Playin’ Cards
Guest Post by dnA
For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the issue is not whether or not they will be the target of racist or sexist commentary, but when, and how they respond to it.
Back in November, the media narrative about Hillary Clinton’s dipping poll numbers centered around a weak debate performance in late October, and also a perception that the Senator had played the “gender card” as a response to criticism from Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Clinton’s advisers also believe Edwards, because he was so aggressive, risks turning off voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. They believe even more strongly that the spectacle of a group of men attacking the lone female candidate on the stage represents, in their words, “the politics of pile-on.”
Clinton’s numbers, particularly among men, fell at that point.
But in New Hampshire, the wall-to-wall coverage of Clinton’s “meltdown” (the kind of “meltdown” that has practically become a daily occurrence on the Romney campaign) may have provoked what Matthew Yglesias called a “gender backlash” in response to news coverage of Clinton that was plainly sexist.
What bothered them as much as the Iowa results, said several dozen women in states with coming primaries, was the gleeful reaction to her defeat and what seemed like unfair jabs in the final moments before the New Hampshire voting.
Likewise, the most common (backhanded) compliment given to Obama by conservatives, (other than acknowledgements of his ability as an orator) is that he is “not like Al Sharpton,” a statement which not only calls to mind old stereotypes about “good Negroes” and “bad Negroes,” but seems to hint at a dynamic that will define how Clinton and Obama will have to deal with issues of gender and race that are directed at them, which is simply by avoiding them, lest they alienate voters.
The kind of “compliments” Obama receives for his perceived unwillingness to play the “race card” could easily be reversed into criticisms that he is “just like the rest of them” should he ever address the issue of racism against himself more directly.
But the same is true of Clinton and gender. American voters seem to prefer that their candidates suffer in silence in response to slights directed at their race or gender, and they reward them for it. While Hillary Clinton seemed to dip in the polls after some accused her of playing the “gender card” in October, Democratic voters responded strongly to sexist coverage of Clinton’s non-meltdown in New Hampshire. Following that incident, Clinton did not say anything that could be perceived as playing the “gender card,” but voters were able to see for themselves how she was being treated in the press. Had she actually accused the press of being sexist herself, we might have seen a different outcome.
The problem is that the phenomenon seems to favor not addressing questions of either race or gender and how we respond to them as voters. Recent comments from the Clinton campaign have been perceived as racist among some in the black community (including, in many instances, myself) but that many whites have seen as innocuous.
This divide in perception about the role race and racism play in public and private life is reflected in a recent Pew poll of white and black Americans. Blacks are far more likely to say that discrimination is “widespread” among the four areas of public life measured than whites are. Likewise, in response to arguably the most explosive racial (or in the view of some, racialized) incident in recent history, Hurricane Katrina, whites and blacks had drastically different perceptions as to whether or not anti-black discrimination played a role in the Bush Administration’s response. I feel obligated to note that Obama agrees with most whites on this issue.
While I was unable to find similar surveys dealing with gender, but I wouldn’t be surprised if men were far less likely to see sexism as a factor in public and private life than women.
What this widespread disparity in perception says is that the country is in need of a constructive conversation on race and gender. Unfortunately, Clinton and Obama may have to avoid them entirely in order to get elected.
jen flowers
says:Avoidance may well be their best option. And, crossing my fingers, after 2008, at least one of the “isms” may not be coupled with so much resentment. Hard to argue for racism or sexism as a national pastime when a member of those groups holds the White House.
I just hope we don’t all go out and actively look for comments which demonstrate sexism and racism. If they slap you in the face, yes, but the parsing has to stop. Leave that to the inflated talking heads on tv.
thinkoutsidetheblog
says:What’s better? That they avoid the gender and race baiting traps and actually get elected, putting themselves in a position to change things? Or that they make a big deal out of fairly minor stuff and risk putting someone in office who will be ultimately hostile to the needs of both African Americans and women?
