Want a real change? Let’s try a black candidate! Or a woman!
I’ve always hated this argument. I find it patronizing and insulting to blacks and women—as well as to whites and men. I would never vote for a candidate based on race or gender. Granted, I haven’t had many options apart from white men, but there are a couple: I voted for Republican Barbara Hafer in the 1990 Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, and I voted to elect Cunningham, a black man, mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey in 2001. The only election where I didn’t choose a black or female candidate who was on the ballot was the 1988 Democratic primary, where I could have voted for Jesse Jackson, but didn’t, since I didn’t like him. Now that I’m a New Yorker, I’m sure I’ll vote for Hillary Clinton if I’m still a resident here in 2006, but that’s largely because I like her as a candidate and that I can’t imagine the Republicans coming up with a palatable candidate, unless that party has a sea change of some kind.
Vote for a black or female candidate? You mean like Alan Keyes? Al Sharpton? Elizabeth Dole? Marilyn Ashcraft? Margaret Thatcher? No, thank you. I’m sticking to voting for a candidate based on the strength of their positions and the content of their character. I’m sure most intelligent people think the same way.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am a white male, and I think that among the majority of elected officials, we white males are very badly represented. I can understand the appeal of seeing someone who physically and culturally resembles you holding office, and I’ll even admit that maybe I think that way somehow, though I don’t think I do. However: I still don’t see how one’s particular race or gender would make a person a better candidate.
I don’t think it’s that a different race or gender would make a better president - but I do believe that getting a woman or a black male in office would completely change people’s perceptions about what is possible in this country. Right now it is abundantly clear that you have to be a rich white male with an ivy league education to even get close to the presidency. It would be great to finally break the ultimate glass ceiling. Maybe then we’d get more people running for office who are interested in making the country better not just for a power rush.
Of course, appearances mean nothing. However, the experiences that come with appearance can make someone a better candidate. It’s one thing to be sympathetic to issues affecting the black community, for instance. It’s quite another thing to be empathetic. Someone who is empathetic is more likely to stick to their guns and evoke some changes.
Another thing: if “one of yours” is able to help your community through their political power, there isn’t that uncomfortable sensation that you owe someone. For instance, I’ve heard some whites complain that black people should be grateful for all the hard work white people have done to grant them their civil rights. Black people don’t owe white people for giving them what was due all along, but the perception of obligation is there because they have always been under the control of white people. In this weird way of thinking, black people don’t get any credit for their failure or success. So there is value–even if it’s just symbolic–in having significant representation in politics for a minority group.
I agree that people should not base their vote on the racial background and gender of a person. However, rarely will you find a candidate who has not been affected by their race and gender. A person’s experiences as a “minority” will enter into their political leanings and ideas. I might be tempted to vote for a woman not because she’s a woman, but because her experiences as a woman are similar to mine. Her experiences will give her an edge over a male candidate, even one who shares my political philosophy. But I wouldn’t deign to assume she has had particular experiences simply because she has a vagina.
A fairly nuanced OP, and an excellent response by [b[monstro**.
I only want to add that I’d be in favor of a different candidate, all qualifications being roughly equal, because of the symbolic effect. Having a black and/or female president would make a clear statement to society that black an/or female citizens are equally capable and should be equally taken serious.
kanicbird, your definition of racism seems to be much broader than I’m used to. I do not think you’re obliged to be egalitarian when you vote. You are allowed to vote for someone for the personal reason that he is a Christian. You would not be allowed to act on such a preference when you are hiring someone (at least AFAIK). Do you see the difference?
Interesting thread Chance, I had to think about it for a few minutes to figure where I stood. Earlier in my voting life, I was something of an idealist and I voted for as many black and women candidates as I could. Now I’m something of a moderate (who has on occasion voted for repubilican candidates) I tend to research the positions I stake out much more carefully with an eye towards electabilty. I would hope most did the same, however I totally understand the inclination.
yes Tusculan, I would say so. I really truly have a hard time telling the difference between what most people would consider racism and all incidents of prejudging people based on their race. This leads me to the conculsions that rasism is either not bad, or bad as defined by a select group only. The latter definition scares me so I really perfer the 1st.
Right now we’re in an Ivy Leage streak, true. However, before Bush I we have:
Reagan - Eureka College
Carter - Naval Academy
Ford - Michigan. Law degree at Yale
Nixon - Whittier and Duke
Johnson - Southwest Texas State Teachers College
Kennedy - Harvard. Last Ivy League president before Bush I.
Eisenhower - West Point
Truman - School of Hard Knocks
Roosevelt - Harvard and Columbia. Last Ivy League president before Kennedy.
Hoover - Stanford
That’s going back pretty far, and really doesn’t show a tremendous amount of Ivy League representation, IMO.
Being a white male, I can usually support a white male, shared experience and all that. We can usualy talk with each other and I usually understand where another white male is “coming from.” (As long as they are heterosexual)
Then you get your “George W. Bush” types and they ruin it for the rest of us white males. It’s people (White males) like GWB who are the reason the rest of us white males are having so much trouble staying in charge of everything.
