In my immediately preceding post I criticized the racialism of Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Colbert King’s criticism of the colorblindness of the Kerry campaign.
Apparently stung by criticism like King’s, Kerry’s campaign has rushed to repair the damage done by selecting its campaign staff without regard to race. As described in King’s column,
No non-WASP group, by order of the Kerry high command, shall go untouched. Well, almost.
This week, according to the [Thursday press] release, senior leaders have been assigned, pretty much according to their race, religion or ethnicity, to handle their respective groups. There’s a separate outreach official for African Americans and one for Hispanics. The Jewish community outreach person also handles Middle East and Jewish affairs. One senior outreacher has a full plate, with responsibility for Arab Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Hungarian Americans, Polish Americans and Portuguese Americans.
Greek Americans are apparently out of luck. So are Turkish Americans. They don’t seem to be assigned. But Asian Pacific Islanders have a senior outreach official of their own. So do the environmental crowd, women and LGBT, which the press release fails to spell out (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people).
If Karl Rove and the Bush campaign wanted to make up for some of the high ground lost by their tepid filings in and response to the Michigan affirmative action cases, and score some impressive political points while doing so, they should announce immediately that the president has directed the Republican National Committee and his re-election campaign to disband all racial and ethnic “outreach” groups.
The president should state that of course he respects the members of all such groups (including, of course, the Greeks and Turks ignored by the Democrats) but that he wants their votes because they are Americans, not because they are Italian- or Asian Pacific Islander or Hyphenated/Whatever-Americans. The Democratic approach, he should say, is divisive while his is inclusive.
One powerful advantage to such a statement is that it would be true. Another is that it would be popular.
I’d love to hear what constitutes an “American.” Really, do tell.
I’ll give you credit for highlighting “nontraditional” ethnic groups. But asking people — whether they are black or Chinese or Turk or Greek or Armenian or whatever — to pretend that they aren’t black or Chinese or Turk or Greek or Armenian or whatever, or that their heritage is unimportant to them and their social and political views, is somewhat absurd.
But I’ll stick with my original question: what, or who, exactly, is an American?
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that John was using ‘American’ as it is generally understood, as a synonym for ‘Citizen of the United States.’ If an individual can’t vote, clearly the President doesn’t want his or her vote.
Well, there’s this little thing called citizenship….some of us get it by being born here, and some immigrate here and become naturalized. These are Americans.
Nels and Meep are both right: what I meant by “American” is citizen. My point is that I think Bush should say that he respects Italians, Greeks, Laplanders, LGBTlanders, et. al., but that he is appealing for their votes on the basis of what they share with other Americans, not what makes them “different.”
But why isn’t what makes them different relevant? And more to the point, why shouldn’t it be releveant? Are they somehow less “American” than others because they have interests that not every American shares? Is appeal to those interests somehow improper?
The fact of citizenship is a very, very “thin” set of principles with which to persuade. So thin, I think, that it is practically useless. What else do I share with every other American?
To generate a hypothetical: I’m a 30 year-old son of first-generation Chinese immigrants. My entire extended family remains in China. Should I expect Bush and Kerry (or any politician) to appeal to me on only on the basis of things I share with every other American? What about my strong and personal interest in the US-PRC-Taiwan relationship, for which I have some very specific policy goals? Should I just pretend that doesn’t exist? Should I tolerate a presidential (Senate) (Congressional) candidate who won’t speak to it?
The history of this country is one of various groups of people in slow stages of assimilation. I think 1) pretending that the groups don’t exist or 2) pretending that we all share the same priorities or 3) pretending that there is a comprehensive, substantive list of things that every American shares (which is comprehensive and substantial enough to actual inform policy decisions) is a bit, well, absurd.
“Should I expect Bush and Kerry (or any politician) to appeal to me on only on the basis of things I share with every other American?”
Yes.
“What about my strong and personal interest in the US-PRC-Taiwan relationship, for which I have some very specific policy goals?”
