Stanley Fish Supports Identity Politics

Well, of course he does. Fish does at least attempt to argue that not all identity politicking is good. Here is a blurb below.

The first bit about the evil of tribalistic identity politics is actually a pretty good point...until he undercuts himself by making a ludicrous comment about how we should elect a woman or a black president no matter what his or her positions happen to be (I am quoting Fish here!) just to "prove" that we're not sexist or racist -- which is a completely stupid reason to elect anybody. Take a look:

We should distinguish, I think, between two forms of identity politics. The first I have already named “tribal”; it is the politics based on who a candidate is rather than on what he or she believes or argues for. And that, I agree, is usually a bad idea. (I say “usually” because it is possible to argue that the election of a black or female president, no matter what his or positions happen to be, will be more than a symbolic correction of the errors that have marred the country’s history, and an important international statement as well.)

The second form of identity politics is what I call “interest” identity politics. It is based on the assumption (itself resting on history and observation) that because of his or her race or ethnicity or gender a candidate might pursue an agenda that would advance the interests a voter is committed to. Not only is there nothing wrong with such a calculation – it is both rational and considered – I don’t see that there is an alternative to voting on the basis of interest.