When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational

Opinion Article When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational written by Stanley Fish.

I couldn’t decide whether to support this article or criticize it. In this article Stanley Fish defines identity politics as voting “for or against someone because of his or her skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other marker that leads you to say yes or no independently of a candidate’s ideas or policies.” I agree with this definition and also agree with him on his point being that’s what this election has been about with the first woman and first black man up for presidency.
Then comes my slight disagreement when he says that a person shouldn’t vote for a candidate based upon identity politics. I say slight disagreement because for the most part I agree, but I don’t fully because the candidates religion, race, gender, etc. do come into play on their views of different subjects. For example a white female who is Christian is going to have completely different views than a black male who believes in Buddhism. So in this case yes people have some right in them to say she or he is like me, I’m voting for them. More than likely Clinton’s views will match those of others just like her and same is true for Obama. Then again at the same time it’s not true, I’m a white female and don’t support Clinton at all. So now you can see why I agree with Fish and why I had to criticize his opinion article at the same time. He believes someone should be voted for upon their political stance on something and I do as well but at the same time their political stance is derived from their past, their gender, their culture, and their religion.