A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.

26 April 2016

Democratic senate primary in Maryland bedeviled by identity politics

Should Democratic voters in Maryland choose their candidate for the U.S. Senate on the basis of legislative ability, or on the basis of race and sex?

Here’s how Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the NY Times describes the contest:

On Capitol Hill, Representative Chris Van Hollen is, literally and figuratively, a Democratic fair-haired boy. An American son of diplomats born while his parents served in Pakistan, he has used his fund-raising savvy, policy smarts and easy manner to position himself, party elders assumed, as a potential Democratic speaker of the House.

Instead, Mr. Van Hollen, now running for the Senate in his home state of Maryland, is fighting for his survival in an identity politics primary that raises an explosive question: Should a white man, or a black woman, inherit the seat held for 30 years by Barbara A. Mikulski, the longest-serving female senator in American history?

Rep. Donna Edwards, the abrasive and ambitious black woman challenging Van Hollen, has the backing of Emily’s List — EL’s superpac has spent $2.4 million, much of it donated by hedge funder Donald Sussman, beating the drum for Edwards — but not, reports Talking Points Memo, of some of the people who know her best:

Both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus refused to endorse Edwards through their political arms, despite her membership in both groups. And though most are publicly neutral, top Democrats from the White House on down weighed in earlier this month to denounce a pro-Edwards ad suggesting Van Hollen had supported the National Rifle Association. That seemed to wink-and-nod establishment support for Van Hollen, who’s been a close ally of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and was seen as her logical successor before he got into the Senate race.

The Real Clear Politics average of polls shows Van Hollen up by 10.3 points, and increasing his lead. The latest poll reported approximately 12 percent undecided.

Van Hollen is by far the more experienced and capable legislator, a future party leader in the Senate. But Emily’s List wants Barbara Mikulski replaced with another woman, Donna Edwards, largely, indeed perhaps solely, because Edwards is a woman. Emily’s List likes to portray itself as pro-women, but it’s endorsement for, and support of, Edwards proves that at heart, the organization doesn’t like men.

As a practical matter, the $2 million plus Emily’s List is spending on Edwards might be spent better elsewhere. Says Jonathan Shurberg of the Maryland Scramble in Emily's List Lights $500K on Fire:

I really hope one of the swing state Senate races doesn’t end up falling just short because Emily’s List doesn’t have the resources in October for a last push. Because while they are free to spend as they see fit, this decision right here to get wasn’t made with any strategic calculus at all. I really hope the entire country doesn’t end up living with the consequences of this bad decision.

Edwards argues that because she’s black and grew up poor, she’s far better able than Van Hollen to represent the interests of people who are black and poor. The abstract form of the argument is a class of people defined by physical characteristics such as sex and skin color can only be represented by a person sharing those characteristics.

If Van Hollen were crass enough to employ that argument, he would be say “Elect me to represent white men because I’m a white man.” But Van Hollen doesn’t practice identity politics.

Hillary Clinton does. She’s also on the ballot in Maryland today. If a large number of women turn out to cast identity politics for her, they might also cast identity politics voters for Edwards.

Emily’s List is active in Montana. And there is another identity politics group for Montana women, Carol’s List.

It seems to me that the more the Democratic Party embraces identity politics, the more it loses elections, especially at the state level, and makes members of the white working class* wonder whether the party of FDR has become no party for straight white men. That’s no way to build a majority.

*White working class usually is defined as white people with less than a college degree who work for wages in nonprofessional occupations.