The American Tradition of Voting for Faces Instead of Politics

When Kamala Harris was sworn in as the vice president under the Biden administration, many Americans lauded the landmark achievement of having a Black and South Asian woman as the vice president of the United States. This celebration came after several months of condemning Harris’s policies - namely her controversial history with the criminal justice system. As much as I credit Harris for intriguing new voters and drawing in votes for Biden, her campaign highlighted the extent to which American voters emphasize token representation over actual policies. The American left, in particular, supports figureheads more so than they support the tangible progression that is constitutional to Democratic ideology.

Also in the 2020 Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg were discredited for their roles in the game of identity-centered politics (in different ways, but their ‘tokenship’ or lack thereof evidently influenced the outcome of their respective campaigns). Sanders is the notorious mascot for American democratic socialism. He leads and represents leftward progression in the U.S.. His policies are what gained him traction in politics and theoretically should be the main criteria when it comes to the way we support and choose elected officials. Although Sanders’s policies were not criticized among the left in the way that Harris’s were, many American democrats resented the idea of electing ‘another old white man.’ Granted, they did actually end up electing another old white man but Biden’s ideological moderateness gave him a bit of leverage over Sanders. So in the case of a decision between two candidates that cannot provide any value of tokenship, policies are considered as the paramount criteria, but only in this case.

In Buttigieg’s campaign, many Americans approved of Buttigieg’s ideological standpoints. He is more moderate than Sanders, but offered the hope of progress. This vision of progress, however, was largely based on his identity. Much of his support was predicated on the notion that his presidency would mean the youngest president ever elected and also the first openly gay president. His policies weren’t particularly outstanding or striking, but his profile was. This was true to the extent that Democrats feared that a gay man would not have been electable enough among less progressive Americans, so his presidential run was cut short.

The main issue that I take with voting for identity over policy is that representation does not equate to real progress in politics. Having a Black and South Asian woman in office does not mean that systemic racism and sexism have ceased to exist. Political representation of minority or oppressed populations are mere surface level attempts to appear as though the American government is progressive and inclusive. These are facades whose expiration dates are only the extent of the politician’s term in office. As soon as Harris’s four or eight years as vice president have reached their end, the American public will rush to reelect another token candidate or another old white man that it deems electable enough. Nothing revolutionary will have happened in policy. The significant political progress that the U.S. so desperately needs requires overlooking a candidate’s gender, race, and sexuality and instead acknowledging the palpable impact that they can contribute through their policies. If this method of voting does not take place, the U.S. will find itself in a perpetual loop of broken policies masked by diverse representation.