Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
What New Hampshire tells us about identity politics
I've heard a lot of questions about what happened in New Hampshire. That is, (1) why were the polls for the Democratic primary off by such a large amount, and (2) how did Hillary Clinton recover so much in the last day or so before the vote?
The answer may include the Iowa "bounce" subsiding after polls ended, independents voting McCain due to Obama being a "lock", and of course, the "tears". The last is most commonly cited, but least understood.
I believe the way to understand this is in terms of Clinton successfully awakening older women to their gender identity. An excellent article on this:
http://iht.com/articles/2008/01/10/america/women.php
The end of that article includes the following point:
This reminds me of comments I saw after Obama's surge, and that I continue to see, talking about race. For the generation of people in their 40s and older, who grew up in the 60s, there is a great consciousness of race and gender that filters how they see politics and life. This consciousness enabled many to push for important changes. It also led to (or merely flushed out latent) resentment among others at these changes.
The sometimes bitter irony of the struggle for change is that it often obsoletes the reason for its existence. Progress has been made; both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are entirely credible and viable presidential candidates. Part of this, however, is because they are not primarily seen in terms of their gender or race, respectively.
That's not to say that all problems and prejudices are past. Rather, to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, it's that folks learn that hating someone based on their gender or race is sloppy, when if you get to know people there are so many better reasons to hate them. The political left and right have both seen Margaret Thatchers and Clarence Thomases. For every sexist who grudgingly admits that a woman can run a good war, there's a progressive dismayed that someone's skin color doesn't make them an ally. As a generation grows up with consumption- and ambition-driven two-income families, as new external enemies are defined and new waves of discomforting immigrants arrive, the old lower social classes (like the Italians, Irish, Poles, non-landowning, etc) earn their stripes, become the upperclassmen.
As a society, we are slowly moving past the identity politics of the 60s. The 21st century identity politics are those of religion and language. Perhaps in 2040 we will make a fuss of the agnostic or Muslim candidate, or the Spanish-speaking nominee whose parents were granted amnesty by Reagan. Her conservative politics will make us voice suspicion or dismay, and our children will wonder what the fuss is.
Today, though, Democratic voters are in a tug of war between the grandparents who aspire to win the battles of their lives through Hillary Clinton, and their children who look to move past both those battles and the identity politics they represent through Barack Obama.
The answer may include the Iowa "bounce" subsiding after polls ended, independents voting McCain due to Obama being a "lock", and of course, the "tears". The last is most commonly cited, but least understood.
I believe the way to understand this is in terms of Clinton successfully awakening older women to their gender identity. An excellent article on this:
http://iht.com/articles/2008/01/10/america/women.php
The end of that article includes the following point:
In interviews, some Democratic women over 40, who said they had experienced stinging sexism, seemed to long for the election of a female president - they said Clinton would fill the role just fine - as a grand moment of validation.
But younger women, who have grown up in a world of greater parity, seemed less likely to allow gender to influence their vote.
In some cases, this split is playing out within families. Myra Dinnerstein, 73, a former professor of women's studies at the University of Arizona, said Clinton's setbacks had saddened and angered her.
"I used to tell my students that I would never live to see a woman president, and now that there has been a golden opportunity, we are letting it slip away," Dinnerstein said.
A few hours later, after hearing about Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire primary, she sent out a celebratory e-mail message: "Hurrah! I think women got as mad as I was, seeing Hillary trashed. I think they realized that 'the gender thing' exists."
But Dinnerstein's daughter, Julie Dinnerstein, 39, who works for a nonprofit feminist organization in New York, said she would vote for Obama in the Feb. 5 primary.
"Senator Clinton's struggles are not my own, and they are not those of my generation of women," the younger Dinnerstein said. "The idea of a woman being president just does not seem to be as powerful or as revolutionary to me as it does to feminists of my mother's generation."
This reminds me of comments I saw after Obama's surge, and that I continue to see, talking about race. For the generation of people in their 40s and older, who grew up in the 60s, there is a great consciousness of race and gender that filters how they see politics and life. This consciousness enabled many to push for important changes. It also led to (or merely flushed out latent) resentment among others at these changes.
The sometimes bitter irony of the struggle for change is that it often obsoletes the reason for its existence. Progress has been made; both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are entirely credible and viable presidential candidates. Part of this, however, is because they are not primarily seen in terms of their gender or race, respectively.
That's not to say that all problems and prejudices are past. Rather, to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, it's that folks learn that hating someone based on their gender or race is sloppy, when if you get to know people there are so many better reasons to hate them. The political left and right have both seen Margaret Thatchers and Clarence Thomases. For every sexist who grudgingly admits that a woman can run a good war, there's a progressive dismayed that someone's skin color doesn't make them an ally. As a generation grows up with consumption- and ambition-driven two-income families, as new external enemies are defined and new waves of discomforting immigrants arrive, the old lower social classes (like the Italians, Irish, Poles, non-landowning, etc) earn their stripes, become the upperclassmen.
As a society, we are slowly moving past the identity politics of the 60s. The 21st century identity politics are those of religion and language. Perhaps in 2040 we will make a fuss of the agnostic or Muslim candidate, or the Spanish-speaking nominee whose parents were granted amnesty by Reagan. Her conservative politics will make us voice suspicion or dismay, and our children will wonder what the fuss is.
Today, though, Democratic voters are in a tug of war between the grandparents who aspire to win the battles of their lives through Hillary Clinton, and their children who look to move past both those battles and the identity politics they represent through Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