The President needs to make decisions regarding the US-PRC-Taiwan relationship based on what’s best for the U.S.A., not whatever will get your vote.
Simon, you make very good points. I think your historical point is generally right, qualified by the fact that many immigrants who came here came as individuals, not self-conscious group members, and many even came specifically to escape their past identity. Moreover (though this was not your point), traditionally it has been the Democratic party through which immigrants passed on their assimilation journey, although this point too is frequently overstated (the Florida Cubans, for reasons similar to your hypothetical Chinese immigrant, became Republicans, as did many of the first wave of Italians, who found the hated Irish already here and in control of the Democratic machinery in many cities when they arrived). There is nothing “wrong” in any moral sense with traditional ethnic politics (another exception: white ethnic politics is generally condemned by those who endorse ethnic politics), but in my view this politics of “difference” is bad for the country and even bad for the ethnic groups to whom politicians traditionally pander. My original point, however, was less grandiose: I think it would be good politics for Bush and the Republicans to make a big point of abandoning ethnic appeals. Most Americans, I’m convinced, even recent ones, prefer to be regarded as Americans, as what follows rather than what precedes any hyphens they hold on to. Our policy towards China, for example, or towards Israel for another, should be based on what is best for the United States, not on the demands of pro-Taiwan or pro-Beijing or pro-Israel domestic political groups. In other words, what Laura said.
According to Simon there are no Americans, just blacks, Chinese, Turks, Greeks, etc, and we share no common values. Yes, let
1. Richard: If you’re interested in picking on strawmen, go do it somewhere else. Of course there are shared common values, joint concerns, &tc. But construct for me, please, a theory by which we tell individuals when those common concerns should predominate and when they should not. (And who said that my hypothetical 30 year old had no ties /other than immigration./ I didn’t.) And melting pot? Bleh. I prefer a stew: lots of common taste, but the differences are still recognizable.
2. John: I think, as a historical matter, the number of people who immigrated qua individuals v. qua groups (even groups driven from their homelands by other groups) is quite small.
And how, John and Laura, pray tell, do we determine what is “best for the United States”? What measures do we employ? To spin out the Chinese example some more: do we care more about the human rights and immmigration abuses (as my hypothetical 30 year old might like) or do we care more about import/export (as the 30 year old product manager at GE might like) or about agriculture (as the 30 year old farmer might like.)
Now, I’m not saying that there is no cognizable national interest apart from the aggregation of individual interest groups. But I think that those individual groups play (and, by rights, should play) a large role in determining what exactly that national interest is. We need to have debates among the first generation Americans and the GE managers and the farmers as to what our policies should be, not pretend that a priori they all approach the problem the same way.
Well, what’s best for the U.S.A. is always up for debate. In their better moments, it’s what’s at the forefront of debates between political parties. There’s a lot of disagreement and discussion about it, which is as it should be. Whoever is at the helm has a lot of factors to consider, national security probably being number one. My point is that your hypothetical 30yrold ethnic Chinese man’s specific policy wishes, formulated because he has relatives in the homeland, should not be truckled to in order to buy his vote.
Of course there are shared common values, joint concerns, &tc. But construct for me, please, a theory by which we tell individuals when those common concerns should predominate and when they should not.
Simon, even though you give lip service to it, you seem to want to ignore the fact that the vast majority of our interests are common ones and instead you want to focus mainly on our differences. However, when voters are asked what is most important to them, they say the economy or terrorism or schools or healthcare. They don
Laura-
I confess I’m not sure quite what you mean by “truckled in.” But assuming that means something along the lines of “trickled” or “influenced,” then why are my hypo guy’s (lets call him Steve from now on for the sake of simplicity) preference regarding US/PRC/Taiwanese relations any more or less a valid point of reference for a candidate or policy-maker than anyone elses? What is it about Steve’s personal interest, as opposed to Jeff Immelt’s economic interest, that makes it disfavored?
