Identity politics on both sides of the aisle

Relating to Michael Steele’s candidacy in Maryland (previous coverage here), the WashPo quotes an upcoming study:

[...] white Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black

If the trend applies in Maryland, it presents an interesting bit of calculus. The economist behind the study says that this nets out as follows:

GOP "white flight" in the Maryland Senate race could mean at least an additional 1 or 2 percent of the vote goes to the Democrat, and perhaps more -- but only if the candidate is white.

Get that last part. Counterintuitively, the Democrats benefit from a black Republican candidate, so long as they field a white candidate.

Lest you think race is a Republican problem, the article continues:

Democrats also desert their party when its candidate is black, Washington found. In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black.

Ouch. 25% for Republicans but 38% for Democrats? This flies in the face of liberal orthodoxy, but I think it is entirely fitting.

I’ve tried to explain to my liberal friends that conservatives, more than anyone, are not about race. We fundamentally think of the world as consenting adults making their own decisions. We certainly judge people, but on the choices they make as individuals.

Liberals, and Democrats by extension, are fundamentally about groups. Race is method of grouping, also class, also gender. This is identity politics, and it is the basis of liberal policy: affirmative action, welfare, sexual harassment lawsuits. All of these require us to evaluate a person based on their group identification first, and their individuality second.

It is deeply dehumanizing, but when wrapped in very soothing rhetoric of identity politics, it actually sounds just. When followed to its natural conclusion, such thinking requires different laws for different races/genders/incomes and a hundred other protected classes. It is hardly a liberal outcome.

Jeff Goldstein likes to use the term “racialist” to describe policies which are based on race, but due to their good intentions, are not “racist”. He is too generous.

It is my contention that, while we can certainly find bigots on the right, they are generally shunned as extremists; we’ve been embarassed by such people too much. On the traditional left, this group-based thinking is both essential and mainstream. If we remove it, it is hard to define a liberal point of view at all.

Comments

[Gary]

Here's what I posted at www.LetFreedomRingBlog.com:

The Democratic Party has ignored the black community for a long time. In fact, Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele owe much of their getting elected to Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend’s not picking a black running mate. If the Democrats pick white Ben Cardin over former NAACP chief Kweisi Mfume, the message Maryland’s African Americans will get is that Democrats like minority votes but they prefer white candidates.

That’ll stand as a stark contrast with the GOP wholeheartedly getting behind Michael Steele. For those thinking that the black voting monolith can’t be broken, don’t kid yourself. That monolith is crumbling. Gore Campaign Manager Donna Brazile has been warning the Democrats about it. There’s been other articles written about that subject but the inevitable conclusion is that the monolith is crumbling.

Frankly, it's time that monolith came crashing down.