Eric Holder--the other day--reminded us that our imperfect history impels serious citizens to disregard regional and local particularities, when choosing federal officeholders. A recent commenter seemed to suggest, 'Of course Erik Paulsen has nothing to say on racial matters: He's a white dude who represents a white district.' But the inherited racial disparities (in poverty, educational opportunity, safety of immediate environment, etc.) ought to concern all Americans; politicians ought to have positions on how to address this national problem. Nor should we overlook the fact that CD3's racial composition is not primarily the result of historical randomness. You're damn right: Erik Paulsen ought to think up something to say on this topic.
And when someone says we ought to support Candidate X based on her fitting the district, they're getting things quite wrong. First, voters have strong, ethical reason to disregard localism in choosing their federal representative: They ought to be thinking about the best direction for the country as a whole, in the awareness that current demographics are--in part--symptomatic of historical injustice. Fitting the district adds absolutely nothing to the discussion; it's an inkblot of unlabelled political traits, fleetingly projected. And its very undefinedness allows sleazy participants--people like Ron Carey and Sen. Geoff Michel--to use the tame-sounding phrase to signal tribal, 'demographic' loyalties without defining their terms...to inject--and then deny having injected--a racial/martial melody to release a bit of anxiety in the suburbs.
