings, and I think it is rather sophmoric to think that voting for female candidates only (or your minority du jour) is going to affect change in a meaningful way. Numbers alone won’t change political climate — which is obvious in 2006 where the majority of active voters *are* female and we still have a conservative, misogynistic administration wrecking havoc on those key issues that would give women greater equality.
Voting for females only is a band-aid approach to social change. It would affect the outward face of politics, but it would have dubious effect on political climate. Unless, of course, you think that women are somehow more virtuous or sympathetic or kind. Otherwise, women are just as susceptable to political sway, corruption, and the monies of big business as are men. (and as an aside to Robert, if big businesses like Monsanto aren’t “special interst” groups, or the military budget isn’t a “special interest”, than you can continue to pull your politics out yer ass).
Jeefie:
Of course I think that virtually all minority candidates would never discriminate against people who are not part of their ‘identity group’!
Yow! Jeefie, I’d love to know what area of the country you live in. Here in the Chicago area, it’s very common that an office holder populates their office with those of a similar heritage, regardless of whether the person is an official minority. It’s also quite common for voters to consider color over qualifications, performance or ability.
One example of the latter is the recent primary election for Cook County President. The incumbent, who is black, is presently in the hospital (or just out, I didn’t check today). He’s been there since about 10 days before the primary, when he suffered a stroke. He has not been seen or heard by the public since his stroke. His family is releasing no medical information. Doctors have said that he is highly unlikely to recover to the point of being able to resume office or serve a new term.
His administration has been notable for poor service, wasting money, and throwing business contracts at friends and cronies of the Cook County Democratic Organization. County healthcare and other services for the indigent suffers while a brand new Cook County Hospital was built and named after him. No news media outlet has anything good to say about how he’s done his job.
Meanwhile, a challenger with solid credentials ran against him. A Cook County Commissioner from the suburbs, he used to be the Chicago Housing Authority head (housing for the indigent). It had previously been a cesspool of corruption and crime, but he made huge strides in cleaning it up, winning both national and local acclaim.
But, he’s white. And Cook County Board President is a “black position”. So he lost, big time, to a man who can’t walk or talk or communicate or make decisions, because he’s the wrong race. And now that the primary is over, replacing the President with a candidate that can actually perform the office is the job of the Cook County Democratic Organization. The people being mentioned have few qualifications besides service to the organization (although one is his son). No one is even faintly considering a white man for the job, apparently; that seems to be an automatic disqualification.
Mandolin said:
well, perhaps that day Carol Mosley Braun will be president.
I voted for the woman. At the time, I was operating under the “all else being equal, vote for a women/minority” philosophy. From now on, though, I’ll be looking much more closely at the candidates. She performed abysmally, and I’ll no longer cavailerly presume that “all else is equal”.
RonF, working on the “all else being equal . . . ” assumption doesn’t mean that you just assume all else *is* equal. You say that, if you have no way based on their records or stances to decide, you might as well decide on a minority. If. You also look at their backgrounds to see if you have another way to decide.
We’ve had some issues like that with the school board where I live. Actually, with a few notable exceptions, I tend to assume that all school board members are icky. The job seems to be viewed too often as a stepping stone for “real” office.
As far as you feeling disappointed in Ms. Braun’s performance, what wolfa said. I’d be curious what you were disappointed in about her, but I don’t know that this is the place to have such a discussion.
Here’s one: the white male straight ablebodied etc. candidate is likely to focus on the job, instead of on identity group politics.
What a racist idiot you are, Robert, and I don’t care if Ampersand decides I’m “uncivil” for saying so. It’s true. Only a racist idiot would dismiss everything that affects marginalized groups as “identity politics,” while implying that stuff that affects white males is somehow not identity politics and that something is only a “universal” concern and only relates to “the job” if it affects white males.
“I voted for the woman. At the time, I was operating under the “all else being equal, vote for a women/minority” philosophy. From now on, though, I’ll be looking much more closely at the candidates. She performed abysmally, and I’ll no longer cavailerly presume that “all else is equal”. ”
The subtext of this seems to be that if there is no way of knowing whether all else is equal, then treat the minority/woman with greater skepticism than the white male. There are many, many cases where white men have performed abysmally, but that is not used as an example to urge caution while voting for a white man.
No, Kali, there’s no subtext. Don’t put words in my mouth; that’s reprehensible. What I said was, “I’ll be looking much more closely at the candidates”, not “I’ll be looking much more closely at the black candidates” or “I’ll be looking much more closely at the female candidates”.
It’s simple logic, RonF. If your tale was truly about cautioning against presuming “all else is equal” in all cases, not just those where the woman/minority is given the benefit of doubt, then you wouldn’t be using it to argue against voting for women/minorities when all else is presumed to be equal. Like I said earlier, there are many, many cases where white men have performed abysmally, but that is not used as an example to urge caution while voting for a white man.
Your example highlights the tendency of many people to assign the failure of one black/woman to all blacks/women, while assigning the failure of one white man to that white man alone. When people have a mental frame of women and blacks as incompetent, then successful women/blacks are seen as anomalies and failing blacks/women are seen as confirming that stereotype of incompetence. It is as George Lakoff says – people choose facts/anecdotes that fit their frame, and ignore others that don’t.
then you wouldn’t be using it to argue against voting for women/minorities when all else is presumed to be equal.
And just where did I do that?