Identity politics angst

David Crary of AP has an article today about the divide among feminists in the current Democrat primary. While the article is intended to be sympathetic, Crary's premise highlights the moronic nature of identity politics in the Democrat party:

Are the activist women supporting front-runner Barack Obama betraying their gender? Are Clinton's feminist backers mired in an outdated, women's-liberation mind-set?

Anyone that feels these questions are valid and worthy of exploration needs to get out more. While there's no question that aligning one's self with folks who are similar to you brings comfort in social and personal settings, it only serves to replace critical thought with emotional baggage when applied to politics.

Some of the quotes from Gloria Feldt in the article:

"We're squandering an opportunity to be seen as a voting bloc that turns elections," Feldt said. "Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests, we are in danger of never having another election where people will say women can determine the outcome."

"I'd feel very sad to miss this enormous opportunity to bring the United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders," she said. "I feel strongly when you have the opportunity to support a women so clearly qualified and capable, do it. Do it for your daughter."

Not knowing Ms. Feldt personally, I'm going to assume that in all other areas of her life she probably exhibits some substantial amount of critical thought in most of her non-political life decisions. When she needs a medical procedure, does she choose her doctor based on qualification or gender? Did she buy her house based on the gender of the builder or the quality of construction?

Why, then, would she vote for something as important as the leader of the free world on something as trivial as bringing the "United States of America into the circle of nations that have had women as their leaders"? Does this concept really trump more mundane considerations such as qualifications, experience, or judgment?

We see the same kind of unreasoned thinking in some of the groups backing Obama as well. According to recent polls, 90% of blacks support Obama. While the polls don't exactly tell us why, it isn't hard to figure out. Obama's support from the black community isn't because of his leadership experience (he has none), his legislative achievements (he has none), or his ground-breaking new ideas for America (he's lock-step with his party on every issue).

Again, I pose that most black Americans would make rational decisions in other areas of their lives - they shop for price and quality, they pick the best housing situation they can afford, make the best decisions they can for their children, all based on other factors than race. Is the Presidency so unimportant that symbolism replaces reason?

Someone please tell me which candidate is running on an anti-female or anti-black platform. I haven't heard Clinton or McCain propose the reintroduction of slavery. I haven't heard Obama or McCain propose taking away women's voting rights (and please don't give me any crap about abortion - that argument isn't about feminism and you all know it).

My sincere hope is that this election will expose the folly of identity politics once and for all, and folks will start basing their votes on what's best for the country. But the signs are that it will continue to be a replacement for common sense.

Since this divide ultimately benefits conservatism, I suppose I should be glad. But I'm not. Is that wrong?