So over at my other site we are having a little debate/discussion about whether or not a candidate’s race should matter in an election. My Dad, who is the quintesessential Ohio swing voter, asked if people thought it was racist not to vote for the black candidate (Ken Blackwell) for governor. Knowing him he was being sarcastic, but like it or not, racial identity and racial politics do matter in these elections.
This particular election cycle breaks the record for the number of black (male) candidates running for statewide offices. Here’s how the major races that I am familiar with break down:
Ohio Governor’s Race: Features two men, a white Democrat Ted Strickland against a black Republican Ken Blackwell
Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Also has two men and a similar racial dynamic, a white Democrat Ed Rendell vs. a black Republican Lynn Swan
Massachusetts Governor’s Race: Has a black male Democrat Deval Patrick vs. a white female Republican Kerry Healey.
Tennessee Senate Race: Features two men, black Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. and white Republican Bob Corker.
Maryland Senate Race: Features two men, black Republican Michael Steele and a white Democrat Ben Cardin
I am curious what others think. How important to you think race will be in these races? Do you think race should ever be a factor in voting? I know I have focused mostly on race, but what about gender? Should a candidate’s gender ever matter?
My own personal sense is that I care more about a person’s racial or gender politics than their racial or gender identity; however, there is no doubt a contingent of American voters who do care about candidates identities. They may be a minority, but they still exist. What do you think?
While I would prefer racial and gender balance in government, I vote on purely color- and gender- blind bases. I guess if I was a registered party voter I’d vote disproportionately for minority and women in the primaries, but in the general election it’s the party machinery that matters.
In a perfect world, everyone would vote color- and gender- blind, and we’d be certain that race and gender disparities in government were statistical artifacts. As is, there is prejudice, and so there’s an argument for countering that prejudice. This also applies to nearly every area in which there is discrimination of any sort.
I base my vote on the candidate’s position on the issues and what it seems to me is their track record and their apparent level of integrity (the likelihood of them trying to deliver on their promises) and their experience (the likelihood of them actually being able to deliver on their promises). Race would only come if those balance out, which I suppose is possible but seems highly unlikely.
Last election I actually had to choose between two major party candidates (neither incumbents) who were black males for U.S. Senator; Alan Keyes and Barak Obama. I voted for Obama, since Keyes seemed to be farther to the right of me than Obama was to the left of me and since Keyes seemed as though he’d likely be ineffective in the Senate.
The races involving Black Republicans will be interesting to observe because of how they are run and the inner workings of the GOP, not so much the outcomes, which have been decided if you follow the polls. Did Steele get propped up because the GOP was expecting to face Mfume, and were surprised when Mfume didn’t win the primary? Did they expect Swanny to have a chance in his race against an entrenched, popular encumbant and former big city mayor? Was Swann just put out there as an expensive recruiting tool?
Blackwell, a moderate, won in an open primary.
You’ll hear Republicans parroting “race blind” homilies, yet there is an argument to be made that they do factor in race when making decisions in politics (and in nominating Supreme Court justices). They have to recruit somehow even if their efforts are nothing more than to say to moderates, “We’re okay on the race thing.”
The Tennessee race is interesting, and more complicated when it comes to race and the candidates. One needs some background to really get a good grasp on what’s happening down here. Short course:
Democrats here are more conservative than the national party, far more. There’s a few racists within the party, so you can imagine that there’s more than a few who call themselves Democrats. Ideas that are antithetical to Dems in other regions have support here within the party.
Ford is as y’all know, the son of a Congressman who held power for many years. Many people didn’t like him outside his district. He probably pissed off enough African Americans, too, though he could well count on their support with enough bargaining (or strong arming). He was a hard man, but he brought home the bacon to his district. Whenever there he was involved in controversy, most all the people lined up publically on the other side were White, be they D or R.
So Ford Jr has had to deal with the baggage of his family. In my observation, some White people react towards him the same way as they did his father, even though he’s run as far more moderate and far more the traditional politician.
Also, the Gantt effect will be in play. Ford Jr is running behind by about 3% if you average the latest polls (it’s been even most of the way). The Gantt effect says that Ford would have to be ahead by at least 11% to win to make up for the Gantt effect, which estimates that there are 10% of White voters who say they will vote for him for fear of appearing racist, however they’ll actually vote for the White opponent. So race is a factor.
Yes, a candidate’s position on issues involving race and gender are more important than the candidate’s race. You see that every time a Black republican runs for office and gets spanked, getting about 15% of the Black vote. Steele has been able to attract some support from African Americans — Democrats even — however they’re basically as well off as he is (Russell Simmons).
I care most about policy issues. I’ll vote for the person with the policies I like better 100% of the time, regardless of race or sex.
Nonetheless, race, sex, and sexual orientation do matter to me, and I’ve voted based on these factors. In elections where the two people are about equal on policy, I’ll vote for non-whites over whites, women over men, and queers over straights. I’ve done this a few times in the past, mostly in primary or city council elections where the candidates were about even on policy questions.
