The 2008 election has been characterized by identity. As the electorate has become increasingly divided along racial and gender lines, it has been polarized more than ever by figures such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both Democratic candidates represented a milestone for women and blacks with the possibility of one of their own ascending to the highest level of power in America. With rumors circulating about the Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, as a possible seat on the Republican presidential ticket, it appears as though Indian Americans are not immune from supporting a candidate based only on appearance.
Bobby Jindal fully represents the faults with politics of identity that are dangerously dividing this nation. Support for Jindal in the Indian American community might seem strange as Indians overwhelmingly swing Democratic, and Jindal is a cut-and-dry Republican of the worst order. Instead of judging him on the merits of his positions and policies, it seems that some are willing to support him solely based on shared ethnicity. He opposes all stem cell research. He supports warrant-less wiretaps and currently has a 0 percent ranking from the Human Rights Campaign for his anti-LGBT positions.
John McCain’s interest in Jindal is a curiosity. Given the fact that Indian Americans have no real demographic or lobbying pull over American politicians, it is possible to surmise that McCain has a few possible reasons to be interested in Jindal. Most probable is the simple shallow addition of “diversity” to his ticket. While the Indian vote in America is not politically valuable, we still owe it to ourselves as a matter of principle to ask why we should consider Jindal over another qualified candidate. Will Jindal address any issues that particularly affect the Indian community? Will he address these better than another non-Indian candidate? More to the point, is voting on the basis of ethnicity of greater value than a candidate’s broader political orientation, which in Jindal’s case, is a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies of the last eight years?
Indians, relative to many ethnic groups, have few pressing social concerns that demand urgent political attention above other issues. We as a whole are the highest-earning ethnicity in America, and among the most educated. Interestingly enough, one of the major social issues concerning Indian Americans is within our own group: the glaring disparity between women and men regarding income and education level, which is indicative of continued traditions of patriarchy and relegation of women to homemaking roles. Will Jindal have any special answers for an issue like this? There’s no indication to believe so.
Indian Americans, alongside all Americans, owe it to themselves to consider our leaders on the issues instead of the excitement of electing a fellow minority. In Jindal’s case, the consequences far outweigh the benefits. America does not need superficial nods to racial diversity in politics, especially when candidates support Republican policies that demonstrably undermine the pursuit of social equality and good governance.
Raman graduated from UCLA this year as a music student.