All the recent press that has been out there regarding gender and race in the Democratic nomination battle has been intriguing. Today, the Washington Post actually published an excellent video story about the subject.
But all the nasty attacks about these issues have, to me, illuminated what I think is a distinct opportunity for the Democratic Party that has been an achilles heel to our electoral success for 40 years--the repudiation of factional or identity politics.
I actually think repudiation of identity politics is on the table, and that supporting Barack Obama in a national primary race will accomplish this for the Democratic Party, and I think it could result in federal electoral successes the likes of which have not been seen since the days of FDR.
The Democratic Party has long been viewed by many as a patchwork quilt consisting primarily of a number of various groups, not all of whom share ideology on certain issues. We've got labor, women, African-Americans and increasingly Latinos, GLBT Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab or Muslim-Americans, environmentalists, educators, and other (etc) seemingly "special-interest" groups. Actually, they are less so "special" interest groups than they are HUMAN interest groups, but I digress. It's clearly a bit more complex than this, but in fact, the Democratic Party's base has often operated more like this factional assortment of groups instead of a diverse conglomeration of people in all walks of life unified by an overarching vision of progressive principles and vision for our country's future.
Don't get me wrong, the issues associated with any of these key Democratic consituencies aren't going anywhere. GLBT voters will never be giving up their push for civil rights, labor voters will never abandon the need to structure an economy that is fair to all workers and doesn't disadvantage our economy against those overseas, and African-Americans will never stop fighting against the still-present institutional and systemic disadvantages their families face in very basic areas such as education, health care, justice, and economic clout. The problem is not the issues for which these factions have been fighting to affect.
The problem for the Democratic Party has been the hyper-sensitivity of these factions within the Party, the inability of some factions to see others as friends, allies, and fellow progressives. For example, when Barack Obama did not remove Donnie McClurkin from the gospel concert for his campaign in South Carolina, some GLBT organizations, writers, and voters, took that as a slap-in-the-face. This feeling was strong and genuine, but developed DESPITE the fact that Barack Obama stated very artfully that he absolutely, without question, disagreed with Mr. McClurkin's views on homosexuality, and went even so far as to insist that counter-balanced views be offered at the concert, even if they weren't well-implemented. Obama has also repeatedly brought up the issue of the treatment of GLBT people in black churches where the audiences and clergy tend to be particularly hostile to the GLBT community and their rights. The man is a clear fighter for what is right, and what's in the interest of GLBT voters. Yet, GLBT voters largely scorned Obama over this distraction. Sadly, it may end up costing them if a real champion of equality without a history of backing down on tough or unpopular issues for political reasons, does not get elected. Does anyone really believe that Barack Obama doesn't share a strong commitment to equality for GLBT Americans? He clearly does.
Similarly, the flap over the Jena 6 and their unfair treatment and imprisonment did not draw too much attention or any appearances by Obama. Many African-American justice groups depicted this as a slight by Mr. Obama. Yet, does anyone truly believe that Barack Obama, a community activist and civil rights attorney from south-side Chicago, not share a profound commitment to civil rights and the breaking down of institutional racism and discrimination? I don't think so.
So, it is my suggestion that the groups of people who seek ideological purity, and going even further, demand complete obedience and submission on all levels from candidates, party officials, elected officials, and other organizations, are doing more to hurt their causes than they can imagine, and in doing so, hurting the Democratic Party.
Breaking out of this grasp from hypersensitive, over-factionalized politics is at stake in this election. While I don't intend this article to be a pro-Obama or anti-Clinton diary moreso than an examination of these undercurrents in the Democratic Party, it needs to be pointed out that the Clinton campaign is clearly beckoning back to the days of identity politics, and in fact, exploiting this notion to divide the Democratic electorate.
How many strong Clinton supporters do you know who are not voting for her because they want to see a woman president? Conversely, how many Barack Obama supporters do you know who are voting for Barack because he is black? In my experience in talking with Clinton backers, the typical reasoning does touch on the "first woman President" theme. I have met others who have touted Hillary's health care plan, or her perceived experience and ability to run the White House and the government. However, even most of these folks admit they really like Hillary because she's a woman. And frankly, most of them tend to be women.
I have NOT found the same to be true among committed Obama voters.
While I do not intend to bash Hillary Clinton as I greatly respect her and her husband, they really have been exploiting these factional divisions in the Democratic Party through nasty statements and suggestions, both directly and through surrogates. To compare their actions with Barack's seeming frustration and attempts to defend and deem that he is playing the same game back, is ludicruous and disingenuous.
Don't get me wrong, it IS exciting, notable, and amazing that we have two leading candidates, one a woman, and one African-American. It is a testament to the big-tent party that the Democratic Party is, and that we stand true to our principles of inclusion and diversity.
However, I would put forth, that the use of these factors in campaigning, and the leveraging of these identity groups to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, and to vote for Barack because he's African-American, runs a grave danger to the Democratic Party. The danger is forgoing an opportunity to build one of the most successful American political coalitions in a broad and powerful progressive caucus that will be able to positively transform American life and government here at home and around the world, restoring the promise of our nation to its once great and respected status in the World.
We are currently faced with an opportunity to put the identity politics behind us by electing Barack Obama. Obama is African-American, and by virtue of that will attract a lot of black voters. However, as Iowa proved, there is something more in the support of Obama than that he is black. In Iowa, Obama won among whites, women, and almost every possible demographic except possibly older voters. Why did he do this? What's there that caused it?
