Frank, maybe you can help me out with a question I don’t have an answer for.
Every minority of every stripe has historically voted preferentially for candidates who belonged to their minority, presumably because, as also demonstrated historically, those candidates in office are more aware of issues that are specific to that minority - or at least exacerbated by being a minority - and advocate policies which alleviate those problems. Consequently, those minorities have historically been vocal in their preference toward and allegiance to minority candidates of their type.
The only exception I know to this overwhelming historic trend of vocal preference has occurred recently in the minority of white, male, straight Christians - even though white, male, straight Christians have demonstrably benefited hugely by the preferential policies toward themselves voted on by white, male, straight Christian politicians.
No doubt exists as to the high correlation of membership in a grouping and policies that specifically aid that grouping. (High correlation, of course, means that perfect correlation doesn’t occur; i.e. there are exceptions.) So why do white, male, straight Christians presumably straightfacely deny this obvious and long-standing (dating to the very founding of the Constitution) behavior?
If that is the only information I have, I’d vote for the woman, on the presumption that women are under-represented in elected office.
If I’m allowed to know what the distribution is in office, that might play a part. Are there any states in the U.S. where the majority of the legislature are women? (I’m betting not.)
I’m obviously not Frank, but my hypothesis would be that they realize that they have it good and don’t want ‘others’ preempting their privilege. (I’m definitely an Adamsian on the Adams <----> Jefferson scale.)
Because in American politics, not all races or genders are considered equally laudable - in the sense of advocating for that race or gender.
“I am here to advocate on behalf of black people” = “A voice speaking for diversity, the underdogs, and for equality”
“I am here to advocate on behalf of white people” = “Racist, oppressive, promoting white-privilege.”
Same thing with gender; someone who speaks out on behalf of women is going to be viewed differently than someone who advocates for the interests of men.
In 2008, it was much more acceptable to say that one was voting for Obama because he was black than it was for someone to say he was voting for McCain because he was white. That’s just the nature of the game.
Iraq, anyone? Hillary is less hawkish than most GOP types, but she’s way too hawkish for me. One of the most important decisions a CiC can make is whether or not to go war. HRC has failed twice (Iraq and Libya) already. Give me Bernie on foreign policy any day. That’s the thing a president can do all by him/herself. Passing legislation favorable to women… not so much.
Funny, but I always thought it was the President (and, at least eventually, Congress) who went to war. The closest Hillary comes is one in 100 of one body.
My point is not that white, male, straight Christians overtly claim that they vote for other white, male, straight Christian politicians. That would indeed look biased. What they do is deny that anyone of any minority should vote for someone of that minority just because they share that characteristic.
It’s part of a larger issue. Whites are prone to denying that they are advantaged over people of color. Males normally refuse to acknowledge that women are held back. Straights commonly dismiss the concept of discrimination against gays. Christians want their freedom of religion while blocking that of other faiths, or atheists. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
I’m not denying any of that, yet I still believe that people should vote for the candidates who best suit their views on the issues. A member of a minority who votes for a fellow member may very well be doing this, and I have no problem with that.
What I am arguing is that the simple fact that a candidate shares a gender, race, whatever with the vote is not, in and of itself, a reason to vote for that person. (The link in the OP is apparently arguing that it is.) If you’ve got (as posited above) Person A and Person B who are virtually identical other than gender, race, whatever, then sure, let that be your deciding point. Go nuts. But if you vote for someone whose views don’t match yours simply because they are a member of the same group you are, then you’re failing in your duty as an informed voter.
Historically speaking, the odds are extremely high that a member of your minority will advocate for issues that are important to you. Johnny Ace cited this way back in post #3.
The position of white, male, straight Christians is that all other things being equal you can vote for anybody. The position of everybody else is that other things are never equal and pretending that kind of equality exists in this world benefits only white, male, straight Christians since all good things flow toward them without the special pleading required of everyone else.
If you are not a white, male, straight Christian you learn this in your bones because you encounter it every day of your lives, in an infinity of ways, subtle to blatant. If you are a white, male straight Christian it may become intellectually true but never viscerally crucial.
Everybody else knows that voting for a fellow minority is equivalent to voting for one’s views unless specifically proven otherwise. Only white, male, straight Christians have the luxury of thinking otherwise.
Yes. If you are at the top of the status-pyramid you have a vested interest in declaring that there IS no pyramid: ‘it’s a level playing field, and I got there based solely on my own talents and virtues!’
It’s part of human nature to ascribe our success to our own efforts rather than to hereditary privilege. (And, handily, the same philosophy lets us dismiss the less advantaged as ‘deserving whatever they get’ due to not being hard-working enough, not having the correct cultural mores and values, not having made correct decisions, and so on.)
The article isn’t saying ‘women should vote for female candidates regardless of their views;’ it’s saying, basically: examine your biases, as you may be operating on unconscious biases against female candidates. There are plenty of women who are aware that they will please the men in their life better by declaring support for a male candidate, while vigorously denying that gender plays any role in that decision. Good girls don’t put themselves–or other girls–forward; they know their place and are uncomfortable with females who violate the ‘natural order.’
As an aside: Michelle Obama, an accomplished and intelligent attorney, knew better than to ever speak her mind on any matters of import outside the Female Realm, while First Lady. If she wanted to avoid ceaseless attacks, she had to be meticulous in sticking to “women’s issues” only (kid’s health, in her case). It may be the 21st century, but just as has been for two and a half centuries, no wise First Lady will put herself forward into matters that fall outside Woman’s Role.
Only those at the very top of the status-pyramid (as you point out: white, male, straight Christians) genuinely believe that sexism (like racism and other demographically-based biases) doesn’t exist. The rest of us may placate the WMSCs by agreeing ‘it doesn’t exist’—but in fact, we know better.
And yet because of that I bet that you notice far more acutely the level of references to and assumptions of the normality and default status of Christianity that fill the air.
True, but it isn’t generally something that’s going to come up very often as far as prejudicial treatment is concerned, because you really have to get to know me to even discover it…and, unlike politics, it’s not something that I bring up very often, unless it has some kind of specific application to the discussion.
On second thought, maybe I have experienced it in more conventional ways. Unlike a lot of those WMSC’s, I grew up in a lower middle class, integrated area, ran with a diverse crowd of friends in childhood, and experienced reverse racism a lot in my first couple of years of high school. So I could be a bit more predisposed to see it in that way than the general run of WMSC’s.
If Hilary is the eventual Demo candidate, I will vote for her for these reasons, in this order. 1 - She is the Democratic candidate and I’m a Democrat; 2 - She is a woman and this is a barrier we need to break, just as we broke the color barrier when Obama was elected.
I don’t believe one’s gender or color or ethnic origin in any way entitles you to be the winning candidate, but if serendipity ensues and the candidate is female or some other type of minority, I’d be happier to vote for this individual because it would also achieve a needed social goal. A nice, neat two-for-one deal.