iraq and identity continued
In memory of William F. Buckley, I am blogging whilst enjoying a mid-afternoon cocktail and cigar on this unusually warm day.
Today, an elaboration on my thoughts from yesterday. A) Clinton's gender succeeding where Obama's race fails.
Both Clinton and Obama are trying to embody two possibility oppositional values, change and experience. They want to come across as refreshing, hep with youth and representative of a new direction in American politics. They want also to remain politically experienced in the minds of voters, enough so to run a pretty large country. Race and gender are particularly touchy subjects with either campaign, and are often placed on the metaphoric back burner more often than one would expect from the first serious black and first serious woman candidate. This is partially because neither knows how to address the issues properly - race and gender are seen as agents of change, but at the same time, also highlight a lack of experience. If talked about too much, they narrow the candidate's accessibility. Obama could run the risk of being seen as the 'black' candidate and Clinton as the 'woman' candidate, rather than, say, John Edwards who would clearly have remained accessible to everyone.
Where Clinton's gender can provide a significant opportunity for change, Obama's race may not. This election, much like the last, will not be decided on domestic issues. In a general election, both opponents will argue that more needs to be done for health care, trade, jobs, education and taxes, but advocate different means. The American public will listen contently and either default into political assumptions (socialism versus greed), or fail to understand all together. The war in Iraq will serve as possibly the most significant issue for those who don't already know for whom they will vote.
The more favorably the war in Iraq, the more McCain will talk about national security, and a conversation about national security is really a conversation about American identity. In this masculine, militarized society, no male can argue for a feminine (domestic) approach to security without looking weak. Obama cannot come out against the war without simultaneously coming out against American security. He can argue that Iraq has made us less secure and we all knew they possessed no WMDs, but he is simply not going to be able to paint McCain as a right-winged, war-monger.
Any argument where McCain can articulate the need for war without looking insane is going to make Obama look at best naive and at worse anti-American. McCain can easily say that Obama's absolute refusal to support the war is either because he does not get importance of national security, or simply is not concerned. The McCain campaign will make a simple statement like 'National security is not something we take chances on. You want a commander in chief who will make the tough decisions and not put the nation at risk out of ideological objections. We are talking about the lives of Americans...September 11th... evil... unpredictable... need to be proactive... disagreed with how Bush implemented the war...would have went better my way...etc'. And how can Obama react without losing support amongst those who are already confused about whom to support?
Obama's race will do little to help him in this situation. Clinton's gender, however, will make all the difference. She is a pro at walking the fine line between feminine and masculine, aggressive but caring, progressive but realistic. She's a masculine democratic woman politician - how on earth can she not be skilled at passing for either side?
In the primaries, Obama's cautious approach to change and experience is working well. If we leave her gender out of the picture (as her campaign has mistakenly done) he is far more symbolic of change without it detracting from experience. However, this will not pass in the general election. His race will do little to propel him as an agent of change in the context of national security, and his lack of experience will be clearly visible next to the 71 pushing 72 year old white male. Clinton's gender, underutilized in the primaries, will be the best tool for arguing change without compromising experience in the general election.
I am not the only one who thinks so. Stanley Fish, a man whom I must confess to know nothing about, has made a very similar argument in a Times editorial this morning. Among other things, Fish argues that McCain can use Obama's war vote against him.
Today, an elaboration on my thoughts from yesterday. A) Clinton's gender succeeding where Obama's race fails.
Both Clinton and Obama are trying to embody two possibility oppositional values, change and experience. They want to come across as refreshing, hep with youth and representative of a new direction in American politics. They want also to remain politically experienced in the minds of voters, enough so to run a pretty large country. Race and gender are particularly touchy subjects with either campaign, and are often placed on the metaphoric back burner more often than one would expect from the first serious black and first serious woman candidate. This is partially because neither knows how to address the issues properly - race and gender are seen as agents of change, but at the same time, also highlight a lack of experience. If talked about too much, they narrow the candidate's accessibility. Obama could run the risk of being seen as the 'black' candidate and Clinton as the 'woman' candidate, rather than, say, John Edwards who would clearly have remained accessible to everyone.
Where Clinton's gender can provide a significant opportunity for change, Obama's race may not. This election, much like the last, will not be decided on domestic issues. In a general election, both opponents will argue that more needs to be done for health care, trade, jobs, education and taxes, but advocate different means. The American public will listen contently and either default into political assumptions (socialism versus greed), or fail to understand all together. The war in Iraq will serve as possibly the most significant issue for those who don't already know for whom they will vote.
The more favorably the war in Iraq, the more McCain will talk about national security, and a conversation about national security is really a conversation about American identity. In this masculine, militarized society, no male can argue for a feminine (domestic) approach to security without looking weak. Obama cannot come out against the war without simultaneously coming out against American security. He can argue that Iraq has made us less secure and we all knew they possessed no WMDs, but he is simply not going to be able to paint McCain as a right-winged, war-monger.
Any argument where McCain can articulate the need for war without looking insane is going to make Obama look at best naive and at worse anti-American. McCain can easily say that Obama's absolute refusal to support the war is either because he does not get importance of national security, or simply is not concerned. The McCain campaign will make a simple statement like 'National security is not something we take chances on. You want a commander in chief who will make the tough decisions and not put the nation at risk out of ideological objections. We are talking about the lives of Americans...September 11th... evil... unpredictable... need to be proactive... disagreed with how Bush implemented the war...would have went better my way...etc'. And how can Obama react without losing support amongst those who are already confused about whom to support?
Obama's race will do little to help him in this situation. Clinton's gender, however, will make all the difference. She is a pro at walking the fine line between feminine and masculine, aggressive but caring, progressive but realistic. She's a masculine democratic woman politician - how on earth can she not be skilled at passing for either side?
In the primaries, Obama's cautious approach to change and experience is working well. If we leave her gender out of the picture (as her campaign has mistakenly done) he is far more symbolic of change without it detracting from experience. However, this will not pass in the general election. His race will do little to propel him as an agent of change in the context of national security, and his lack of experience will be clearly visible next to the 71 pushing 72 year old white male. Clinton's gender, underutilized in the primaries, will be the best tool for arguing change without compromising experience in the general election.
I am not the only one who thinks so. Stanley Fish, a man whom I must confess to know nothing about, has made a very similar argument in a Times editorial this morning. Among other things, Fish argues that McCain can use Obama's war vote against him.
posted by peuryan at 5:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home