On this: I think they are – but you just don’t get what are hot button issues for them, nor do you understand what information they’re missing in order to make their political decision.

If I knew that, as a policial strategist, I could deliver an election every time.

Well, I am a political strategist, hence why I queried your theory. It is simply a fact that sometimes people vote against their interests by, for instance, voting in someone who is racist when they themselves are brown.

Explaining it, e.g. saying that sometimes they lack the information they need or other interests of theirs are being served by the vote (i.e. other hot buttons that I’m not recognizing are persuading them to take that vote), doesn’t change the fact that they’re voting against their interests at least on some level.

Plus, when you ask people why they voted for someone (e.g. polls at exits), you’d be amazed at the answers – not at all always about self-interest. I think you’re ascribing ‘self-interest’ as a motivation where some people wouldn’t claim it for themselves. In fact, I think you’re conflating self-interest with plain old interest. E.g. if I vote for a candidate that I think will, I dunno, be an advocate for debt relief, it sounds like you would call that self-interest, but I wouldn’t because I don’t see myself immediately benefiting from it.

Bloody hell, if this is your narrow view of what I’ve said given the post above, I can’t even be bothered to respond. Please rad properly what I’ve written since then.

Better to reach consensus.

there are plenty of us brown jews out there, you know.

b’shalom

bananabrain

“So as a brown woman, who am I supposed to vote for again?”

Sunny responded:

“Well, it depends what identity appeals strongest to you and if you think there’s any party that appeals to you on the issues you feel strongly about.”

Yaar, it’s not always about identity. People vote for different reasons. I may be a ‘brown woman’ in the US, but when I vote, I’m going to have the following on my agenda:

1. universal health care for all
2. easier and more affordable access to education, esp. higher education
3. Iraq war and US foreign policy
4. more socio-economic equality in terms of class, race, gender
5. no to a militarized border police
6. more of a social welfare net for those who are old, injured, etc.
7. Repeal illegal and draconian measures taken place since 9/11 (military tribunals), Patriot Act.
8. Draconian immigration policies which disproportionately target Latin Americans.

Where does my status as a brown woman come in this? And if you point to my caring about immigration issues, it’s about caring what I see take place in my home-state of California. And there are white people who would agree with me on this, and they also care about socio-economic equality that cuts through poverty, race, and gender.

This is what’s confusing and frankly, a superficial and one dimensional view in this post: it looks at politics, assuming that 1) everyone has an identity awareness defined by race and 2) they will vote primarily based on that. For some people, identity MAY very well be a factor, but it’s not for everyone.

Perhaps you could:

I think they are – but you just don’t get what are hot button issues for them, nor do you understand what information they’re missing in order to make their political decision.

If I knew that, as a policial strategist, I could deliver an election every time.

I think political strategists are passé. Lets get back to debating what’s best for all of us. I do not, for instance, vote on the exclusive ticket of what’s best for me, I vote on what’s best for all of us. And I do have a conscience. I doubt that I’m unique.

Well, it depends what identity appeals strongest to you and if you think there’s any party that appeals to you on the issues you feel strongly about. I didn’t issue a list of diktats. I said brown people may want to think about stop voting Labour. It’s up to them if they listen.

Point 2: interesting theory, not sure the evidence backs you up. Wouldn’t it be great if we really all were rational actors who maximized our utility function?

Here’s the mistake both you and David T make. You assume you know what’s best for the voter or what decision they should be taking. Hence, you think they’re not maximising their interests.

I think they are – but you just don’t get what are hot button issues for them, nor do you understand what information they’re missing in order to make their political decision.

If I knew that, as a policial strategist, I could deliver an election every time.

My question is: is it wrong for them to raise issues on Israel, which clearly relate to identifying with a specific community bloc. And also, they identify with other Jews, presumably that’s why they write about Jewish issues. Is it wrong for them to do so? Yes or no will do.

Be grateful if you can answer that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

Mo@37, I’m totally with you, that’s my take too.

Re this: ‘undemocratic organisations claiming to represent religious identities, and that too when they have ulterior motives’ – I know you’ve written about this lots before Sunny, so can understand the temptation to use shorthand, but as it stands this sounds like a lot of puff and not very much logic. Perhaps a link if you can’t be bothered to go through it all again?

On point 1: true.

Point 2: interesting theory, not sure the evidence backs you up. Wouldn’t it be great if we really all were rational actors who maximized our utility function?

Point 3: this really needs some expansion.

Point 4: true.

I share your frustration at having to go through identity politics 101, but think you’ve concentrated too much on the influence of identity on individuals’ politics. For me, the relevant point about identity politics is how identity is mobilized by political groups/organizations for political ends that are meant to serve members who share the identity. Perhaps something for Part 2 (e.g. your ‘undemocratic organisations’)?

Which is why the right question is not ‘why identity politics’ but ‘why this identity, now?’ Who do you want in the group? Where does the group stop, and why?

What’s going on here? What does Sunny feel is distinctively useful about ‘brown’ that makes it the right term to use to talk about this particular political issue?

What applies to browns that doesn’t apply to non-brown distinctive cultural/ethnic groups (e.g. jews), non-brown immigrant groups (Poles), non-brown minority racial groups (blacks), …?

Beats me.

You might, but as someone who bothers to read HP there really isn’t an HP line on these things. Adam Le Bor was very critical of AIPAC in a recent post, for example.

hermes123
After listening to David Davis, I am persuaded to vote Tory for the first time in my life. And it is all on this one issue of civil liberties.

Perhaps you ought to have a look at his voting record on civil liberties issues such as Clause 28 and abortion rights.

He’s a proper Tory arsehole laughing at you and all other gullible liberals willing to lap up his shite.

where do the mixed race people go?

Where ever we damn well please.

Get your mixed race friends to circle the colour on this chart, that most closely matches their own.

Then send the chart to Sunny, enclosing a cheque for £10.

Within 14 days, Sunny will let them know which political party they ought to support.

I think they should be able to choose where they go.

Brown folk must stand together with other Brown folk

Ditto White folk.

Then there will either be race war, or a footie match.

motivators: things which will make you vote for someone and whose delivery will make you feel justified in having done so.
hygiene factors: things which aren’t actually positive contributors, but will prevent you from voting for someone.

ken’s hygiene factors finally caught up with him. however, i cannot say that there are any enormous motivators which made me vote for boris. incidentally, i understand he’s now taking steps to ensure that the rise anti-racism festival (and presumably various other things on the anti-racism gravy train) is no longer a subsidy junket for ken’s mates in the TUC and the cuban propaganda ministry. this can only be a good thing. naturally, all the “progressives” have assumed that “boris is cancelling all live music in london”, which is not, in fact, apparently the case.

b’shalom

bananabrain