Richard-
I’ll be glad to concede that many (if not most) of our interests are “common,” but that still doesn’t take us that far. We still have to answer the question of salience, and whether it is /ever/ appropriate, in your view, to appeal to a single issue voter. For many people the issues you raise (abortion, affirmative action, Israel) are part of the amalgamation of views they evaluate when deciding who to support or what policy to pursue. But there are many, many others for whom those issues are thresholds that must be crossed.
So what is it about appeal to single-issue voters (although I think that description is a bit rough) that has you so upset?
“truckled to”
Truckle
(n.) A small wheel or caster.
(v. i.) To yield or bend obsequiously to the will of another; to submit; to creep.
(v. t.) To roll or move upon truckles, or casters; to trundle.
http://www.brainydictionary.com/
(And excuse me for using this fairly obscure term. My mother has a very rich and eclectic vocabulary, and I find myself dredging up words from my memory that are out of the common way. Sometimes I have to look them up, myself, to make sure they’re real words. But I use them because they express what I mean, and I like the way they fit into my sentences.)
As to the rest:
I refer you to the preamble to the Constitution: “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union(!), establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
These are interests we all have.
Everybody is free to consult his own special interests in choosing a candidate to vote for. It would be WRONG for the President to make promises about foriegn policy, or economic policy, or anything else, solely in order to buy votes. Yes, politicians do well to consider what their constituents want or they will be voted out of office. Ideally, though, they make it clear what they stand for and we vote for them or not.
So what is it about appeal to single-issue voters (although I think that description is a bit rough) that has you so upset?
Oh, just a little thing called demagoguery. When a politician appeals to single-issue voters he normally does it in a way to frighten them into voting for him. So rather than having a person vote on the basis of the issues, they vote on the basis of fear. For example, the Democrats tell
Laura-
Anyone smart enough to introduce “truckle” into the conversation (thanks for the new word, by the way) must realize that appeals to the Preamble are devoid of substantive content. The Preamble — like most of the document — is couched in such general terms that it has no ability to “cut” one way or the other on almost any given issue on the ground. What do any of those noble generalities actually /mean/ when applied to a given policy issue? Invoking them just begs a whole new (nearly infinite) set of questions. We’re no closer now to figuring out whether Steve’s hopes for US-PRC policy are any more conducive to “promot[ing] the General Welfare” than Jeff Immelt’s . . ..
Why else do politicians make promises other than to secure votes? (“Buy” cheapens the exchange between voters and their elected officials, I think. I can’t imagine what any (small-d) democrat would think is wrong with voting for or against someone based on the promises they made.)
Richard:
First off, as a matter of empiricism, I don’t think it is so far-fetched for people to think that if the President wins a second term the “right to choose” will be in serious peril. He told us in the 2000 campaign that the two USSC justices he admired most were Scalia and Thomas. Given that whoever wins this November will have a slew of USSC appointments to make (3 for sure, I’d think, and maybe even 4), and assuming we take the President at his word, then doesn’t it stand to reason that the Court may end up with 5-6 justices with a professed disdain for Roe?
But be that as it may, I understand that we can have these fights about almost any of the single issues you bring up. (And, on many of them, I might agree. For instance, I view the demogagury surrounding Social Secuirty and Medicare as an awful embarassment to the idea that people can take policy and politics seriously.)
Still, though, I don’t think we can reject a priori /every/ single issue voter imaginable. Imagine Candidate X supports every single issue I do except that he believes that the US should cede control of its military wholly to the United Nations. Candidate Y is the polar opposite: I hate every thing about him except his position on the UN. At what point am I justified in voting for X over Y? By your lights, am I ever?
And assuming, arguendo, that you think it is o.k. for me to vote for X over Y — in other words, become a single issue voter — then how do we start to spin out a story a priori about what sorts of single issues are appropriate for voting and which ones aren’t? (This really gets to my earlier queries re salience: how do we measure when salience reaching the point of a threshold or “single” issue is good v. when it’s bad. You have to answer that question before you can tell me whether or not its bad for the Bush or Kerry campaigns to appeal to Steve.)
