Last Tuesday on Arizona PBS, incumbent Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva and Republican U.S. House hopeful Nick Pierson engaged in an hour-long debate that undoubtedly left many viewers stunned and perplexed by Pierson’s choice of oratorical strategy and antagonistic demeanor. Pierson, a former financial advisor who is jockeying for Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District seat currently held by Grijalva — an eight-term representative — gave one of the more lamentable and feeble debate performances I have ever seen.
The debate began with Pierson’s opening statement informing voters that he was born in Nogales, Arizona; his mom came from Sinaloa, Mexico; his father is of Mexican descent; he grew up in the Tohono O’odham Reservation; and that he’s a University of Arizona graduate. Pierson followed this by saying he “shares the voters’ frustration with Congress and the lack of civility.”
Rep. Grijalva then gave his opening statement by saying that, “this is a referendum election for the state of Arizona, for the district and the nation.”
He wants to be “part of that change that not only brings civility, but actual production from the U.S. Congress.”
After their opening statements — the very first question in the debate — host and moderator Ted Simons asked Pierson, “you are running against an experienced member of Congress, why?” Pierson cringingly said, “I’ve been watching the incumbent since I was in college and he’s not a good example of a Mexican.”
When asked what prompted Pierson to give such a harsh judgment, he belligerently said, “this man has been drunk on the job… he creates a superstition that because of his Mexicaness, really I am as Mexican as he is.” Grijalva sarcastically and appropriately responded, “well I’m so glad that Mr. Pierson decided that civility would be part of any discussion.”
Before the debate could move forward however, Simon asked Pierson to “give us a definition of a good, quote-unquote, good Mexican.”
Pierson responded, “in the Hispanic culture, there is a properness that people should purport, it’s not just education, it’s what you have from your upbringing and your family.”
This specific topic, instigated by Pierson, on who is more adequately Mexican and worthy of their Mexican ancestral identity, went on for almost 10 minutes. To which I respond: what does any of this have to do with a candidate’s ability to legislate prudently at the federal level, or defend the sovereignty of the district, state and country? Is one’s “Mexicaness” now a credential to work on behalf of the American people?
This is a quintessential example of identity politics: the championing of a particular biological, cultural or behavioral trait for purposes of political gain. Over the last decade, this type of political strategy has become quite common among some politicians, particularly for Democrats who decide to aggrandize their candidacy by merely belonging, espousing or crusading for an identity. Republicans rarely do this however, because the party has always stood for individualism and equality of opportunity, despite one’s predetermined identity.
Having said that, the most perverse aspect of identity politics is that it actually degrades our electoral politics by ranking someone’s candidacy on the basis of biological, cultural and behavioral traits, instead of looking at polished credentials and political aptness. Elections are supposed to be based on noble and meritorious values, not frivolous identities.
However, I have a strong suspicion that Pierson does hold these righteous values, and I would hope that he re-evaluates his political strategy to largely reflect his proficient qualifications, his active role in the community and position on the issues.
