In New York City’s Democratic primary, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio easily bested City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. What’s worth noting is that exit polls show de Blasio, the most left-leaning candidate in the Democratic field, won handily over Quinn, who is openly lesbian and a long-time advocate for LGBT rights, among self-identified LGB voters (no polling of Ts), 47% to 34%, the New York Times notes. Among African-Americans, de Blasio—who is married to an African-American and featured his Afro-bearing black son in campaign commercials—tied former city comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., who is African American.
Perhaps gay New Yorkers no longer feel the need to vote for one of their own, or maybe “identity politics” is still the rule, but most LGB New Yorkers (or at least the Democrats) see their main identifier as being “progressives.”
17 Comments for “Ideology Trumps Identity Politics (Maybe, Sort of)”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Perhaps gay New Yorkers no longer feel the need to vote for one of their own, or maybe “identity politics” is still the rule, but most LGB New Yorkers see their main identifier as being “progressives.”
“Identity politics” — not to be confused with the effort to field more gay and lesbian candidates (e.g. The Victory Fund), and not to be confused with gays and lesbians favoring pro-equality candidates over anti-equality or half-a-loaf pro-equality candidates candidates (e.g. Tommy Thompson or Carl DeMaio) — is a fiction, for the most part.
Studies of voting patterns support that, and so does common sense. Think about the number of straight politicians supported by gay and lesbian advocacy groups. In fact, Stephen, you are one of the very few voices I regularly hear advocating “identity politics” these days.
Gay and lesbian voters tend to vote on the issues, like everyone else. The difference between Democratic-voting and Republican-voting gays and lesbians give different weight to the issue of equality. Democratic-voting gays and lesbians tend to rank equality high on the scale of issues taken into consideration; Republican-voting gays and lesbians tend to rank equality low on the scale.
The New York primary is evidence that given a level playing field on equality, gays and lesbians will vote on other issues, rather than “identity politics”, just as the recent San Diego mayoral race was evidence.
The interesting thing about yesterday’s primary is that none of the Democratic “identity groups” seem to have practiced “identity politics”. Gays and lesbians didn’t, African-Americans didn’t, women didn’t, and as far as I can see, nobody else did either.
Maybe it is time to for you to put the “identity politics” construct to rest, Stephen.
posted by Houndentenor on
New York state has gay marriage and employment nondiscrimination. All the candidates were good on gay issues so it wasn’t much of a topic in the election. We’ll see what Lhota has to say about gay rights. It’s good to have gay office holders. Houston has a very fine mayor who happens to be gay. I don’t like Parker because she is Lesbian. I like her because she has done a good job managing the country’s fourth largest city. Quinn, on the other hand, is a bully and tied to to much corruption. No thank you. I’m surprised she had as much support as she did, frankly.
posted by Houndentenor on
This was a change election and Quinn was too closely associated with Bloomberg. I don’t think her being gay was an issue for any Democratic Primary voters. (If it was, they were quiet about it.) I wouldn’t have voted for her if I still lived there. She and Bloomberg simply set aside a ballot initiative imposing term limits. Even Giuliani wouldn’t have dared try that. They set themselves above the law. No one should do that and expect to be elected. Quinn got what she deserved. Only insiders and low information Democrats continued to support her. Everyone else was sick of everything she represented about NYC government.
posted by Don on
I think that nails it completely. It’s important to have a gay voice when you’re talking about one where no gay voices exist. NYC is a place where virtually all politicians court the gay voting bloc because its so active. Add on that there’s almost nothing else for gay NYC voters to ask for because of their GLBT-ness, having a lesbian mayor for the sake of a lesbian mayor is about all she had going for her.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Interesting — I really do not know much about New York City politics, so I only get bits and pieces — in the national press and in the gay press about Bloomberg or Quinn..
I suspect that in New York City, all of the serious local candidates will have to — at least — pay lip service to the basic status quo of equal opportunity/nondiscrimination laws on the books and the freedom to marry.
