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.

2009 Defense Budget

I have chosen to summarize the article The Chaos in America's Vast Security Budget by Winslow T. Wheeler from CounterPunch: "America's Best Political Newsletter". The article talks about the 2009 defense budget that was just released. He talks about how unclear all of it is because most of the numbers being released are incomplete or inaccurate. George Bush's budget as shown by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says that the pentagon request is $515.4 billion. Wheeler goes on to say that this is incomplete because it does not include the $70 billion requested for the wars. This number keeps on becoming more inaccurate when we take into consideration that the $70 billion won't get us through the entire year of the war in Iraq, meaning the number should be tripled. Other factors that contribute to this substational amount that seems to keep becoming more unclear is the amount The Department of Energy has requested, the miscellaneous defense costs Bush did not include in the released amount, security costs, veteran affairs, etc. As you can see the amount for the 2009 defense budget keeps growing, and there will be many numbers thrown out in articles but very few will be accurate.

To me politics hasn't been an interest of mine at all until recently and I feel that this article contributes to that and is worth reading because it made me see how much money is being spent by the government, which in turn more than we would like will come from our taxes. Also it kind of shows how bad this huge budget is getting considering our economy is clearly going into a recession and that our debt is far worse than it has been in a long time or ever!