Maybe this just isn’t the type of arena to have that conversation.
zeitgeist
says:it is hard enough to break these kinds of gender and race barriers without race or gender being the central focus. what would make more sense to me would be to get Clinton or Obama in office and use their presence there as the springboard for a robust discussion. but lets not risk losing a chance to break a major barrier, for both its substantive and symbolic value, by jumping the gun on pressing society to have a discussion it clearly likes to avoid.
libra
says:Nice post; thanks, dnA. Both gender and race (but race in particular) seem to me to be subjects that liberals like to discuss only in the abstract and, as a result, do not go into the problems too deeply, more’s the pity.
But in the context of this (presidential) race, it *is* quite a dilemma, isn’t it? Both Clinton and Obama do have the extra baggage (gender in one case, race in the other) to carry, but have to pretend otherwise and ignore the extra shit thrown at them. I agree with your conclusion and the comments above, though; they both have to bite their tongue for as long as they can bear it and let others defend them. But, once one of them is in office (if one of them is), I would certainly hope that they’d pick up again on that long overdue “conversation” on *both* subjects. Problems, which are never brought out into daylight and aired openly, tend to fester…
Awkward Silence
says:I think the most we can hope for is that Obama and Clinton’s candidacies will help spark and fuel the kind of discussion on race and gender so desperately needed by the country. Expecting Clinton and Obama to personally address these matters is a nice thought, but they’re running for president not leading a social movement.
Race and gender have deep-seated roots in the American consciousness. Tracing and untangling them is something most Americans would prefer to avoid (no matter what their beliefs and background) because they know it’s going to bring up a lot of dirt in the process.
People, Americans especially, like to believe that we are subject only to our own free will (and perhaps God). The idea that race and gender, as well as any number of other factors like religion and nationality, might impact our judgement in ways we don’t recognize robs people of their sense of free will. So most people just avoid it. I don’t know if Obama and Clinton are obligated to make sure people come to a better understanding of these issues, but I hope their running helps make people more aware and introspective on these issues.
lavrentia
says:People often mention this idea of Obama not being black enough; we don’t hear it in the same words that often, but many people don’t think Clinton is feminine enough, and that cry was an attempt to prove otherwise. Didn’t make up for the hawkishness that was an attempt to prove the opposite. I think it would be better to address these issues directly instead of though disingenuous gestures.
independent thinker
says:Unless a blatently sexist or racist comment comes their way, they are right to “rise above it.” Having a woman or an African American sitting in the oval office will do far FAR more good than getting into a brawl of words right now.
And we do not help when we parse every turn of phrase for possible sexist or racist overtones. We must resist this urge or risk dragging Clinton and Obama down in our self-rightious zeal.
Tact. Discernment. Wisdom. These are the tools we need right now.
Not fooled.
says:I think it’s crappy that Obama is allowing the race card to be played.
Just because others are doing the dirty work for him, he’s allowing it to happen.
Who knows, Obama may have strategized this from the beginning, in case things got tough.
Obama will never be Dr. King. He should stop ripping of King’s speeches.
dnA
says:Not fooled,
You’ve never been to a black Church before, huh?
Not fooled.
says:dnA,
We’re not talking about Church.
This is an election. A political event.
(Maybe this just points out another of Obama’s problems/weaknesses.)
Nuff said.
dnA
says:You’ve clearly missed the point. Obama is not “ripping off Dr. King” any more than King was “ripping off” the generations of black preachers from whom King adopted his tone and cadence. Obama’s method of public speaking comes from that tradition. So do the styles of thousands of other public speakers, political or otherwise.
America is smarter than you think
says:Bill and Hillary Clinton are trying to play on the fears many white people have of blacks. Even if they have to step on a few black toes, they know that black people arent’ going anywhere in the general election, and they know that white people like to pretend that everything is alright. They are hoping that everyone will just vote for the white person to avoid this messy “race stuff”.
Only one problem – Hillary Clinton is gonna lose the White House to the Republicans. Choose your poison.