The Illusion of "Identity"

For all the talk of identity politics in this past Democratic race, what strikes me is how little it really was about that. The press wanted it to be all about "women for Clinton," how resentful they are and how hard it is for them to accept being unable to vote for a female president this year. And yet, millions of men voted for Clinton too. In many states, the male vote broke strongly in her favor. And in many states, Obama did better among women than Clinton did. The polls show that many women started the campaign supporting Clinton and then shifted to Obama; some shifted back later, many didn't.

       As for race: yes, by the end, Obama was polling between 80 and 90% of black people, but not in the beginning. Late last year, Clinton was leading him in the polls among black Democrats. African-Americans didn't flock automatically to him because of some great law of "identity politics"; the Clinton campaign had to alienate them actively. And if Clinton ended up winning among white voters, it was by the slimmest of margins. This was not a race dominated by race and gender, despite the determination of journalists to simplify it and sexy it up for the needs of headlines. It was far more about economics, generations, classes, managerial styles, people's expectations of their government, and ideas than it ever was about such superficial concepts of identity.

       When I started this blog, I quoted my friend Xandra Castleton (writer and producer of the movie Full Grown Men) on some of these issues—or actually kind of misquoted her by editing most of the nuance out of what she'd said. She then gave me a fuller version of what she had said, which I'd like to reproduce here. This is from late February, before the race became a long, angry battle, with the choices still seemed so electric. I had just written about how I wished my mother had lived to see this election, how it would have been such a thrill for her and yet such a difficult decision for a woman had been a feminist and a civil rights activist for decades, and Xandra responded:

When I heard that Oprah had supported Obama, I felt an instinctive initial resentment that in the hierarchy of identity politics, gender always loses. I thought that Oprah was choosing her race over her gender as black women did in the black power movement and as women in every cultural/racial/class struggle seem to constantly be asked to do. But I think I was wrong. I don't know if Obama really represents me so much more than Clinton does, but I'd rather have him representing this country to the rest of the world, and I'd like to have a president for the first time in my life as an eligible voter who is not named either Bush or Clinton. That has been my first and enduring opposition to her candidacy. But if she does become our nominee you can be sure I'll be sharpening my weapons against the Hillary haters and trying to expose the sexism behind the vehemence of that hatred, which I believe is very real and alive. I'm with the hope candidate, yes, so I hope that your mama will be looking down at a future election and smiling down at the female candidate of color sweeping the country off their feet (and I hope she's a lesbian too).

These were the sorts of decisions we had to make over these past few months, the sorts of conflicts we had to balance and negotiate. In the process we all learned a hell of a lot about what matters most to us. This has been a profound process of national self-examination, and I suspect we'll only gradually realize how much it's taught us. To reduce that to the simplest old definitions of "identity" completely misses the point.

      (Oh, but I do have to point out: if we do have a lesbian of color running for president in the near future, it'll probably be Condoleezza Rice. No thanks! There are a lot of old, straight white guys I'd vote for first....)