Pretty much what amp said. All other things being equal, I’d rather vote for a queer minority woman than a straight white man, but if she were an Alan Keyes Republican and he a Dean Democrat, I’d certainly go with him.
Oops. The question you actually asked was should a candidate’s race or gender matter? My answer is “no, but it does and pretending it doesn’t isn’t going to help anyone.” In the ideal world, no one would care and it wouldn’t be an issue. But this is not the ideal world and it does matter.
I can remember a time in my life when I felt compelled to vote for women, no matter who they were, just to improve the odds.
Then I moved to a place where, for a time, all of my state and local representatives were women: Extreme right-wing, anti-choice, theocratical women.
I still look for good female candidates, and vote for them when I find them. But I look at policies first.
Identity politics represent zero threat or cost to the American social order. Shit at least colorblind liberalism (which I’m no endorsing) actually imposes a cost on the system. Some of you actually believe a slight racial and gender shuffling of the political class will make a difference– you’re dreaming.
Go Oaxaca! Smash State!!
Here in Illinois, I voted for a black female for Senator based on the “with all else equal, why not vote for the minority”, only to be rewarded with one of the most ineffective Senators I’ve ever seen – that was Carol Mosely Braun.
That happens, RonF, but it’s certainly not like only black female senators are ineffective.
I think the key is to vote minority all else being equal . . . if you have evidence that a candidate is going to be useless in office, that’s not really ‘equal’.
True enough, Myca; my point is that race often stirs up emotion that often (whether deliberately or not) used to obscure the fact that all else isn’t really equal. Here in Illinois and Cook County the injection of race into politics is quite blatant. On one hand the newest of freshman Senators is being touted for President in great part because of his race. On the other hand we see offices like Cook County President considered a “black” position and mediocre to corrupt politicians are being selected to run and serve in part because of their race.
We certainly are having our share of non-racial elections that present awful choices. Our guberantorial election is between Judy Barr Topkina (Combine – Ill.) and Gov. Rod Blagoyovich (Combine – Ill.). Judy was State Treasurer during the administration of Rod’s predecessor, Ryan. Now that Ryan is headed to jail in disgrace, she is being tarred with his brush even though she had absolutely nothing to do with any of it and was never even mentioned in any of the 60 convictions coming out of the scandal. But she’s been in Illinois politics for years and I don’t see her making any significant changes. Meanwhile, Rod himself would never have been selected if he hadn’t been the son-in-law of a Chicago alderman, and there have been so many aldermen sent to jail that Law and Order could do a whole season on it.
Who the f#*k am I going to vote for? Probably Topinka. Not because she’s a woman (she’d be the first female governor, I think), but because it’s harder for any of these characters to sink their roots deep and do as much damage if you keep changing them out.
If all else were really “equal” you might as well flip a coin, no? The nice thing about real life is that it’s not really that way.
Yeah, but in my case figuring out what the basis of all else not being equal is comes out to figuring out which candidate is the least brutally bad.
“Yeah, but in my case figuring out what the basis of all else not being equal is comes out to figuring out which candidate is the least brutally bad. ”
Ronf, that I think is true for all of us most of the time. What’s that saying, the lesser of two evils?
It’s truly unfortunate the way politics works in this country, but I’m afraid that it’s been that way for centuries – I wish humanity could find another way to elect representative or leaders for us – it seems in order to be politician enough to get anything done, you also have to be a bit sneaky, underhanded and not all that trustworthy.
Oh, and Rachel, did I ever tell you that my mom used to always vote for women if they were running? Regardless of party and what the position was for, she’d always check that box. I don’t think it’s a smart way of going about things, but I think it was her way of trying to acheive that “critical mass” you speak of.
I myself concur with everyone here. I vote based on policy, not identity unless all else is equal, which I’ve yet to find. I also WILL NOT vote if I don’t know anything about either candidate. I refuse to throw the party switch. If it happens I know nothing of 2 candidates for say, a judgeship, I just don’t vote in that one.
I’ve voted for the least worse of two alternatives when neither one was particularly bad. This time they’re both particularly bad.
The interesting thing about what goes on around here is that there’s almost always a good candidate in the primary, often for both parties. But that candidate loses because the party machinery throws it’s support behind the candidate least likely to disturb the status quo. There are occasional politicians who break though because they have enough personal funds to run their own campaigns, but more often the Combine manages to stir up their voters to pick their candidate (often by appealing on the basis of race or class), and the turnout for the primaries are so low that the Combine vote carries the day.
Unfortunately, it seems that race, gender, party affiliation, and religion are more in focus than the issues. People are many times, by nature, comfortable with their own cultures and norms, and many may find it difficult to adapt to something that breaks away from their traditions, so they stay status quo—not all, but many do.
I think that it is irresponsible to vote for a candidate because of color, religious affilliations or gender, and it is just as wrong to vote against someone for the same reasons. Vote for what you believe in, for the candidate who makes the best case for his campaign, and who you have faith in that will follow through with his or her vision.