Identity Politics Isn’t All Or Nothing

Last Monday morning—the day after Vice President Kamala Harris looked like she would become the first Black and Asian woman to head a presidential ticket—I was cruising through Facebook. 

One of my old college friends saw that I had changed my profile pic in support. 

He commented: “Hey, do you like her because she’s part Jamaican lol?” 

My initial reaction was, “Wait a minute—what…?”

Is he making an assumption that I can’t think beyond a shared identity? That women are only going to vote for a female candidate because she’s a woman, or that people of color can’t resist a POC running for office? Maybe he is implying that what some people call “identity politics’ drowns out every other possible factor for me.

All this went through my head for a split second—and then I reread the comment. My friend hadn’t actually said “the only reason.” 

That would have pissed me off. 

Clarence Thomas is Black. And I don’t like him or what he’s done—notwithstanding the fact that he is Black. 

There are women I don’t align with. The way Representative Elise Stefanik treats other women, including university presidents, offends me. 

It’s rude to assume that you know why someone likes a candidate based on something superficial. It suggests that people can’t think beyond affinity. In our discourse around the election, let’s talk about policies and approaches. 

Fortunately my friend wasn’t implying this—he was just teasing someone he knows really well. My reply? 

“It's not the only reason, but it certainly helps! Doesn’t everybody want to be part Jamaican?”