This election is not about race and gender. It's about overcoming racism and sexism.
As individuals, neither Obama nor Clinton embodies the disenfranchisement that gave rise to the civil rights and feminist movements. Obama, demonstrating how inadequate language can be, is literally African-American, yet his Kenyan father and white mother mean his family tree has been spared the generations of slavery and Jim Crow laws that "African-American" often signifies. This is not to diminish Obama's experience as a non-white skinned man in America; it's simply to point out
that the effects of discrimination are often compounded over time, like a high-interest credit card.
And Clinton, although a seasoned and formidable politician in her own right, comes to the ticket with the benefit of a former president husband. Bill not only afforded her free media and access to influence for much of her professional life, but implicitly promises back-up in the Oval Office. America may very well elect a woman president, but she won't be a woman alone.
These are facts the candidates can't change and don't particularly disguise. But they should make us pause before we declare Obama and Clinton show that race and gender in America have been neutralized. Instead, let's talk about what's really happening: when Obama and Clinton spar in a debate or speak at a rostrum in front of the American flag, we as the American public are forced to associate black and female with power.
This election is chipping away at our implicit attitudes. When Clinton speaks, we come to associate a woman's voice with authority. When she tears up or says her feelings are hurt, we expand the range of public emotion we allow our leaders. When the president is invoked as a general concept, speakers and writers now refer to "he or she." In a few months, Hillary Clinton
has achieved what English teachers have failed to do for decades: make Americans aware of the appropriate pronoun for a singular antecedent.
Obama has of course also changed presidential rhetoric. The word "brother"--as in, "I would have to see [Bill Clinton] dance to know if he is a real brother"--has never, to my knowledge, been spoken before in a presidential debate (unless it was by a Kennedy). The cadence of presidential speechmaking has been exploded. Obama's stump speech has the rhythm of a call-and-response sermon. In South Carolina, where the audience was predominantly African-American, the candidate and the crowd spoke in counterpoint.
Perhaps one of the most striking but underestimated visual images of this campaign season is of Obama's wife and daughters on the victory dais. Historically, the First Family influences fashion. If Obama is elected in the general, will American woman follow Michelle's lead in clothes and cosmetics, and start wearing their hair in braids, as Malia and Sasha do? An entire genre of literature has been devoted to African-American women's fraught relationship with Caucasian hallmarks of beauty (most notably Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye"); an Obama presidency could change the way women of all colors perceive their appearances, and at last institutionalize the conviction that black is beautiful.
Hillary is legitimately criticized on her support of the Iraq war, her years as a corporate lawyer on the board of companies like Walmart, her shady dealings at the Rose law firm, and her attempts to parlay her role as first lady into an image of a co-presidency. She responds by labeling these concerns as sexism. The debate should be over the core issues of the war in Iraq, the economy, health care... Factor out race and gender, and Obama is the clear choice.
I was glad to see you mention Obama's immigrant background. Back when there was discussion of a possible Colin Powell run for the presidency, it occurred to me that the first black president would have to be the descendant of immigrants and not of slaves. I also thought that the first black or female president would have to be a Republican, since Republicans are more likely to vote for Republicans, but Democrats are more likely to cross over for a black or female candidate. But I digress.
It is no coincidence that both Colin Powell and Barack Obama, the only black politicians who up to now have gotten mainstream consideration for the presidency, share an immigrant background. They embody the unburdened American dream of finding success on America's shores and the illusion that we have transcended race, when we have really barely glossed over it. Someone who descends from slavery would still be a slap in the face of America's quietly continued repression of a shameful past held precariously in the balance. It is only with difficulty that I can imagine such a candidacy getting mainstream recognition without some violence. But this powderkeg is what race relations in America are really all about. History has built a wall of distrust between American whites and blacks.
Barack Obama, whose biography is largely free of this tension, has done a lot to break down that wall, but the dream of the slave remains a dream. And so those looking for real hope and inspiration in his candidacy should look to his wife and his children.
That if we're debating whether Obama's black or Clinton's a woman we're too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a voting booth?
Maybe someday we'll have a race where OUR concerns are included- you know the ones about peace amongst nations, our children's future, our quality of life, economic justice...
meanwhile we'll decide should we wear our hair in braids or just tear it out
I refuse to watch Hardball anymore because Chris Mathews always has to ask the simplest, most stereotypical questions like "is america ready to elect a black man?". I think it reveals him to be the one who has the issue. He needs to get out and talk to real people for a change.
___________________________________________
It says we're imbeciles who cannot possibly contemplate anything as complicated as actually studying the issues, and analyzing a candidate's stand on those issues.
It also explains why a so-called "democrat" might even vote for a supporter of the use of cluster-bombs on civilians... a traditional democratic value, no doubt...
Not One!
So what that tells me is that the pundits, talking heads, and paid flacks for the MSM and Corporate America are the ones steering the discussion in that direction, spoon feeding us the meme of the day, looking into corners for shadows that don't exist, and trying to pass that off as news worthy of another 500 word column!
It is the same power play that has eliminated some of our very best candidates, and you can read about it on:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-l-pozner/super-tuesday-media-musin_b_85097.html
or peripherally here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/recordbreaking-administr_b_84801.html
or here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/super-tuesday-the-illusi_b_84799.html
The power of the Corporate owned MSM, and even to a certain extent, the alternate media like HuffPo and others, to shape the context and issues of the election in the way that drives the most readers and sales, is what keeps this non-issue in the forefront of this race. It is also a very convenient way to avoid reporting on the substantive challenges our country faces and demanding Real solution from our pretneders to the throne that might upset the Elites who write the pundits checks!
Try to talk about Populism or the things that matter most to real Americans and you end up on page 12 and then out of the race just like Edwards and the rest. Wake up America. You have sold your rights and this is the result.
Some people will say, whoever loses, "See? We never should have run a blank. The country is just not ready." And they will use that to keep everyone except white males out of the political offices.
I was once hired in a place where they told me they had only had one woman before me, and she started crying at a certain stressful point. I didn't believe them, I heard this same story from so many men, just all bs to justify their own sexism. But anyway, I didn't cry. I think I made a few of them cry, but I didn't cry. I don't think there were any issues after that about whether they could hire women. They clung to it as long as they could, but it just go so tired and old, and so disproven.
What significance if we talk about it? Go ahead, get it out of your system because it is tired and old. Then let's get on with our business.
Not just the news media. Over the decades, Amos 'n' Andy gave way to Julia and Cosby. Mary Tyler Moore was gonna make it after all. Advertisers began to reflect diversity in their commercials.
This was not legislated. It was a willful effort to drive change. And market approved. The result was growing acceptance, year after year, of a diverse culture. Eroding (drop-drip-drip) stubborn implicit racism.
Now before you start flaming me, I know we still have a long way to go. In some areas, a long, long way to go. But with these two great candidates on the stage, let's take a moment to pride ourselves in how far we've come.
That was nice. Now back to work.