Okay, wait a minute. Do Steve’s hopes for USC-PRC policy have to do with the general welfare, or the welfare of his relatives back in China? There’s the difference.
I think that immigration control, for example, is very important to national security. I hope whoever’s President will take border security and immigration reform (checking up on people with student visas, for instance) much more seriously than in the past. That’s not a special interest. It is in service to provide for the common defense.
And I do realize that the Preamble is nonspecific. It covers a lot of territory. Ensuring domestic tranquillity has to do with knocking down crime, among other things. Promoting the general welfare has to do with luring new industries into areas of economic blight. These are all issues that involve all Americans, that you don’t need to be a hyphenated American to care about.
“At what point am I justified in voting for X over Y? By your lights, am I ever?” If I may answer: You are justified in voting for whomever you please. What I object to is politician X or Y violating his personal governmental policies and philosophies and going against what he believes would be best for the U.S.A as a whole, to try to get your vote. They need to be upfront about their vision for America and let the better man win.
Laura-
But why can’t Steve appeal to protect his interests (and those of his relatives) as a part of “the general welfare”?
And you say immigration control is necessary for the common defense. I say free immigration is necessary for the general welfare (and for the common defense). Now where are we?
What if I thought “promoting the general welfare” meant tearing down industry and returning our country to the days of the yeoman farmers? How do we decide between your version of the general welfare and mine?
I’m sympathetic to your complaint about politicians bending their philosophy just for votes. After all, all progress depends upon unreasonable men. But at the same time, I think that some leaders can be too sure of themselves, and end up with views wildly at odds with reality. (None of which, of course, has anything to do with single issue voters. It could be that a politician attracts a large number of single issue voters because he or she is particular strong on that particular issue.)
Simon, you’ve taken this discussion in strange directions. Obviously different people have different ideas about what’s good policy and what’s bad policy. And those people can weigh different policies however they choose. And vote that way. Nobody is claiming otherwise.
It’s voting based on “identity politics” that John is condemning, I think. And rightly so. We rightly condemn an employer who hires based on ethnicity; we should condemn a politician who campaigns based on ethnicity. And a voter who votes based on ethnicity.
But David, assuming that the voter isn’t voting purely on the basis of ethnicity (votes only for people who are paler than he, or darker, or whatever), John and you are using “ethnicity” as stand-in for a set of concerns and issues that may or may not be consistent with what you all think is “the General welfare,” to borrow Laura’s phrasing.
I’m still trying to get at why it’s such a bad thing that different groups have different sets of issues, and why a priori its bad for candidates to recognize that.
Simon, Consider the following analogy/comparison as a stab at why so many of us object to racial/ethnic identity politics. The fit isn’t perfect, because politics is different from education/employment/etc., but it may give you some idea what we find objectionable.
In general there’s nothing wrong with discrimination. Discrimination means making judgments, choosing this over that, etc. It is essential. And yet as a society we’ve ruled certain types of discrimination — most prominently racial and religious discrimination, and to a lesser degree sex discrimination — as impermissible, beyond the pale, out of bounds. There are a number of reasons why we’ve done this, many having to do with trying to minimize conflict and divisiveness in a society that comprises many religions, races, ethnicities. (That we have not lived up to the non-discriminatory ideal is another matter.)
Your argument here strikes me as at least arguably similar to one I’ve spent many posts over the past couple of years disputing, so many that I eventually gave it a name — IUNS (you can search my posts for that), or Invidious Ubiquitous Non-Sequitur. This is the popular argument that asserts that since college admissions offices (for example) are allowed to award preferences, i.e., to discriminate, on he basis of athletic or musical ability or legacy status they should also be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. This view, of course, drains race and religious discrimination of their noxious qualities and treats them as the same as discrimination on any other basis.