There's hope. There's unity. There's a genuine commitment to all progressive causes by a candidate who absolutely has a history of bringing all people together, not as a cliche, but as a legislator doing things both seemingly undoable, and simultaneously practical. There's a strong advocate for a new kind of politics, built not on the factionalization of overly-sensitive ideological purists, but on the backs of a broad, inclusive, and diverse progressive coalition that has been emerging within the electorate over the past 3-4 years.
Only Barack Obama is uniquely poised to capitalize on this anti-partisan, progressive, energetic, results-oriented wave in the electorate.
What will it be America? Will we finally come together and rally behind an inspirational leader who can forge a new and progressive America? Or will we fall prey to the politics of the old way, and end up proving Karl Rove's legacy for another generation?
My bet is on hope. My hope is for a Democratic Party that represents a broad, united, progressive coalition that can change America back into a leader and a beacon of hope and justice throughout the World.
I disagree with a couple of points. First off it is not Hillary or Edwards which have created partisan politics, it is the Republicans and their supporters.
So while, Obama does bring great strength in many areas you cannot change the fact of the opposition. The Republican party will always have partisan tactics and use them on who ever the Democratic candidate is this fall. It would be naive to think anything less. However, if any and all of our candidates can continue on a platform of strength and better policy positions, then I think at this moment in time it will win the populist and the people.
Hope is a noble position, but it does not put food on the table, preserve the middle class, and promote peace throughout the world. You have to have the strength and the strategy to stand up and promote a better nation.
I don't think that I'm trying to say that Hillary or Edwards, who I love, are "creating partisan politics". And I certainly agree with you that Republicans in recent history, for the most part, have created the most egregious and dishonest tactics in campaigning--no question about that.
What I am saying has more to do with intra-Democratic Party dynamics, and how I believe Barack Obama as a candidate and potential figurehead of the Democratic Party really has the potential to neutralize one of our biggest electoral challenges--factionalization of our base.
It is my belief that this factioning is based largely on classic identity politics. We need to elect a leader who can bridge the progressive coalition together and forge real progress. I think if we elect Barack Obama, that is going to happen.
Mind you, regardless of who wins the primaries and the convention nomination, this is a problem for the Democratic Party. I also believe that the style of campaigning that the Clintons are engaging in is largely exploitive of identity politics (ie injecting race and gender themes into the race) and in the long run is very, very harmful to the unity of our coalition. I don't really see Edwards campaigning the same way. But Barack has been outwardly rebuffing this style of campaigning and appealing to a better ethic in people.
That doesn't mean I don't expect Republicans not to use all their same tried and true filthy campaigning--but I think Obama will rise above so strongly that America will respond like the haven't in a long time.
Hopefully that makes sense.
You have to have the strength and the strategy to stand up and promote a better nation
I could not agree more with this statement, and in my estimation, the candidate best able to accomplish this is Barack Obama.
It is ironic that many of the women supporting Hillary fought for equal rights, as I did, for the right of women not just to vote, but have full equity before the law. People are to be considered without respect to their gender, we thought. I still do. And yet, many of these same women now would upend the point of equal rights and vote for Hillary because she is a woman. I find this so antithetical to what the equal Rights Campaign, and its successor efforts, that it leaves me speechless. (In your dreams! :-) )
To anyone who thinks a woman guarantees different leadership or leadership style, I have two words for you: Margaret Thatcher.
I would love to believe. I would love nothing more than a hero to rescue us from the state we currently find ourselves in. But I just have trouble believing that will be any candidate, any politician. No one is going to rescue us, we have to rescue ourselves. The excitement of a moment will fade away. When the lights go out and the campaign is over, we will be left with ourselves. And if we cannot effect change ourselves, then we are lost.
When I need a hero, I turn to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the TV series.
You are right, we will be left with ourselves, but will we be empowered to do anything as part of the Democratic Party or a progressive coalition? Or will we have the same old government that isn't actually acting in the people's interest?
I think that's what's at stake.
Regardless, if Hillary wins the nomination, she should consider Obama as a VP candidate and if he's a close runner-up, she should run with him. If Obama wins the nomination, he should consider a strong role for the Clintons in his administration, possibly even with Hillary as the VP candidate if she'd be interested. Either one would excite me.
Oh, and what do you mean you've only experienced me angry?
On coalitions, I am still uncertain that someone is going to bring conservatives into a broad progressive coalition. Republicans are built on a conservative movement, their names are basically interchangeable now. I think maybe social conservatives could defect, but that would mean giving on those issues. But maybe Senator Obama can move people to redefine themselves. I am just uncertain of that.
As to your last question, maybe extremely passionate is a better term.
His African ancestry would be a first for a president, and he need not even mention that fact. It is there for everyone to see.
It seems half the "man-on-the-streets" interviews with Obama supporters have mentioned his ancestry (and "historic" candidacy) one of the reasons, if not the main reason they supported him.
Of course the same is true for Hillary's candidacy. I have heard people mention countless times (on blogs, on the streets, on TV) that they were swayed to Obama or Hillary based on their race or gender, respectively.
Race and gender count. They shouldn't, but they do. To some supporters, they count as much as they do for sexists and old-school bigots.
I will admit feeling the allure of supporting one of these "first ever" candidates. If either should win, i will feel a bit of joy that our country has passed another symbolic milestone. Still, I can't bring myself to give any weight to gender or race when selecting between the candidates. Race and Gender have no place for me. I support candidates based on their views, principles, and fortitude. As a result, this year I support, John Edwards. It might be nice if his appearance were more "historic," but I was swayed by far more important considerations.
I guess if Edwards wins, I will have to content myself that he is the first President from South Carolina.
Edwards/Obama couln't lose.