As the Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama heats up, race and gender have come to the forefront of the discussion. I have heard many people suggest that we stop talking about race and gender and “get back to the real issues.” While I agree that most race and gender based personal attacks do not address real political issues, we should not forget that racial and gender issues are real issues. We should not forget that racism and sexism are still fundamental problems in the US.
Let’s think about it…
The race and gender gaps in earnings are real issues.
The mass incarceration of black men is a real issue.
Violence against women is a real issue.
Racially motivated hate crimes are a real issue.
Gender and race based job discrimination are real issues.
Race and gender disparities in health care delivery are real issues.
Affirmative action is a real issue.
Stereotyping is a real issue.
The list could go on and on.
I know many Americans are uncomfortable openly discussing how race and gender influence our political system, but this doesn’t mean that these issues are not “real.” Denial won’t erase social inequality. It’s a shame that many people would rather purge discussion of racism and sexism from the public discourse than actually work to give people an equal shot.
I think it’s because it’s easier to purge them. How much harder is it for Hillary or Obama to talk about race when it plays into their strategy? Look at a recent thread here, one poor choice of words lead to half a dozen comments about what was said and why and why it was bad and intent. Why would the candidate want to take that risk?
Difficulty isn’t an excuse but time and money being scarce the candidates have to pick their battles. It’s a touchy subject, people are sensitive. One poor choice of words, out of many many words said in a week and Hillary will have to spend a fortune in time and cash correcting it. Same for Obama on gender issues, but I think it’s easier to say something with racial overtones than it is saw something with sexist overtones by mistake.
If he makes it to the general I think that except for quietly targeted race baiting by deniable third parties the GOP candidate will pretend that Obama is white. I think that Obama will go along with this where and when it’s convenient for him.
Of the list you posted I don’t think the president can do much about any of them except AA and the large number of black men in prison. I also think it’s ironic that the only candidate with any sort of plan that would help do something about that is Ron Paul. Of course, he’s a crank who at best doesn’t give a rip if he’s working with racists and anti-semites but there you go. The president snorted coke, the guy before him had the worst excuse about Pot I’ve ever heard, Gore never denied it and the only candidate to talk about decriminalization was Senator No.
“Not real issues” in this context meaning “I’m not affected by them, or at least I think I’m not; therefore STFU and talk about things that are meaningful to me.”
Certainly these are real issues. They are not, as far as I can tell, real issues about the Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The closest link I can think of lies in the fact that Obama admits doing drugs, and one might hope he would oppose the crucifixion of black men who’ve used drugs more than the William Clinton administration did (with its’ drug czar Barry McCaffrey). Other than that, the candidates’ race and gender seem largely irrelevant.
I believe you’re saying that you wish candidates talked more about the issues you list, a wish I share but one that has no obvious connection with the apparent topic of the post.
Everything you mentioned in your list is a real issue.
But is that what the pundits are talking about? Or are they talking about whether Obama is black enough (or too black) and whether Clinton is feminine enough (or too feminine)? Neither of those are issues whose importance I would place on par with what you mentioned, or with healthcare or Iraq or transparency in the Executive branch or un/underemployment, etc.
It might be nice if some of the candidates talked about issues at all.
Or proposed any meaningful solutions to issues at all.
Yes, racism and sexism are real issues. But electing a woman president or a black president isn’t going to magically solve the issues. Such a president might just be an even bigger “Oprah exception.” It’s far more important to elect someone with helpful policies than someone who happens to come from a minority group. They might be the same person, or they might not.
Further, I agree with Bjartmarr. Endless discourse about how Clinton or Obama are “unelectable” isn’t going to deal with racism and sexism. There seem to be far too many progressive voices who are essentially saying, well, I’m not racist, but I can’t chose Obama as a candidate because the country isn’t ready for a black president, unfortunately, what a shame.
I predict that the first black US president, and the first female president (and probably the first gay president and the first atheist president and so on too) will come from the right. Just like Thatcher, just like Merkel, just like many other examples. (It is possible that Clinton’s “centrist” position has a rightwards enough appeal to count.) Why? Because right wing racists and sexists tend to be individualist and will readily elect someone they consider to be an exception to the general “rule” that women are weak or black people are stupid. And right wing racists tend to be more tribal and will vote for a candidate from a despised minority just to keep anyone left-leaning out. But left wing racists and sexists are much more likely to lump women or black people together as a group. They are probably in denial of their internalized racism, so will come up with some non-racist justification for why they don’t like a candidate, but just happen to have a perfectly sound reason for picking the white man. And left wingers are not as fiercely tribal or as well organized as the right; if they don’t like their party’s candidate, they will not vote at all or vote for an independent like Nader, even if that hands the election to the right.
That’s a very easy thing to say when you’re not one of the people who’s being sold downriver.
Racism and sexism are real issues. Hillary Clinton’s sex and Barrack Obama’s race are not.
It might be nice if some of the candidates talked about issues at all.
It might be nice if the electorate listened to them when they did. Why do you think that the candidates talk in 30-second sound bite platitudes? Because Americans collectively vote as if they all have some kind of attention deficit disorder. Try to get an American voter to sit down for 10 minutes and read through a discussion by a single candidate about their views on an issue – any issue – especially if it has words longer than 2 syllables in it.
Present company excepted. And I mean it. You all have to understand that despite the fact that you and I are on opposite sides of the fence on what we think about an issue, we are united in being in the minority of people who will actually think about an issue at all. That’s why the candidates don’t talk about issues. It’s a waste of time, and will basically serve as a source that their opponents’ strategists and tacticians will use for carefully selecting out-of-context phrases to whack them over the head with. Never mind that it projects an image of being intellectual and detracts from the image of being empathetic, both deadly in American politics.
The candidates ignore issues and focus on image and emotions because that’s the most reliable way to win.
The race and gender gaps in earnings are real issues.
The mass incarceration of black men is a real issue.
Violence against women is a real issue.
Racially motivated hate crimes are a real issue.
Gender and race based job discrimination are real issues.
Race and gender disparities in health care delivery are real issues.
Affirmative action is a real issue.
Stereotyping is a real issue.
these are indeed all real issues. the question is whether the ruling/governing/ownership class is willing to address any of these issues at all. the only one of these issues that has adequate attention from government is affirmative action. i cannot say i agree with racial preferences in the admissions process for university. the impetus is money and power not justice.
I actually agree with many people here in that I agree that the country could really use a black or a female President. Unfortunately, Condoleeza Rice isn’t running.
@RonF
Rice vs. Clinton would be a priceless election – one first lady vs. another.
(sorry, that was tasteless, but I’ve always wondered about Rice’s little slip).
There have been times when I’ve been relating a story and I’ve clicked through “I was talking to my moth – I mean my wife – I mean my daughter …”. Stuff happens. Interesting, though.
But if you never had a wife, or a daughter?
Condoleeza Rice isn’t married (I don’t pay much attention to politician’s personal lives)?
That’s the point. A married woman might slip up like that because she is used to saying “my husband” in another context. But there is no situation in which Rice would normally utter those words.