What you are defending is not the same as this, but it reminds me of it. I simply think it is obnoxiously divisive for politicians in our country to appeal to Greeks by opposing Turks, and vice versa. Perhaps in the end it is no more than a matter of taste, but my preference is for a party that appeals to everyone on the basis of what is best for the whole country, and tries to persuade a majority of its vision, rather than a party that attempts to build a majority by stringing together as many discrete and insular groups as possible by appealing to what is different about each of them.
John-
I
Simon,
Asians are at the bottom of the quota lists. Yet, a majority of them still vote Democratic, despite the Democrat’s support for quotas.
Since I am married to a Filipina woman, I can tell you that discrimination and racial animosity against Asians is still a daily fact of life, and most people seem to see nothing wrong with it. This is compounded by the natural tendency of most Asians to not want to play the whiner. It is further compounded by the fact that the agent of that discrimination and racial animosity is most often white women, with a special nod to feminist white women. The notion that Asian women are “submissive” is the feminist white woman’s rationale for why continued discrimination against Asians is justified.
So, what in the world are any Asians doing in the Democrat’s camp? I cannot figure it out.
Stephen-
I don’t know. But more to the point, I don’t see how a particular group’s tendancy to support a particular party (and the reasons therefore) has much to with this discussion.
Simon
My point was that Asians seem to have a very good reason for voting for their own identity politics, and that they seem to decline to do so.
Simon, nobody is saying that groups or individuals don’t have their pet issues. I certainly have mine.
But look. Suppose that candidate X has an overarching vision of America’s place in the world, foreign policy, blah blah blah, and your Steve looked at that and said, “I don’t like the way the PRC/Taiwan/USA relationship fits into your worldview.” Should that candidate say, “OK, Steve, vote for me and I’ll push my policies concerning PRC/T/USA the way you want.” Would you like that? Do you think you could trust that candidate to keep his promises? Could you trust that candidate to look after interests that you may not have time to keep up with, i.e., MTBE, once he gets into office? Or handle unanticipated events like 9/11? I prefer candidates who say, “Here is my plan, take it or leave it.” I may not like the plan, but I appreciate the honesty and the consistency. You know what you’re getting.
Simon – Your No. 4 states my position better than I have. Every political position requires choice, which requires discrimination, but as you say mining rights or MTBE cleanup or subsidies to tobacco farmers etc. are not the sort of choices that tear at the social fabric.
Responding to your reply to your own No. 4, I would argue that my position derives precisely from my recognition that ethnic/religious/racial groups DO exist. I don’t deny their existence at all, or even their desirability in certain spheres. It is because of their importance to their members that they should not be the basis of public policy.
In this regard, your last paragraph, about the role of religion, is exactly right (except for the lesson you’ve apparently taken from it.) It is my view, argued at some length here, that race and religion are more than analogous; they are identical in the reasons discrimination involving them has been, and should be, barred.
Laura-
Sure, I’d love a politican to be consistent and have a vision (so long as I like the vision) &tc, but then if men were angels . . . and what is it that Emerson said about foolish consistency?
John:
I think my problem is a certain slippage in justifications. It’s one thing to appeal to a particular group — whether Greek or Turk or Chinese or Mormon — solely based on their membership in G-T-C-M. It’s another thing entirely, I think, to recognize that G-T-C-Ms might share certain policy goals that are defined, broadly and loosely, by their membership in a particular group. In other words, the more steps you take, the more permissible (valued) (desirable) it is.
And I still don’t get the justification for excluding groups from political discourse organized on the basis of their race and/or their religion. Nation of Islam, Christian Coalition, NAACP, I say let them all come to the table and be a part of the discourse.
I understand the fear — both historical and contemporary — about racial and religious politics. But I’d need more evidence of present-day threat to this country’s political fabric before I’d be willing to shut them out ex ante. (By which, of course, I mean that I have no problem criticizing such groups ex post when they tread too close to the line.)
