Stand by your can(didate)
Here begins a two-day salute to moments in my youth when I was accidentally smart. Day one concerns politics. Day two concerns all of humanity dying in a fiery apocalypse. Something to look forward to!
In my high school years, I went to a tutor by the name of Jack. Though he did succeed in his professional goals of making my grades better, he was also the therapist that I desperately needed at that time. I could talk to him about pretty much anything and he gave me fantastic advice. We disagreed on politics at the time, since I considered myself a Republican at the time and would rant about The Liberals. Oh, the stupidity of youth!
But while a lot of my beliefs have changed now that I'm an adult paying taxes in The Real World™, there was one thing that I said to Jack that I've remembered decades later and never stopped believing: that the first non-white and/or non-Christian and/or woman president will be a conservative.
Basically, the reasoning comes down to this: Democrats/liberals are (unfortunately) going to be seen as the "social" party. It's the conventional wisdom that's very hard to break: that if you're concerned about economics, you vote Republican, and if you're concerned about social issues, you vote Democrat. Bill Clinton got elected twice because he left the social side to his speeches and stances. Meanwhile, his campaigns were focused almost entirely on economics, and the economy was his first word in the presidency. He balanced it brilliantly.
And yet, he still barely won the elections. There are a number of moderates who believe that, even with an emphasis on economics, that to vote Democratic is risky to the economy. And whether consciously or subconsciously, there are a whole lot of people who are going to see a minority, woman or non-Christian Democratic candidate as a candidate who is all about social politics, but doesn't know anything about economics and will only push to solve all of our social problems by raising taxes. It's unfair, but it's there.
But wait! That's not all! Democrats also get raked over the coals by liberals for stupid reasons. Is Obama black enough? Does Hillary really speak to women? Meanwhile, a conservative woman or minority candidate, while getting these questions, would be held much more to policy, both by the conservatives who blindly follow them as well as the liberals who chant about them destroying the world. We've already seen it with Thatcher and Merkel. Conservative candidates are villainized out of the gate by liberals anyway, so they aren't expected to answer about what they're going to do for their own. In fact, they're even in a better position to say, "It's not about race/gender. It's about the issues," which conservatives and moderates want to hear, and the fact that this argument isn't coming from a white man means liberals have to grudgingly accept it and focus on the issues as well.
Obviously, it's a shame. But I just can't see a minority or woman Democrat taking the presidency until the barrier has been broken by someone who wins based solely on their politics, and not on their social status.
14 comments:
Well argued point! I'd further it by pointing out that the Secretary of State of this Republican administration is a black woman. I ponder that from time to time, and regardless of what my thoughts are on the policies in play, find it a fairly remarkable and significant thing.
Yeah but Clinton appointed the first woman Secretary of State.
I get what you're saying, Reid, but as one those minorities, I have to disagree a bit. I felt resentful and betrayed by Elizabeth Dole. Unfortunately, a lot of women Republicans have switched sides, and in the case of Dole it was to support her husband. I could never vote for a woman Republican b/c I tend to think they're all nuts. Even if it's not true that they're nuts, they tend to present themselves as subordinate or they promote paradoxical positions on women's issues. I'm not the only woman I know to think this way. I think it would be difficult for Republicans to put up a serious female candidate b/c you can't rely on women to vote for her just because she's a woman (everyone knows that women are harder on each other than men are). Add that to men who don't think a woman can cut it...
I can't speak about Thatcher b/c I was clueless in the 80s, but I can tell you that while Merkel may be right of center in Germany, that's still a fare bit lefter than the U.S. center. Europeans are already so much softer than we are on social issues (their leftism challenges my leftism on a daily bases especially when it comes to privacy and personal freedoms), that they tend to draw their party lines around different criteria like whether or not to privatize public utilities or what to do about immigration and EU integration. They also have coalitions and power sharing which keeps those in charge from straying too far one way or the other.
I guess that has nothing to do with what you're saying, really, except that I don't think you can use Europe as an example.
Sadly, from afar I don't have my finger on the pulse of a black candidate. But I read somewhere (can't remember where) that some exit polls conducted during Clinton's second presidential bid showed that Powell would have won over Clinton and Dole had he run. The point of that article is that America could vote for a black presidential candidate. They didn't speculate on whether it mattered if he was a Dem or a Rep.
It must irk the Dems that Bush has appointed the most minorities (esp. Hispanics) to cabinet posts, judiciary appointments, and other high ranking positions than any previous president (as Reagan did with women). It's really more a sign of the times than anything, but still you know it bugs them.
Michael Steele, a Republican, was Maryland's first black Lt. Governor, and barely lost the Senate race last fall (in the end, there's only so much you can do in a state that's 80% Democrats). He focused on being pro-business. Meanwhile a lot of Democrats complained that their party didn't nominate a black candidate, even though the white guy they did nominate (and who eventually won the Senate seat) was far more experienced and qualified than his primary challengers.
I didn't know you used to be a Republican. If you had remained one, it would be a better party today. Come home, Reid.
I don't understand the Elizabeth Dole criticism. She's more accomplished professionally than say, Hillary, and is a much better role model. Politically she's done just as much for women's (and people's) issues, without becoming such a polarizing figure.
I also always admired Christie Todd Whitman and would love to see her in higher office someday, but unfortunately the EPA position became a setback to her career (not because of anything she did, but because like Powell she did not become part of the inner circle).
Now someone like, say, Katharine Harris *is* clearly nuts. But there are candidates like that in both parties.
It must irk the Dems that Bush has appointed the most minorities (esp. Hispanics) to cabinet posts, judiciary appointments, and other high ranking positions than any previous president (as Reagan did with women). It's really more a sign of the times than anything, but still you know it bugs them.
