Doomed in 2008 by Racism and Sexism?
There's been such a din about the unelectability of a black nominee
that we forgot about the unelectability of a woman. And yet there are
eerie parallels that spell doom for us as Democrats.
The current Clinton argument for nominating her reduces to the following:
1. The United States is a racist country.
2. The majority race in the U.S. is white. For sad historical reasons, almost all presidential candidates of all parties have been white. Without exception, all U.S. presidents have been white.
3. Consistent with the foregoing, it is clear that a significant portion of the white majority is racist and will vote only for white candidates. Moreover, minority voters are accustomed to voting for white candidates and can be counted on to accept a white candidate. In addition, there is a strong racist strain in the Republican Party that plays to its advantage. We don't like these realities, but we must face them. That doesn't make us racists.
4. As a black, Obama can never win.
5. As a white, Hillary is the only remaining Democratic candidate who can win.
6. It would be a fatal mistake for the Democratic Party to take a chance on attempting to elect the first nonwhite president because racist forces in American culture are insurmountable.
7. Therefore, the Democratic Party has no alternative but to nominate Hillary.
8. Under the circumstances, superdelegates have a fiduciary responsibility to overrule any primary and caucus votes cast for a black candidate.
There is a parallel argument to consider:
1. The U.S. is a sexist country.
2. While the electorate is roughly half male and half female, sad historical realities have meant almost all presidential candidates have been male. Without exception, all U.S. presidents have been male.
3. Consistent with the foregoing, it is clear that a significant portion of the male half of the electorate is sexist and will vote only for male presidential candidates. Moreover, female voters have been accustomed to voting for male candidates and can be counted on to accept a male candidate. In addition, there is a strong antifeminist strain in the Republican Party, even among Republican women, that will play to the advantage of Republicans if Democrats nominate a woman, especially a woman who lacks enthusiasm for baking cookies. We don't like these realities, but we must face them. That doesn't make us sexists.
4. As a female, Hillary can never win.
5. As a male, Obama is the only remaining Democratic candidate who can win.
6. It would be a fatal mistake for the Democratic Party to take a chance on attempting to elect the first female president because sexist forces in American culture are insurmountable.
7. Therefore, the Democratic Party has no alternative but to nominate Obama.
8. Under the circumstances, superdelegates have a fiduciary responsibility to overrule any primary and caucus votes cast for a female candidate.
It is debatable which argument is more powerful. Clearly, the safe course for Democrats was to nominate a white male. Since the irresistible forces of racism and sexism in American culture leave the Democratic Party in a hopeless position, we blew it. We reinforce the hopelessness of our position every time a Democrat says the black candidate can't attract enough white voters or the woman candidate can't attract enough male votes.
Curiously, this is where the symmetry breaks down. We've only been hearing one of these messages from Democrats. This is true even though the leading Democratic male candidate has generally trounced our leading female candidate with male voters. In North Carolina, for example, Clinton got only 39% of the male vote to Obama's 58% - didn't you hear the networks talking about that all night long, reminding us that Republicans and independents tend to be disproportionately male? Telling us this could hurt Hillary even more than the tendency of Republicans and independents to be disproportionately white hurts Obama?
Perhaps we should accept the hopelessness of our position now that we've doomed ourselves to choose between a female and a black candidate. On the other hand, like typical Quixotic Democrats who think they can improve the world, we can attempt to break through the racist or sexist barrier to the White House this year.
But which barrier should we try to break first?
A modest proposal: We could let Democratic primary and caucus voters decide, not superdelegates saving us from one candidate's theory of unelectability.
An even more modest proposal: We could stop saying a black can never win over white voters in a McCain-Obama matchup, and continue to refrain from saying a woman could never win over Republicans, independents, and many working class white males in a McCain-Clinton matchup.
Or we could go on cutting our own throats, sparing the delicate feelings of the Republicans who usually perform the gruesome task.
The current Clinton argument for nominating her reduces to the following:
1. The United States is a racist country.
2. The majority race in the U.S. is white. For sad historical reasons, almost all presidential candidates of all parties have been white. Without exception, all U.S. presidents have been white.
3. Consistent with the foregoing, it is clear that a significant portion of the white majority is racist and will vote only for white candidates. Moreover, minority voters are accustomed to voting for white candidates and can be counted on to accept a white candidate. In addition, there is a strong racist strain in the Republican Party that plays to its advantage. We don't like these realities, but we must face them. That doesn't make us racists.
4. As a black, Obama can never win.
5. As a white, Hillary is the only remaining Democratic candidate who can win.
6. It would be a fatal mistake for the Democratic Party to take a chance on attempting to elect the first nonwhite president because racist forces in American culture are insurmountable.
7. Therefore, the Democratic Party has no alternative but to nominate Hillary.
8. Under the circumstances, superdelegates have a fiduciary responsibility to overrule any primary and caucus votes cast for a black candidate.
There is a parallel argument to consider:
1. The U.S. is a sexist country.
2. While the electorate is roughly half male and half female, sad historical realities have meant almost all presidential candidates have been male. Without exception, all U.S. presidents have been male.
3. Consistent with the foregoing, it is clear that a significant portion of the male half of the electorate is sexist and will vote only for male presidential candidates. Moreover, female voters have been accustomed to voting for male candidates and can be counted on to accept a male candidate. In addition, there is a strong antifeminist strain in the Republican Party, even among Republican women, that will play to the advantage of Republicans if Democrats nominate a woman, especially a woman who lacks enthusiasm for baking cookies. We don't like these realities, but we must face them. That doesn't make us sexists.
4. As a female, Hillary can never win.
5. As a male, Obama is the only remaining Democratic candidate who can win.
6. It would be a fatal mistake for the Democratic Party to take a chance on attempting to elect the first female president because sexist forces in American culture are insurmountable.
7. Therefore, the Democratic Party has no alternative but to nominate Obama.
8. Under the circumstances, superdelegates have a fiduciary responsibility to overrule any primary and caucus votes cast for a female candidate.
It is debatable which argument is more powerful. Clearly, the safe course for Democrats was to nominate a white male. Since the irresistible forces of racism and sexism in American culture leave the Democratic Party in a hopeless position, we blew it. We reinforce the hopelessness of our position every time a Democrat says the black candidate can't attract enough white voters or the woman candidate can't attract enough male votes.
Curiously, this is where the symmetry breaks down. We've only been hearing one of these messages from Democrats. This is true even though the leading Democratic male candidate has generally trounced our leading female candidate with male voters. In North Carolina, for example, Clinton got only 39% of the male vote to Obama's 58% - didn't you hear the networks talking about that all night long, reminding us that Republicans and independents tend to be disproportionately male? Telling us this could hurt Hillary even more than the tendency of Republicans and independents to be disproportionately white hurts Obama?
Perhaps we should accept the hopelessness of our position now that we've doomed ourselves to choose between a female and a black candidate. On the other hand, like typical Quixotic Democrats who think they can improve the world, we can attempt to break through the racist or sexist barrier to the White House this year.
But which barrier should we try to break first?
A modest proposal: We could let Democratic primary and caucus voters decide, not superdelegates saving us from one candidate's theory of unelectability.
An even more modest proposal: We could stop saying a black can never win over white voters in a McCain-Obama matchup, and continue to refrain from saying a woman could never win over Republicans, independents, and many working class white males in a McCain-Clinton matchup.
Or we could go on cutting our own throats, sparing the delicate feelings of the Republicans who usually perform the gruesome task.
