Juan Cole On The Democrats

Juan Cole hit the nail on the head today at Informed Comment:

I have been dismayed by the prominence of identity politics in the Democratic primaries. Working class men supported John Edwards, who sprang from their ranks (though I suspect he hasn't had a callus lately). African-Americans swung behind Barack Obama as soon as they were convinced that he had a chance of winning. According to opinion and exit polls, middle-aged and older white women disproportionately favored Clinton.

A successful, progressive Democratic Party has to be based on principles, not on voting for people who look like you. The principles can unify. Everyone needs health care. Everyone needs social justice. Everyone needs peace and prosperity. The general public, including independents and even some Republicans will vote for these principles. In a presidential contest based on principles, Senator John McCain has disadvantages.

But if we admit the principle that people should vote on the basis of their self-ascribed identity, well, people who consider themselves "white" are still a majority in this country. (Whiteness in American history is not a 'natural' given based on skin color; it is a social status constructed over time in people's minds. Irish Catholic working-class immigrants to the US were not considered white by WASPs in the mid-19th century. The Irish had to work hard to get in.)

The Real Question is, Would a President McCain be good for Women?

[the link is from the original article]

Anyone who has read this blog for a while will recognize the drift of this subject. I hope no one is in any doubt on this, but I think if you're voting for someone because of gender or ethnic identity, you're a moron. What should count is what that person stands for, and whether he (or she) can deliver on that stance. Nothing else matters. Why would getting screwed by a woman or a black man, instead of a white man, help anyone?

If John Edwards had been a black woman, I still would have supported him, umm, John Edwards. It was who he was that was important, not what he looked like.

Professor Cole goes on to make the seemingly obvious point that a McCain Presidency would be bad for women, at least those who value their equality and their reproductive rights:

McCain has an appalling track record on issues of global women's reproductive rights and health. McCain has also steadily moved toward an absolute anti-choice position, as he attempts to appeal to the Religious Right. A President McCain may well appoint the successor to Ruth Bader Ginzburg on the Supreme Court, and his nominee will be anti-choice. The court is nearing a majority of anti-choice judges, and the long dream of the American religious Right, of overturning Roe V. Wade, is in reach for them. A McCain court could overturn reproductive rights perhaps within a year of its formation.

The Real Question is, Would a President McCain be good for Women?

[except for "the Religious Right", all links are Cole's]

As a white man, I can tell you that a McCain Administration wouldn't be too good for white men, either. Lots of white men can't afford medical insurance, can't find a job, and are groaning whenever we fill our gas tanks. Lots of white men are dying in Iraq, and are being neglected when they come home wounded. Plenty of us worry, as Edwards did, that the world we leave to our children will be worse than the one we inherited. It doesn't mean jack to me that the current President is a white man. For all the damage he's done this country, he might as well be an Arab terrorist.

Frankly, just about any random black woman over the age of 35 could have done better.

So, if you want to continue to be screwed by politicians, keep voting based on identity. Then get back to me about how much better the country is because you did.

UPDATE: In my response to One Fly in the comments, I wrote:

I'd love for an atheist or agnostic to be a serious candidate for President, but if I thought he was a con artist or would turn the country in the wrong direction, I wouldn't vote for him. I know that without having to resort to much introspection, because if John McCain were an avowed atheist it wouldn't make a bit of difference. I still wouldn't vote for him. Yet many people don't feel that way, and on an intellectual level I just can't understand why.

I'm sure it's true that some folks will read that I'm a white guy and assume I have no idea what it is to be a minority. I do, because I'm part of the last minority in this country that it's OK to hate. I still feel that way - I'll vote for a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical Christian who mostly wants to run the country the way I think it ought to be run over an atheist who wouldn't. That's what I consider a no-brainer. Sadly, many people wouldn't feel that way if they were in my place.

UPDATE (Jun. 14): Thanks to a commenter, corrected the spelling of "dyed-in-the-wool".