Not sure if Independent or minor party candidates often toss their hat into the city election ring, but they are probably the only sort of candidates that would really speak out against the status quo.
posted by Jorge on
I think it’s probable some of his support among LGBs is because it was revealed his wife used to identify as a lesbian.
http://politicker.com/2012/12/the-lesbian-past-of-bill-de-blasios-wife/
That story cranked up DeBlasio’s name recognition big-time for me when my local paper featured it. I never forgot who he was after that. And following the story afterward, I thought DeBlasio and McCray handled such a provocative story in a very classy and appropriate way–at their own pace. There was a quick neutral statement that made it plain this was old news for the couple, but here’s the more detailed follow up:
http://nypost.com/2013/05/10/little-did-bill-know/
I have spoken to all of two people about this story. Neither of them gets it. At the time I first learned of it, I figured it meant either one of two things:
1) She’s bisexual
2) There is a mystery she will not reveal out of respect for her marriage.
You know, this could have very easily turned into some kind of “ex-gay” football. Fortunately the media in this city understand matters of sexual orientation a little better than that, and the benefit of the doubt prevailed.
posted by Houndentenor on
DeBlasio was a well known figure in NYC politics. Quinn was better known to people outside the city which is why so many endorsements came from Washington and LA pundits who didn’t really know all the players. I don’t think his wife or son were pluses or minuses. He didn’t use his family in ads any more than is typical of politicians nationwide. In fact the only time we do NOT see a politician’s family in ads it’s because they don’t want us to think about their recent divorce (Giuliani whose children weren’t speaking to him when he was running for president in 2008) or other scandal they’d like us to forget. The same people who accused DeBlasio of making a big deal out of his mixed race family would have accused him of being ashamed of him if he hadn’t featured them in ads. When people are attacking you on crap like that and not on your message or your record, they really must not have anything on you. But stay tuned. The Koch brothers and company are going to throw millions behind Lhota this fall.
posted by Jorge on
I have my doubts about the ad deal. That is all on that.
Most of the identity politics is in the eye of the beholder. It is the voter who is using his own race or identity to perceive what the politician is saying or doing. People get upset when you say that Barack Obama got elected because of his race even though that is usually not accusing him of racism; I don’t understand the judgment behind Mayor Bloomberg’s statement that the ad was possibly racist. There is a difference between the different kinds of racial things.
What I am about to say is wrong, but I think that someone who is in a marriage such as DeBlasio’s (and by marriage I mean not the demographics of each person choosing each other but also the very slight glimpses I’ve had about what is created in the energy of their marriage) is more likely than most to have a world view that lets them be a leader for all people. There is something in the way his wife appears in photos that tells me that she is simply too busy to be married to someone who is fake. I don’t like hearing about DeBlasio’s “tale of two cities” message, but having never heard him speak it, I don’t know that he doesn’t have the nuance that is needed to show that he believes he is acting in the best interests of everyone.
Hmm, too optimistic.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
People get upset when you say that Barack Obama got elected because of his race even though that is usually not accusing him of racism …
The NYT has a very interesting exit poll graphic that is worth a look.
Click back and forth between the 2004 results and the 2008 results a few times, comparing Senator Kerry’s percentages and President Obama’s percentages, and pay attention to the changes in percentages among various demographic groups.
I think that the comparison gives an insight into the election.
President Obama improved on Senator Kerry by 5% or more among the following demographics (in order of appearance):
Men (5%)
Women (5%)
Black (7%)
Hispanic (11%)
18-29 (12%)
30-44 (6%)
Not a high school graduate (13%)
High school graduate (5%)
Some college education (5%)
First time voters (16%)
Protestants (5%)
Catholics (7%)
Big Cities (10%)
Small Cities (10%)
Rural (5%)
Which of the percentage increases, and in what combination, were responsible for President Obama’s election isn’t obvious, but it is simple-minded, it seems to me, to reduce the demographic map to a single dimension.
I don’t doubt that President Obama’s race was a factor his election. The contrast between a “grumpy old white guy” (as McCain was once characterized during the election) and a young, hopeful man of color was striking. President Obama’s race was an integral part of the “hope and change” package, just as Jack Kennedy’s Catholicism was part of his package.