I dunno, I can see how you think might think that, but to me the race and sex of his appointments are just the silver lining of a disaster.
As for your point Reid, I can see it, but really, I can't think of a truly viable female or minority candidate on either side until, probably, this upcoming election. So I don't think you have enough data to support your argument. Not to say that you're wrong, as I can see your point, but let's look at some firsts:
First Black Governor: Douglas Wilder, Democrat, VA.
First Female Governor: Nellie Tayloe Ross, Democrat, Wyoming
First Black Female U.S. Representative: Shirley Chisholm, Democrat, NY.
First Black (post-Reconstruction) Senator: Edward Brooke, Republican, MA.
First Black Female Senator: Carol Mosely Braun, Democrat, IL.
First Elected Female Senator: Hattie Caraway, Democrat, Ark.
First Hispanic Senator: Octaviano Larrazolo, Republican, NM
First Asian-American Senator: Hiram Fong, Republican, Hawaii
There's a bunch of Democrats in their, but my point is not to say that Democrats or Republicans have an edge based on these firsts, but that people do seem ready to elect either a female or minority to a major office like President. I think it's really just a matter of the candidacy of whoever it is getting beyond the novelty and "trial balloon" stage...which is all that I think the past female and minority presidential candidates, that I can remember, have been (I even think the candidates themselves thought they had no chance). I don't think the ideology + their race or gender will matter it's their ideology and whether people take them seriously that will determine them to be a viable candidate.
sorry, "there, not their. typing is hard.
Damn, and I meant to say "Not to say that I think you're wrong" - yup, that's me trying to be the supreme-all-knowing-opinion-guy
reid, you needed a tutor? I thought english was your first language?
Reid, I never knew you were on The Real World™! Was it the Toledo edition? Sounds like you got kinda screwed, though - they should have been paying you. You might have a tidy lawsuit on your hands.
As to your argument, I see your point, but of course there are no absolutes in politics, and the right candidate changes everything. JFK was the first Catholic president, a big deal at the time, and he was a Democrat. But he was inspiring, a rock star. So is Barack Obama to a lot of people. I think he could pull it off.
Scott,
Like I said, I felt betrayed by Elizabeth Dole. Elizabeth switched sides to support her husband's, then rising, career. She did this in the 70s when women needed a strong role model, not a wishy washy one. She's hardly done anything at all, much less further women's issues. In fact, not only did she change her party affiliation for her husband, she dropped her support for the Equal Rights Amendment!! b/c Reagan was staunchly against it. Hmph. Any woman who doesn't support ERA... shame shame
And I dunno why Reps always have to play the Hillary card. At no point did I mention her. There's always this assumption that if you're a Dem, you love Hillary.
Doug, you know damn well that facts have no place on this site!
No, I do see your point. But I think that the presidency is different. People (understandably) are more likely to see their vote for president as a vote for the direction of the entire nation. Want to vote for a senator whose entire platform is based on, say, environmentalism? No big deal. But wouldn't you be a little concerned about voting for a one-issue president?
I think that what we're really dealing with here is expectation. Democrats are already expected to be much more socially focused. And the standard expectation is that women or minority candidates are going to be even more socially focused. So simply by being a Republican, voters assume (whether right or wrong) that this is someone who must care more about economics than social issues, or otherwise they'd be a Democrat, right?
I think Obama *could* do it. He certainly seems like a good candidate. But he's also going to have to deal with those double standards that both parties have, in that he admitted to using cocaine when he was younger. A Repub candidate can shrug it off, but it feeds right into the stereotype of liberals: drug-taking troublemaker. He's going to have a big problem with that when the election starts heating up and he gets more focus.
I don't think Hillary Clinton has a shot in hell. Not only is she a polarizing figure and (as ridiculous and sad as it is) a figure of absolute hate from the right since 1992, but come on: she's the female John Kerry. She has no clear stance on anything, has a history of being wishy-washy, and on top of all that, has zero sense of humor. If she gets the Dem nomination, we might as well all vote third party.
I'm going to stop now, because my head is not very clear these days. But please carry on. I love this stuff.
Wow, that's a perfect summation of the Hillary problem. I'd be super excited if she was elected, but mostly because it would put Bill back in the White House. But you're right, not a shot in hell. Third party would be the way to go. Is Ross Perot still alive?
facts shmacks - I looked up all that stuff just 'cus I was curious, then didn't want all my painstaking research to go to waste.
I agree that she doesn't have a shot in hell in winning the presidency (good point on the Kerry comparison), but I think she has a good one at get nominated...unfortunately.
I think it's interesting that after years of getting criticized as being too far to the left, Hillary is essentially the farthest to the right of the Democratic candidates. I also have to say that I'm less opposed to her as a candidate now that she has more experience under her belt. Four years ago was too early. That's my same concern with Obama now...I'd like to see the nomination go to someone with more than a partial Senate term and 0 executive experience.
Jen, I can understand the ERA point (although most Republican women who opposed it will argue that they supported the content but believed it to be redundant legistlation...but that's another issue). I just don't think switching parties or being a Republican in and of itself should be considered betrayal. This was a woman who headed the Red Cross, an organization responsible for saving lives and providing relief efforts (with the majority of beneficiaries being women and children). I think that's definitely role-model worthy. The only reason I brought up Hillary was because they're good comparisons...both were married to politicians before seeking public office themselves, both have law degrees from Ivy League schools, etc. Liddy is actually much more experienced in the public sector though, while Hillary's career was mostly spent in private practice.
Post a Comment