VIP: Versions of Identity Politics featuring the VP-elect (op-ed)

 

In 2011 Kamala Harris became a triple first.  The first woman, the first African-American, and the first South Asian American to be sworn in as California’s Attorney General.  Those aren’t my labels for Harris.  That’s how California’s Department of Justice described her on their website.  Actually, Harris’ mother is Indian and her father is Jamaican.  Harris was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016 and decided to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.  However, as a presidential candidate, her personal and professional identities were attacked by different camps during the primary. 

The first camp acknowledged Harris as a woman of color, who identified with the “black experience”, but since Harris didn’t descend from black American slaves, she wasn’t a representative of what’s traditionally known as the black community.  This camp stated they rejected identity politics for agenda politics.  Their agenda (which had everything to do with identity) was reparations for slavery and they weren’t going to support Harris just because she was a woman of color.

The second camp’s position was written in a magazine.  It stated: Kamala Harris has a prosecutorial problem.  The problem isn’t that Harris was a bad prosecutor.  The problem is she chose to be a prosecutor in the first place.  To become a prosecutor is to align oneself with a powerful and fundamentally biased system.  The magazine implied Harris’ professional identity made her an enemy of all marginalized groups.

Both camps displayed extreme versions of identity politics, but when Harris’ presidential campaign flopped, she quickly resorted to her own version of identity politics, and stated America still can’t accept a woman of color running for president. 

Then Harris joined the VIP chorus that chastised the Democratic Party for reneging on its commitment to diversity.  The remaining white candidates were diverse in age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, faith, and political experience, but that type of diversity didn’t matter.

Before Joe Biden won the Democratic primary, he announced he would select a woman as his running mate. (At the time Biden didn’t appear to be a serious threat to Trump or a competent candidate.  No man with a promising future in politics would have joined the ticket.  And to avoid selecting a second tier running mate, the Biden campaign resorted to their own version of identity politics.)  Biden’s last rival, Bernie Sanders, was asked if he would select a woman as a running mate.  Sanders said he wouldn’t limit the field, but if he selected a woman, she would have to be a progressive.  

Then George Floyd was killed by the police and riots broke out across the country.   Social justice groups and black pundits said it was imperative that Biden select a black woman to be his running mate and Biden selected Kamala Harris.  All the political pundits praised Biden’s historic VP pick.  Harris was the first African-American/Jamaican/South Asian-American/Indian on a major party ticket for the vice-presidency. 

This time the Republicans attacked Harris for her progressive senatorial voting record.

After the vice-presidential debate an interviewer asked Harris if she was the most progressive member of the Senate.  Harris said, that’s what she’s accused of by her opponents, but Harris rejected the notion.

Biden won the presidency. 

Now the governor of California has to pick a replacement to serve the remainder of Harris’ Senate term.  The governor is being pressured by three VIP’s.  The Justice Democrats demand the appointment of a staunch progressive.  The CEO of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials stated, California has never had a Latino or Latina representing the state in the U.S. Senate and it’s long overdue.   Black Lives Matter launched a petition demanding the governor to appoint a black woman.   BLM said it was “nonnegotiable”—the Senate seat rightfully belongs to a black woman.

One columnist asked, “In today’s Democratic Party, can you tell BLM no?”

I guess we’ll see how the governor plays his own version of identity politics.

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 11/25/2020