Truly, I don't think that racism at the micro level can be fixed, and (again), I don't think that the right answer is to wait around for things to level out. That might never happen. People should not be systematically denied opportunities within the institutions of America (schools, government, health care systems, etc) because individuals are racist.
If this is indeed wrong, the problem is how the institutions are set up to favor one group and disenfranchise another. Personally, I have a problem with viewing the election of these candidates as an attempt to "grab the spoils for a group." That is REALLY charged language. I don't think it's about grabbing spoils. It's about making things more equitable than they are.I can't get over the implication that electing candidates who represent subsections of society "gaining power" is a wholesale endorsement of using political office to grab the spoils for a group. Group behavior is not any more or less ethical than individual behavior. When one person abuses power, it's wrong. When an entire race or power does it, it's still wrong.
Well, it was hypothetical. Maybe it doesn't happen in real life, but the point is that personally, I'd put issues first and identity second, but I still think that identity can be an important factor.Plus, I don't think that your example of two candidates being "for all intents and purposes the same" holds much water. When is that ever the case? And how many black Americans have voted for Obama when, upon examination of the platforms, actually are closer in beliefs to Hillary Clinton (or even to John McCain) than to Obama? Your example seems like a hypothetical without much resemblance to the real world.