I know I’ll feel a lot better if we can get Bush out of there and get Kerry in.
Mr. Moto addressed the “Ivy League” misconception. I’ll take on “rich”. Lots of presidents were not born rich. It is true that only a few could be considered desperately poor (Abe Lincoln, say), but only a few were born filthy rich. Bill Clinton certainly wasn’t born rich, was he? However, anyone who has the wherewithal to eventually become president is going to have something on the ball, no? And even if they grew up working class or middle class, they are probably going to be able to make something of themselves. So we have lower-middle-class Clinton going off to become a Rhodes Scholar, because he was smart and had a genius for schmoozing and networking. If you don’t have the smarts and/or a genius for making pals, why do you think anyone should vote for you to be president?
The assumption in the OP that people who espouse the ideas “Vote for a women! Vote for a black person!” mean they encourage voting for any women or black, and it’s an assumption that is generally dead wrong.
Most people, myself included, who think it’s important to “Vote for a woman/black person!” mean, “Vote for a woman or black person who you can support and whom you know something about.” For instance, it would be ludicrous to suggest that feminists would vote for, say, a woman who is a member of the KKK simply because she is a woman. The obvious racist tendency of such a person is generally anathema to feminist sensibilities.
The obvious value of the attitude that it’s important to vote for women or blacks is that it breaks the ceiling. It makes it possible for others to pursue things they may have never considered before, such as running for office themselves. It means realizing America as it should be, a free country where everyone has a chance. On the other hand, a bad female or black candidate sets the movements back, so it would be bad politics to espouse voting for any woman or man.
And btw, I am so tired of the white man’s backlash, the constant bitching and complaining because other people might have different political sensibilities and priorities, which they generally characterize with the typical white male whipping post: political correctness. It is not politically correctness to demand equal status in theory and practice.
Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see how fighting sexism/racism by bringing in more sexism/racism makes any more sense then Cecil fighting ignorance by book burnings.
Here is the plan I have been using. When I am researching who I am going to vote for I look at their stance on the issues. I don’t look at their chest or their skin color. Then on election day I go vote for the canidate who’s view points I feel are closest to my view points. I encourage others to do the same.
As monstro explained, it shouldn’t be about skin color or gender. It’s about life experiences. It is for example acceptable to prefer a candidate who has worked up from a middle/lower class background, to a candidate who comes from a rich family, isn’t it? (which doesn’t mean that the former candidate would only for that fact be better) I would assume, all other things being equal, that the former would be more sensitive to the problems of lower classes in society, having experienced them in person and in his direct environment.
Of course, this is only a slight preference. Qualifications and program take priority.
And the assumption need not hold. As far as I know, Margaret Thatcher for example did not show any particular sensitivity for the problems experienced by women in society (I may be wrong here, though).
[quote]
The assumption in the OP that people who espouse the ideas “Vote for a women! Vote for a black person!” mean they encourage voting for any women or black, and it’s an assumption that is generally dead wrong.
[/qutoe]
this is about the only thing you said that I agree with, but for different reasons. I would wager that the people who posted this sign has some affiliation or support of a particular party that has canidates who are female and or ‘black’. They just want their person to win…
BUT
They are appealing to racism in their political base to achieve this. It is insulting to the voting public, and specifically those who might vote for these canidates to have such a campain and moving the population in the direct opposite direction (color/gender blind society) that they appear at 1st glance to support.
After considering this issue further, I’d like to know how many people have run across a candidate (recently, as in, the last ten years) who runs on the premise, “I’m a woman, vote for me!” I daresay it might be easier to find a black candidate who runs on the premise that “I’m black, vote for me!” I’d still suggest, however, that that isn’t the norm. Moreover, how many campaigns can dopers think of (again, recently) where the battle cry has been “No more white men in power!” or even, “Defeat the white male candidate!”
And I don’t think that those who consider it important to vote for blacks and women are appealing to racism (or sexism) at all. I think they are appealing to fairness. As I said earlier, I think it’s not the norm for people to mindlessly pull the female/black candidate’s lever without any other information about them other than they are female or black. In my experience, people who consider it important to vote for black and female candidates are more politically aware than that. Furthermore, it has been my experience that many politically active people who espouse such a view are involved enough to try to recruit female and black candidates that match their political ideology in other ways as well.
An assumption that continues to be made is that voters such as these are doing this at any cost. I simply don’t believe, based on my experience and what I’ve read throughout 11 years of feminist interest, that that is the case.
Some people seem to think that societal equality (which is, in some ways, still a questionable reality) translates automatically to poltical equality. That hasn’t been the case. It is my belief that, until the fruits of the body politic look like the body politic itself, equality, at least in access, is not a reality. Flame me for that if you must. My skin is thick and my political priorities clear.
So myself being Male, on the next election I should give a slight preferance to the Male canidates because I feel their experiences as a “Male” will enter into their political leanings and ideas?
Good post all monstro, as usual. Just a teensy question though, when you say " Black people don’t owe white people for giving them what was due all along, but the perception of obligation is there because they have always been under the control of white people."
Do you mean black people’s perception? Or that of white people?