I am curious about the notion of electability and its relationship to American identity. How does a voter define someone as electable?
If you recall from my rantings in the 2004 election, morality was a major concern of the voters. Most people who voted for George W. Bush cited moral values as the most important issue of the campaign. I strongly argued that people evaluated both candidates in relation to an image of how closely they thought an American (male) was supposed to act. Bush more accurately resembled the stereotype of an American male - gritty, working class, tough guy who is a straight shooter (there's enough irony in these characteristics that Alanis could write another half dozen songs) - while Kerry's effeminate attitude was likened to his European (and possibly even *gasp* French!) aristocratic background.
Moral values may arise again later, but for now people are evaluating Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton in terms of their electability, and I am wondering on what this value is based? How do people come to a decision that one candidate has a better chance of being elected than another? On one side, the concept is a bit absurd to me. I liken it to my misunderstanding of the stock market (I will be the first to acknowledge that my understanding of the market is extremely limited); people fear a stock's value will decrease, so they sell their stock. This, in turn, causes the stock's value to decrease. I vote for a candidate who I consider to be electable, but my act of voting for the particular candidate is what defines her as electable. It is almost as if we treat the act of considering electability and the act of voting for a candidate to be separate. Or, perhaps, that someone can possess the ability to be elected, which remains separate from actually being elected.
I suppose that we are really talking about predictions. People attempt to predict what their fellow voters are thinking (which often is not hard, as the media tends to influence how we think). And it is in this prediction where the concept of American identity surfaces. Do we measure candidates up to an image? Does an electable candidate have to fall within a certain acceptable paradigm, as the moral candidate does?
It will be far more difficult to solicit meaning from the din of electability rhetoric that will surround Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton than it was in 2004. First and foremost, Ms. Clinton is a woman (
I know, chicken, I was also shocked. Her gender never comes up in the discourse that surrounds her campaign!!) I have been called very second wave and accused (along with Gloria Steinem from her op ed in the Times the other day) of reducing Ms. Clinton to her gender, but I do think it plays a very heavy role in how voters see her, interpret her message and ultimately decide her electability. She will not be evaluated on the same scale as her opponent, as Kerry and Bush were in '04. Mr. Obama's masculinity will surely never be questioned throughout the campaign, unless he wins the nomination and runs against a white, republican male. But Ms. Clinton's femininity (and masculinity) will be a constant point of discussion, and will most likely affect her electability.
I suppose I have to taken moment and acknowledge that Obama's 'freshness' also plays into his electability, as change is the 3rd word every candidate, republican or democrat, utters. If people predict that they want change (I understand how absurd that statement sounds, but I am leaving it intentionally), it stands to reason that a candidate who best signifies that change will be regarded as more electable. I suppose I can further branch out here and ask why on earth Mr. Obama's lack of time in Washington signifies change more than his race, or more than Ms. Clinton's gender, but we will have to get back to that question later.
All that to say, the candidate's ability to portray him/herself as more masculine than the other is no longer viable, but by god that doesn't mean masculinity is a moot point. I still think masculinity will dominate the way we view our candidates, but it will not be as obtuse as it was in the previous election. I am also aware that I did not answer my initial question, in the least bit.
If you recall from my rantings in the 2004 election, morality was a major concern of the voters. Most people who voted for George W. Bush cited moral values as the most important issue of the campaign. I strongly argued that people evaluated both candidates in relation to an image of how closely they thought an American (male) was supposed to act. Bush more accurately resembled the stereotype of an American male - gritty, working class, tough guy who is a straight shooter (there's enough irony in these characteristics that Alanis could write another half dozen songs) - while Kerry's effeminate attitude was likened to his European (and possibly even *gasp* French!) aristocratic background.
Moral values may arise again later, but for now people are evaluating Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton in terms of their electability, and I am wondering on what this value is based? How do people come to a decision that one candidate has a better chance of being elected than another? On one side, the concept is a bit absurd to me. I liken it to my misunderstanding of the stock market (I will be the first to acknowledge that my understanding of the market is extremely limited); people fear a stock's value will decrease, so they sell their stock. This, in turn, causes the stock's value to decrease. I vote for a candidate who I consider to be electable, but my act of voting for the particular candidate is what defines her as electable. It is almost as if we treat the act of considering electability and the act of voting for a candidate to be separate. Or, perhaps, that someone can possess the ability to be elected, which remains separate from actually being elected.
I suppose that we are really talking about predictions. People attempt to predict what their fellow voters are thinking (which often is not hard, as the media tends to influence how we think). And it is in this prediction where the concept of American identity surfaces. Do we measure candidates up to an image? Does an electable candidate have to fall within a certain acceptable paradigm, as the moral candidate does?
It will be far more difficult to solicit meaning from the din of electability rhetoric that will surround Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton than it was in 2004. First and foremost, Ms. Clinton is a woman (
I know, chicken, I was also shocked. Her gender never comes up in the discourse that surrounds her campaign!!) I have been called very second wave and accused (along with Gloria Steinem from her op ed in the Times the other day) of reducing Ms. Clinton to her gender, but I do think it plays a very heavy role in how voters see her, interpret her message and ultimately decide her electability. She will not be evaluated on the same scale as her opponent, as Kerry and Bush were in '04. Mr. Obama's masculinity will surely never be questioned throughout the campaign, unless he wins the nomination and runs against a white, republican male. But Ms. Clinton's femininity (and masculinity) will be a constant point of discussion, and will most likely affect her electability.
I suppose I have to taken moment and acknowledge that Obama's 'freshness' also plays into his electability, as change is the 3rd word every candidate, republican or democrat, utters. If people predict that they want change (I understand how absurd that statement sounds, but I am leaving it intentionally), it stands to reason that a candidate who best signifies that change will be regarded as more electable. I suppose I can further branch out here and ask why on earth Mr. Obama's lack of time in Washington signifies change more than his race, or more than Ms. Clinton's gender, but we will have to get back to that question later.
All that to say, the candidate's ability to portray him/herself as more masculine than the other is no longer viable, but by god that doesn't mean masculinity is a moot point. I still think masculinity will dominate the way we view our candidates, but it will not be as obtuse as it was in the previous election. I am also aware that I did not answer my initial question, in the least bit.
i don't think that the Clinton campaign is very successfully using gender debate to its advantage, but i dont' think that's because voters are looking for a masculine voter. first off, i disagree that militaristic or aggressive behaviour - or other behaviours associated with strength and dominance - are masculine behaviours. i think the real issue is that you have a lot of people who have already mostly made up their minds about Sen. Clinton based on 1) her husband, and 2) how they felt about her performance as a 1st Lady. perhaps residents of the Northeastern states have gotten over that by seeing her in action as a senator.
Sen. Obama appeals to me because of his racial and socioeconomic diversity. he is the candidate that i can most relate to as a person, coming from a racially and socioeconomically varied background myself, and having been raised by a single mother. so, for me, i'm tired of electing presidents who were born with silver spoons in their mouths, whether republican or democrat. it is time for the broken homes, the ethnically mixed, and the kids who have dragged themselves outta the slums to have a president.
point of question - do you ever notice how lots of people refer to Obama as either Senator or Mister (or no title), but to Clinton only as Senator or Hillary (or no title), and never as Mrs.? does that strike you as significant or meaningful?