Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
I CAN HAZ PRIVILEGE?
I'm breaking out my P-Mate, because Jonathan Chait and I are engaged in a little pissing match about identity politics. He argued that, in the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency, "the primary mistake was to allow social issues to dominate the agenda" -- namely, gays in the military and appointing a cabinet that "looked like America." I replied that Clinton's missteps on gays in the military and female appointees for attorney general were symptoms of overall problems and disarray in the White House. Yesterday, Chait responded, again blaming the Clinton administration's "mania for diversity":
I further contended in my column that the complaints from minority groups, and the perception that Clinton was scrambling to meet their demands, was the most damaging aspect of all. This, along with "don't ask, don't tell," helped change the primary subject from the economy, where Clinton enjoyed strong majority support, to social issues, where he did not.
Clinton promised repeatedly during the campaign to make repealing the ban on gays in the military a top priority -- it wasn't a demand made by gay-rights groups out of nowhere once he was elected. Sure, gay-rights supporters pressured him to act on his campaign pledge. But at the end of the day, Clinton was in control. He could have told them from the outset that he was waiting six months to tackle the issue, until after he had passed major economic initiatives. But he didn't. That was ultimately his choice -- not one made by "identity groups."
In my piece on Tuesday, I never said that Obama should go about achieving diversity in his cabinet the same way Clinton did. I am glad Clinton chose to make a diverse cabinet a priority. But he executed these goals poorly. It's not politically smart to declare, in effect, "We have set aside this position for a woman." It's smart to simply make it a priority to consider and vet many female candidates. Obama's deft ability during the campaign to speak to and about "identity groups" without pissing off people like Chait makes me at least somewhat hopeful that Obama's White House will be able to simultaneously make diversity a priority and not have it be a debacle. But Chait has a hard time squaring this belief of mine:
So, after devoting more than a thousand words to defending the identity politics left, she concedes in the end that Obama will probably ignore them, and therefore succeed? Then what on earth is her point?
My point, since Chait asked so sweetly, is that the view espoused by so many pundits these days -- that vocal women and people of color are going to screw it all up for Obama -- is false. I believe that much-maligned "identity groups" have every right to call on Obama to appoint people who look like them, and to ask him to keep his campaign promises. I did say Obama would probably not consider the complaints of women and people of color the top factor in his decision-making process. However, I didn't say that would guarantee Obama's success -- I simply said that their demands would not ensure his failure.
And finally, Chait is upset that I pointed out that this sit-down-and-shut-up view is primarily coming from -- and primarily benefits -- Democrats who are white and male.
She's trying to imply that I'm bigoted or that my views are illegitimate because I am not a member of an oppressed class. I prefer the old-fashioned notion that an idea can be judged on its merits, quite apart from the identity of who makes it.
In fact, I am judging Chait's idea on its merits. It just so happens that his idea, that Obama should be dismissive of the concerns of women, people of color, and gay people, amounts to a defense of white, male privilege in politics and government. And that would still be true even if the person making the argument weren't a white man.
--Ann Friedman
COMMENTS (4)
I think you're right on the broader point. But you're not forceful enough. (This, for example, seems wrong: It's not politically smart to declare, in effect, "We have set aside this position for a woman." Insofar as that was tacitly understood, it was a good thing.) For a long time, I thought that the single most important visible and positive accomplishment of the Clinton Administration was the Cabinet that looked like America.* It turns out that our biases may be thick but not that well rooted, and that once we've seen someone unexpected accomplish something, it's not so hard to imagine someone similar accomplishing that same thing again. So Janet Reno catches a lot of conservative hell as AG, a fair bit of which was rooted in the idea that Clinton picked an imperfect candidate because she was a woman. Post-Bush, it's hard to imagine anyone making the case that she was a particularly bad choice. (It should have been hard before that.) Frankly, post-Bush, it's hard to justify a preference for appointments based on moronic notions of "pure merit" as opposed to whatever criteria Clinton used.
