Obama can still do it
Posted by Jonathan Birch on January 15th, 2008
Why did Hillary Clinton win New Hampshire? One answer is, perhaps, that the polls were wrong all along. Hillary is the candidate registered Democrat voters are embarrassed to admit they support, but support her they do. Barack Obama is the media darling; Hillary is the prosaic, sensible, tactical choice. She does not win votes with inspiring slogans and charismatic speeches; she wins them by looking and sounding like a president.
Hillary is the closest thing this race has to an incumbent. She is a consummate box-ticker, a dependable known quantity, guaranteed to put on a good show against any contender. There is no more interesting dirt to dig up on Hillary, and her ethnicity is entirely uncontroversial. All this helps, and Obama has none of it. Obama is the risk candidate. Democrats know their chosen one will have to face the dreaded Republican nominee, and they’re worried Obama might not cut it, particularly against a non-polarising middle-ground-hogger like John McCain. Obama is idealistic and unproven, 46 to Clinton’s 60 and McCain’s 71. In short, Obama is just the sort of candidate neutrals like us want to see. But that makes him a liability.
So why might it be in a Democrat’s interest to take a risk? Well, Obama’s rapport with independent voters is well noted. It’s also worth remembering that the turnout at the 2004 election was typical at 55%. There are around a hundred million eligible non-voters in America, many from ethnic minorities, who are putty in the hands of any candidate who can break the Washington mould and find genuine cross-community appeal. Would a black American, with no interest in politics whatsoever, come out and vote for a black president? Why not? Obama needs to get out of the personal in-fighting that has characterised the Democrat contest in the last few days, and up the rhetorical ante as high as it will go. This “audacity of hope” talk can certainly sound unintentionally hilarious, but it can win the election.
Filed under: barackobama, democracy, election2008, hillaryclinton, uspolitics on January 15th, 2008
Let’s hope he goes all the way, because there could be nothing better for America than for this man to win the presidential election.
I’m not sure that’s true, Andrew. There’s a powerful feminist argument to be made that, given the slim differences between the two candidates, the blatant public mysogyny that has plagued Clinton’s campaign is a good reason to elect her. If this climate of hate, which far outstrips that based on race, could be even slightly improved by the success of a female president, then that would be a good reason to elect one. You might reasonably doubt that her election would improve anything, but many of the criticisms of Hilary’s personality boil down to something like ‘could a woman ever be presidential enough?’. If Clinton were elected, and if she were successful, this could never be a question again. I don’t think that argument is decisive, but it’s certainly something to bear in mind, and your stark assessment doesn’t seem warranted to me.
I understand what you’re saying, Matt. I don’t subscribe to the view that race or gender should be a significant factor in choosing between candidates. I know this is a simplification of what you were saying, but the upshot of your position seems to be that, if I were an American citizen, I should be electing Clinton so that she can prove a woman can do the job. And I think even my previous stark assessment carries more weight than that! The presidency should not become some sort of proving ground. I know that others may feel differently. But I think Clinton herself has offered some far better arguments for her election.
Personally, I have no doubt that she is presidential material. I just happen to think that Obama is someone who could bring Americans together, who could inspire them to participate more in their democracy, and who could repair America’s broken image around the world. I don’t believe Clinton can do those things anywhere near as well.
Please understand that my previous comment was not intended to offer any kind of intellectual argument for my support of Obama! It was effectively just an endorsement of what Jonathan had said in his post.
Yeah, its obviously true that your previous post was just an endorsement of Obama, and not an argument in favour of voting for him. But my comment was an attempt to open a new area of debate.
I disagree that ‘electing Clinton so that she can prove she can do the job’ is unreasonable. This consideration is only as strong as the extent to which you judge the difference between the candidates in any other dimension to be less important than the gender difference between the two candidates. For me the consideration is a relatively strong one and were I able to vote it would swing it for me.
So not a very strong argument, then, but a little bit of one to support an endorsement the other way. And it’s not like I’m decided - although gender descrimination is much more prevelant in public, political life, race is a massive determinant of many Americans’ life chances. Maybe electing Obama could improve that situation, but I’m just not sure I can make a decent argument for that conclusion. Rather than considering the candidates’ race or gender irrelevant, I think that it is undeniably a politically relevant fact.
Did you read Boris Johnson’s “vote Hillary get Bill” article in the Telegraph a while ago? Even respectable pundits can get away with this. That’s Hillary’s unique predicament: even if she is a successful female president, anyone who wants to will be able to say that she isn’t.
I think they are both excellent candidates. The reality is that race and gender will impact upon how some Americans vote, so it is ‘relevant’ for the candidates in that sense. But I think we should always strive for a meritocracy, whether in political life or in wider society. And electing Clinton because she is female undermines that.
Just as we avoid choosing a job applicant based upon something they have inherited from birth - their gender or ethnicity - the best reason for electing a candidate arises from what they can offer their country, and their personal qualities. The whole point about equal opportunities is that it creates a level playing field, from which any race or gender can prove that they are equally as capable as anyone else. If we elect Clinton because she is a woman, then we are making a mockery of that, and of the idea that women can succeed based upon their own abilities. And they certainly can.
That said, I agree with you when you say that a Clinton victory would be good for women. My argument is that it would mean a lot less should she be elected purely for that reason.
Andrew, she wouldn’t be ‘elected purely for that reason’, and as one determinate I think it’s a perfectly respectable one. Just as affirmative action in the workplace is the only way of creating a level playing field within an acceptable timescale, it is reasonable to consider a woman a better candidate by virtue of her sex or a black person a better candidate by virtue of her race.
Big win for Hillary today.