It’s no secret that the winner of the 2004 Presidential Election will be decided largely on the basis of identity politics. Everything from the corporate vote to the working-class vote to the female vote to the Jewish vote to the Latino vote to the Arab vote to the black vote is a concern of the candidates. Whether the candidates continue to pander to the interests of these contingencies once the election is over, of course, is open to debate.

But for now, it appears that even the Democrats are playing the race card to win votes — not from President Bush, but from each other. Alluding to comments Senator Kerry made in 1992, General Clark told two sets of predominately black audiences today that Kerry opposes affirmative action and has characterized it as creating ”a culture of dependency.“

Now standing on the defensive, Kerry insists that his comments have been mischaracterized and that he merely suggested that affirmative action needs to be mended. Kerry and his supporters have also argued that Kerry has consistently voted in favor of affirmative action in the Senate.

How much validity there is to either side’s story is certainly questionable. But even more disturbing is the way that the candidates are using the race question to further their own political aspirations rather than committing themselves as individuals to fostering a more genuine notion of humanity. But, unfortunately, when a mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue commonly referred to as the White House is at stake, people get a little power hungry. The bashing of one’s opponents that ensues is quite unfortunate since this tactic so often relies upon insulting the humanity of others. Is it any wonder why a host of ”isms“ persist today as we continue to struggle to forge a more inclusive, genuine notion of humanity?

Laura Nathan-Garner