Until Chait can distinguish the ways in which Clinton's appointments were particularly bad, as compared to Bush's, even the attempt to find an argument here seems pretty weak.
* I don't think you have the recent Dem primary without it. You might not have been able to form the multi-culti coalition that allowed the Dems to free themselves from the South without it.
(I dream of the day y'all have a preview button.)
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2008 11:35 AM
I'm going to try and defend Chait's argument here and rephrase it a little. As many have argued, a central tenet in the progressive movement (and hopefully the Obama administration) is the idea that "we're all in this together." For reasons right, wrong or indifferent, this type of identity-politics-cum-affirmative-action is incredibly divisive and destructive to our larger mission. Moreover, it is particularly repellant (again, right, wrong or indifferent) to the block of voters who happen to be the fulcrum of national politics.
Am I advocating a cabinet of all "white dudes"? Of course not. But that's a false choice. Indeed, I have yet to see any criticism by identity politics critics of Gov. Napolitano, Eric Holder or Sen. Clinton claiming that they are anything but qualified. I'm sure President-elect Obama and his advisers will keep an eye on the collective composition of the cabinet (balancing not only by race and gender, but also party, ideology, geography, etc.). But, correctly, this should not be the paramount consideration in any one selection (at least, not until we reach the real lesser positions). Moreover, these decisions should be like making sausage -- people will like the end product if they don't see the sometimes messy way it is made.
Finally, I think that progressives are deluding themselves if they think that these concerns are not PARTICULARLY difficult for our first black president. Kowtowing to interest groups (particularly when the pressure is public and transparant) makes any president look weak. This was a real problem with Clinton's cabinet debacle. But there exists among a fairly sizeable block of voters who are concerned that President Obama will favor the interests of blacks over whites. (There have been hundreds of articles with such quotes, including in publications like the New Yorker, Washington Post, etc.; use the google). Everyone reading this website knows this is a ludicrious notion, but our derision is not going to change these people's minds. What might, however, is them witnessing an administration that is concerned with the common good and takes steps to further THEIR interests. I cannot think of a better way to alienate these people on day one than for President Obama to be seen bowing to pressure that the cabinet be at least 23.6% people of color and that the Secretary of the Interior position be reserved for an Eskimo lesbian.
For political and policy reasons, I have said that I don't want to see President Obama have to wade into guns, God or gays (at least for the first two years, hopefully at all). I'm adding identity politics to this list. And to his erstwhile allies who disagree with me about the merits of these issues, I would recommend that you hold your fire (at least publicly) until the new administration has given you some reason to be concerned).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 20, 2008 1:17 PM
It amazes me that Chait was so defensive about the white male thing. Reading your article, I did not have the sense that you were deliberately trying to single him out or something.
TNR has been a proponent of this "hey people, don't screw this up for the rest of us" meme. There was that article about how picking Hillary Clinton would provide cover for Larry Summers.
Personally, I don't think Hillary Clinton would do a good job as SOS, and I think that Larry Summers would do a fine job at Treasury myself. But the idea that somehow Obama should pick Clinton so that some women would shut up about Larry Summers is just so insulting to Clinton, Obama, women in general, and heck, even to Summers himself.
I think this is another symptom of the 'why can't Democrats win the white men vote' disease. Many of the journalists in left-leaning publications hold the idea that women and minorities are special interest groups in the Democratic party, like labor union or teacher's union. In other words, white men are still the reigning coalition in the party, and women and minorities should be treated the way the party treats other special interest group.
The problem is, these people forget that they are talking about the Democratic party, not the Republicans. Women and minorites form the majority of the coalition, not white men. Logically, it is white men who should be treated as a special interest group in the Democratic party.
Posted by: Sarah | November 20, 2008 1:20 PM
Seems to me that expressly trying to judge candidates by how they look isn't really diversity, it's more like a second grade game of duck duck goose. It shouldn't be how adults govern.
Posted by: Adam Herman | November 22, 2008 2:35 AM