But I doubt that his race alone was the deciding factor. Otherwise, other African-Americans who ran for the office would have fared better than they did. With the exception of Colin Powell, who I believe could have been elected President if he sought the job, I doubt that any black politician of recent memory could have won the presidency in a recent election. President Obama was elected on a lot more than race.
posted by Jorge on
Which of the percentage increases, and in what combination, were responsible for President Obama’s election isn’t obvious, but it is simple-minded, it seems to me, to reduce the demographic map to a single dimension.
I can see your point. I think in Obama’s case the point is that a lot of people wanted to elect a (first) black president and they paid greater attention to his race over other matters, while in NYC races people want to elect their own kind. Even in Obama’s case there is a visceral reaction to pointing out that fact. To say that people vote for their own kind here is unconventional, but even so there is a limit to how you can say it. Bloomberg crossed the line and went off the deep end.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… in NYC races people want to elect their own kind …
That doesn’t square with the apparent voting patterns based on exit polling, Jorge, or at least I don’t think so. I can’t find any significant pattern of “identity politics” voting from any of the voting blocs.
To say that people vote for their own kind here is unconventional …
Stephen certainly pushed “identity politics” to its logical extreme in his frequent commentary on the DeMaio race against Filner.
He criticized gays and lesbians in San Diego for failing to support a gay candidate who had a lackluster record on “equal means equal”, despite the fact that the gay candidate was running against a straight candidate with a consistent record of strong support of “equal means equal”. That’s “identity politics”.
But I’ll grant you that Stephen is just about the only person on IGF pushing “identity politics” at this point.
posted by Houndentenor on
You should know by now that in Stephen’s world we are only obligated to support gay candidates who are Republicans, never Democrats.
posted by Jorge on
… in NYC races people want to elect their own kind …
–That doesn’t square with the apparent voting patterns based on exit polling, Jorge, or at least I don’t think so. I can’t find any significant pattern of “identity politics” voting from any of the voting blocs.
The blacks went overwhelmingly for DeBlasio and Thompson (while the whites went for DeBlasio and Quinn). Thompson is black, DeBlasio’s wife and children are black. With no Hispanic candidate, the Hispanic vote slightly mirrored the black vote.
The LBGs went for DeBlasio and Quinn. Quinn is gay. DeBlasio’s wife once wrote about being a lesbian.
People of “all other religions” gave Liu a disproportionate share of support. The NY Times exit poll otherwise could not assess the Asian vote.
NYC does not have identity politics voting because identity politics (which it does have) is extremely controversial. Rather, NYC has a circle of black political elites and a less visible array of hispanic political elites. They don’t do identity politics so much as speak the language of the people very well to the community, and speak the needs of the community.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I really can’t speak to NY politics — and can’t really relate to the cacophony of SF’s ‘direct democracy’ — but for years we’ve been told by those in NYC that we’re in a “post gay” world.
It’s not a reality for the majority of LGBT folks that live outside these so-called ‘safe zones’ with employment, public accommodation & marriage equality already in place, but there is something to the idea that the LGBT-identification alone wasn’t enough to trump Bloomberg fatigue.
It is rather remarkable, however, that NYC has yet to elect a minority or female mayor… while other big cities in the U.S. have done both for quite some time.
As far as “voting for their own kind”, I can only speak to my experience here in Houston where our openly lesbian Mayor Parker will be running for re-election for the third and final (term limited) time this fall.
Did the LGBT community in Houston rally to support her based on identification? Yes — it would be foolish to ignore the deep pockets of the gAyTM that provided the monetary base for her earlier wins. But I’ve also heard from many in the straight community that her competency won them over — that and a little civic pride in being able to say to New Yorkers that Houston was able to do something they haven’t been able to do: elect a female, openly gay mayor.
In the end, Annise Parker will likely win this fall with solid LGBT community support — not because she’s a lesbian — we’ve broken through that barrier — but because she’s been a damn good mayor.
posted by Houndentenor on
David Dinkins, an African-American, was mayor of NYC from 1989-1993. Though often maligned as ineffective, the much-touted drop in crime in the city actually started during his administration.
posted by Jorge on
Deep pockets of gAyTM. I like that.
My investment in Weiner sank like a rock.
posted by JohnInCA on
Does this mean Miller isn’t going to continue to whine about democrats not voting for gay republicans?