Has there ever been an election, even at the early state of this election, with so many legitimate candidates that would be precedent setting? Feasibly, in January 2009, we could be introduced to our first woman President, or the first African-American president, or the first Hispanic President. (Hey, we've even got a Mormon running this time! How cute.) This in a country that has only had one president who wasn't a male, white, and Protestant. (That would be JFK, the only Catholic president we've ever had. And it's not as if he was an outsider.) We've had female candidates before, and we've had black candidates before. Hell, we've even had black female candidates before.
So this must be progress, right? Is this another of John's notpocalypse's? I'm just not sure. Race has certainly been an issue for Barack Obama. Oddly, he has been accused of being "too white." It's not a big stretch to see that what he is really being called is an "Uncle Tom." I'd hardly consider that a sign of any sort of progress.
So is it progress in gender relations that Hillary Clinton is a viable candidate for President? Possibly. There have been powerful woman politicians for some time. (For example, Margaret Chase Smith, whose portraits are all over the Senate House, and, by the way, who was also a candidate for President at one point.) I think in evaluating Hillary Clinton's candidacy as progress, you need to look, at least in part, at the way she is covered in the press. In my mind, Hillary gets a tough go of it in the press, especially in regards to her personality. Hillary is often referred to as cold, or vicious; i.e. bitchy. Male candidates with relatively similar personality issues (driven, stubborn, bad temper) include, well, most of the candidates for president. Still, Clinton has managed to at least somewhat be seen on her own as a political figure. No small achievement considering the size of the shadow cast by her husband. This alone should probably be considered some progress.
So does the makeup of the candidates serve as a sign of progress in this country? Maybe. Real progress will be seen when it's not newsworthy that we have minority candidates or female candidates. Color me as one person who will still be shocked if we end up in 2009 with anyone who doesn't fit the standard of straight, married, upperclass protestant male.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
OK, so in re-reading that, I'm a bit doubtful that I made my point, but I don't really feel like rewriting it.
My point is basically this:
Some of the ways in which these Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are covered in the media make me wonder how much progress we've really made. That's all.
I agree, in fashion. In genetic terms, it is as accurate to refer to Barak as white.
More importantly in my opinion is the fact that Media coverage consistently misses the point. Candidates and 'progress' ought to be measured not by skin tone or X chromosome count, but by the strength and merit of their policy.
Real progress is a substantive choice, and to that extent I agree also with you ... it will surprise me more if, come Jan 09, we have a person of real substance in the whitehouse than if that person be black or woman.
I may have just spoiled my next blog entry.
It may be genetically accurate to refer to Barack as white, but I believe he identifies himself as African American.
Of course, I agree with your point that substance would be the real sign of progress, but judging that could be a very personal judgement. Just a guess, but it seems pretty possible that there would be someone I might consider "of substance" who you might not feel the same way about.
Would you consider Clinton or Obama a person of substance?
I don't know how to blabber very well like John & steve so....Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!
Oh come on Lizzy, you know you can blabber with the best of them.
Certainly, the depth of a candidate's substance is a subjective issue. I'm not sure that we wouldn't agree in most cases however ... I think it's more of a class line than anything. Note that capitalism and consumerism (the two pillars of American culture) have given us millions of choices for cereal, but only two choices for president. This is a travesty.
I don't consider either Clinton or Obama to be of substance. That doesn't mean that I hate them or anything, it just means their policy is either non-existent or weak. This could change, especially for Obama who is new to the horse race.
On the other hand, I consider the republican side to be in shambles ... I think in the next 3 months we'll find out if they can can produce a candidate that won't be a joke. My vote is that they can't.
I'd have to disagree on Clinton. I think her track record as a senator is better than most, and she does have a good record as a consesus maker in the Senate.
As for Obama, I do have hope that he will become a substantive candidate, but I worry that he is basically going to run as the fresh face, although he has shown some willingness to delve into the issues.
As far as the republicans go, while I may not like them as candidates, I would right now have to say that McCain and Guiliani are substantive candidates.
--
As far as the cereal metaphor goes, it's not a bad one. There are hundreds of cereals, that might be popular, but only a few brands. (Kellogg's, General Mills, etc.) This seems pretty similar to having 45 or so candidates, not counting me, and two main political parties.
Post a Comment