I need to spend some time thinking through the post you linked to, but as an initial reaction: there’s at least some parts of the Establishment Clause jurisprudence that might allow the state to favor non-majoritarian (i.e., non-Christian) religions more so than it would Christian religions. How would that play into the analogy, and into the debate over racial preferences?
[I’m not necessarily endorsing this, ha ha, but just throwing it out for something to think about.]
Simon – I think I wasn’t clear, or at least was incomplete, on one impt. point you raise: I would most certainly NOT exclude racial or religious groups from politics. Religious people and groups have every right to oppose, say, abortion because it offends their religion, just as religious groups in the 19th Century had every right to oppose slavery. Moreover, the fact that certain groups favor a certain policy for religious reasons is no bar, in itself, to that policy being implemented. But that being true does not make it appropriate for George Wallace to campaign for white votes nor make it a good idea for us to have Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish political parties. And, you will have guessed, I don’t think the Constitution allows room for favoring minority parties while ruling out aid to majority parties. In short, I believe the govt should be neutral with regard to both race and religion.
John-
As I understand it you are saying two different things:
1) It is impermissible to campaign for votes from a person on the basis on their participation or membership in an ethnic or religious group.
2) It is impermissible (or undesirable) for people to organize themselves politically along ethnic or religious lines.
I think #1 is contestable based on what level of generality you want to apply. “Vote for me because I’m Christian and my opponent is an infidel” is a very different message from one that says “Vote for me because I will best embody in office the values that you and I share, and those values will lead me to policy positions a, b, and c.”
As for #2: again, I think it depends on the particulars of the situation and whether we are looking at them ex ante or ex post. I’m no fan — either politically or theologically — of the Catholic Church or the Christian Coalition, but I’m not opposed to their existence or their political activities. Of course, if we were in Northern Ireland I might have a very different reaction.
Which leads me back from whence we came. There’s nothing ex ante about either race or religion that make them impermissible or undesirable foci for political organization. It’s all about ex post decisions based on our histories with each and assessments about contemporary conditions.
Assuming that we are going to have social and political groups that mediate our relationship to the national polity, I don’t see the problem with some of those groups being organized along ethnic or religious lines. The key, I think, is not to exclude ethnic or religious groups qua groups, but to ensure that individuals don’t interact with the polity, whether local or national, through only one group. By which I mean: it’s o.k. to appeal to Steve because he’s a Chinese-American, so long as that isn’t the only way you appeal to him.
Simon,
Part of my problem, I think, is that the situation isn’t as you represent it. I would have less trouble if this were the single-issue appeal that you portray. But it’s not. It’s not that the politician has a Jewish Community Liaison who speaks to Jews about Israel and an Turkish Community Liaison who speaks to Turkish-Americans about Cyprus, etc., etc. Rather, the Jewish Community Liaison is there to speak to the so-called “Jewish Community” about all issues, and similarly for the TCL for the Turkish Community, etc. As if the “Jewish Community” has a position on dividend taxes or the like.
I’m offended when a politician tells me that he’s going to speak to me about tort reform based on my religious identity. I don’t want to be interfaced with through an Ethnic Community Liaison. And I don’t want an ethnic organization claiming to speak for me to the politician, either.
I’m not sure I’m explaining this well.
David-
To take just one part of your note: you could only be offended if a politician spoke to you about tort reform through your religion if you believed that your religion had nothing to do with tort reform.
Incidently, I would agree. My religious faith does not have much impact on my position on tort reform. But there are others who would feel differently. See, for example, the Alabama governor’s recent attempt to overhaul their income tax system.
“Rather, the Jewish Community Liaison is there to speak to the so-called “Jewish Community” about all issues, and similarly for the TCL for the Turkish Community, etc.”
The question I would have for the politician employing these people is, “Are your liasons telling the Jews and the Turks the same thing? How do you know?”