Return to the White House - And Don't Forget the Chicks This Time
I see and hear this sentiment quite a bit. The basic idea is that Senator Clinton has been the victim of horrible sexism throughout the campaign, and that some Obama supporters have taken part in the sexist rhetoric.
I think this is basically true (though Ms. Barnett seems to take some liberties with her descriptions), but I think the question is, what are we to conclude from this? Or to put it another way, what is to be done?
The conclusion many people want you to reach is that this is a good reason to vote for Clinton (or even to refrain from voting for Obama in the fall). There is some logic to this, but I think it would be a bit silly to vote for Clinton because she is sometimes mistreated, and it would be a major blunder to elect McCain because some people say nasty things about Hillary.
I won't bother with the obvious points about Obama not being responsible for everything his supporters do, the best candidate not necessarily being the one who suffers the most unfair attacks, etc. The real point, I think, is that elections aren't mere hiring decisions - elections have significance beyond the literal fact that the winner takes office. So for instance, say that a race effectively becomes a referendum on one issue. At that point, it makes sense to vote based on that issue, so long as you care enough about the symbolism of an election on that issue. So for instance, say you don't feel strongly about a particular race, but one of the candidates has been targeted for his support of something you agree with, and the race has effectively become a referendum on that issue. You might vote for that candidate to express your preferences on the salient issue, even if you think the other candidate would do a somewhat better job in office.
This is actually a dangerous dynamic that is subject to abuse. Mayor Royce decided to make race the issue because in Baltimore that seems like a winning issue against a white candidate.
In this case, Hillary supporters seem to believe that the race has become something like a referendum on sexism. Of course, there is the irony that the Clinton campaign probably tried to pull a Royce and amp up the salience of identity politics (in the Democratic party, women outnumber blacks, so stirring the racial pot made sense - which is not to say, of course, that Hillary is personally racist). The bigger point, though, is that a race doesn't become a referendum on something unless it is widely understood to have that significance. If you think Hillary would make a better president than Obama, but you really like Chicago, you should still vote for Hillary (other things being equal) - because no one is going to treat an Obama victory as a validation of Chicago's superiority.
Now, sexism is a bit more salient to this race than the relative merits of Chicago and New York, but at the end of the day few people are going to take an Obama victory as confirmation that sexism is a winning political issue. People may draw more subtle conclusions about the difficulties encountered by female candidates, but voting to express an opinion about a salient issue is different from voting out of sympathy. The former is simply not an option when it comes to sexism, because the race has not been understood as a contest of sexists against feminists (here's a partial explanation for why). In fact, you might say that the Clinton strategy backfired: by making race highly salient, but failing to make gender salient enough, the race has become more of a referendum on racism than on sexism (though it is not really a referendum on either).
So I think some people, outraged at the treatment of Hillary during the race, are looking to cast a symbolic vote, but nevertheless little or no symbolic meaning will attach to the votes. Certainly, a vote for McCain against Obama is not going to be interpreted as a rallying cry against the mistreatment of Hillary.
So at the end of the day, having failed (thankfully) to turn the race into a referendum on sexism, people who don't like the way Hillary is treated should say so - but they shouldn't say so at the ballot box, where they won't be heard. It would be pretty horrible if sexist comments, many of which came from conservative Republicans, ended up costing the Democrats the presidency.
I think this is basically true (though Ms. Barnett seems to take some liberties with her descriptions), but I think the question is, what are we to conclude from this? Or to put it another way, what is to be done?
The conclusion many people want you to reach is that this is a good reason to vote for Clinton (or even to refrain from voting for Obama in the fall). There is some logic to this, but I think it would be a bit silly to vote for Clinton because she is sometimes mistreated, and it would be a major blunder to elect McCain because some people say nasty things about Hillary.
I won't bother with the obvious points about Obama not being responsible for everything his supporters do, the best candidate not necessarily being the one who suffers the most unfair attacks, etc. The real point, I think, is that elections aren't mere hiring decisions - elections have significance beyond the literal fact that the winner takes office. So for instance, say that a race effectively becomes a referendum on one issue. At that point, it makes sense to vote based on that issue, so long as you care enough about the symbolism of an election on that issue. So for instance, say you don't feel strongly about a particular race, but one of the candidates has been targeted for his support of something you agree with, and the race has effectively become a referendum on that issue. You might vote for that candidate to express your preferences on the salient issue, even if you think the other candidate would do a somewhat better job in office.
This is actually a dangerous dynamic that is subject to abuse. Mayor Royce decided to make race the issue because in Baltimore that seems like a winning issue against a white candidate.
In this case, Hillary supporters seem to believe that the race has become something like a referendum on sexism. Of course, there is the irony that the Clinton campaign probably tried to pull a Royce and amp up the salience of identity politics (in the Democratic party, women outnumber blacks, so stirring the racial pot made sense - which is not to say, of course, that Hillary is personally racist). The bigger point, though, is that a race doesn't become a referendum on something unless it is widely understood to have that significance. If you think Hillary would make a better president than Obama, but you really like Chicago, you should still vote for Hillary (other things being equal) - because no one is going to treat an Obama victory as a validation of Chicago's superiority.
Now, sexism is a bit more salient to this race than the relative merits of Chicago and New York, but at the end of the day few people are going to take an Obama victory as confirmation that sexism is a winning political issue. People may draw more subtle conclusions about the difficulties encountered by female candidates, but voting to express an opinion about a salient issue is different from voting out of sympathy. The former is simply not an option when it comes to sexism, because the race has not been understood as a contest of sexists against feminists (here's a partial explanation for why). In fact, you might say that the Clinton strategy backfired: by making race highly salient, but failing to make gender salient enough, the race has become more of a referendum on racism than on sexism (though it is not really a referendum on either).
So I think some people, outraged at the treatment of Hillary during the race, are looking to cast a symbolic vote, but nevertheless little or no symbolic meaning will attach to the votes. Certainly, a vote for McCain against Obama is not going to be interpreted as a rallying cry against the mistreatment of Hillary.
So at the end of the day, having failed (thankfully) to turn the race into a referendum on sexism, people who don't like the way Hillary is treated should say so - but they shouldn't say so at the ballot box, where they won't be heard. It would be pretty horrible if sexist comments, many of which came from conservative Republicans, ended up costing the Democrats the presidency.
posted by James | 6:58 PM
1 Comments:
The links on the Stranger post are largely bogus; I've clicked on several so far and not found one that tends to support the thesis its cited for.
(Wait, no, I found one: the Republican strategist starting an anti-Hillary group called CUNT. But I don't think that generates any real pro-Hillary or anti-Obama argument.)
Post a Comment
<< Home