OPINION & EDITORIAL
Clinton an apparition of progress
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andy Granias:
- Don't quell right to affirmative action (February 7, 2008)
- First to the polls, then to the streets (January 21, 2008)
- Different war, different protests; students adapt to times (December 13, 2007)
- Masculinity ideal in need of review (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Cry not, Edwards has sights on 2012 (February 1, 2008)
- Judging Judge Roberts (August 8, 2005)
- Don't let Nader cloud judgment (February 5, 2008)
- Be a part of history; vote Democratic in this year's elections (February 14, 2008)
- Obama message will unite, right nation's future (January 24, 2008)
by Andy Granias
Thursday, February 21, 2008
As if my single vote would make or break the primary results on Tuesday, I was in dire straits Monday night about whom I would support in the Democratic primary. As a white male, I voted on the basis of identity politics.
No, I did not vote for John Edwards, Joe Biden or the myriad white males who have dropped out, even though they were still on the ballot. Contrary to the self-important idea that pervades many a college campus, you can indeed throw away your vote.
And no, I wouldn’t have voted for a white male even if he were still in the race simply on the basis of his physiological features (notice how I passed up an evangelist, a warmonger and an anarchist on the Republican ticket).
In fact, when it came right down to it, I was compelled to vote for Barack Obama because he was the only candidate on the ballot who actually carries the promise of social progress, and social progress — in all its ambiguity — has at last emerged as the remaining distinguishable factor left to sway voters to Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton.
I am not alone in having pored over their policy plans, left wondering where all the differences were that I was missing. And I am not alone in believing that speeches are important, but not that important; that solutions are pivotal, but are by no means exclusive.
In fact, it seems I have followed a very common path among progressives in deciding between the two candidates — one that ends exactly where it begins. The path starts with noticing that Barack Obama is black and Hillary Clinton is a woman, descriptions that have not fit any previous American president.
Then, it follows that the conscientious progressive realizes these are not reasons to vote for a candidate, and engages in discussions over the minute policy differences between the two, teetering between political reality and ideological amenability (see health care, for example). Some do stray off on the electability tangent, prematurely making up their minds, failing to realize that even Hillary will coast into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in the aftermath of the Bush disaster.
Finally though, the vast majority of progressive minds end up where they began, examining the race and gender of the candidates. This time, however, he or she seriously considers how those attributes will benefit social progress. And then, we find ourselves once again in the midst of a national discussion on race and gender as it stands, and how we want it to stand.
And I too was back at square one Monday night, confused by the choices in an impossible dichotomy of progress. That is, until I remembered Bill.
Bill Clinton was, and still is, the tipping point for many undecided Democrats. The Clinton brand name begins and ends with Bubba, and it has carried Hillary into national contention. As a true American tragedy, Hillary Clinton’s presidential race is not a genuine manifestation of feminine progress, only a residual effect stemming from the widely popular Democratic presidency of her husband.
And truly this is a hallmark of feminine stagnation. Hillary’s lack of political independence in the minds of voters, her reliance on her husband’s legacy — her publicly unfaithful husband at that — are a true reminder of the need for an aggressive feminist presence in the public discourse.
In one of her recent articles, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd cited this joke by comedian Penn Jillette, which he says always engenders an uproarious laughter from the audience: “Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it’s not fair, because they’re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there’s no White Bitch Month.”
It is jokes like these — offensive and ubiquitous — that expose an antiquated norm. Feminism, alive and well, has a cause that is alive and well. But unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is neither an authentic nor a viable agent for the needed change.
Why Barack then? Certainly Mr. Obama is no more apt at symbolizing progress for minorities than Hillary is at symbolizing progress for women, right?
Well, yes and no. I do believe Barack Obama is more evident of progress for minorities than is Hillary for women, but it is his fervent belief in a balance between specified and “class-transcendent” policies that address the traditionally underprivileged that actually holds the most promise for progress. While perception matters, a symbol of progress will never suffice for substantive change. Unlike his counterpart, Mr. Obama has the potential to be the agent of that change, notwithstanding the melanin in his skin.
Democrats need not feel any remorse when Hillary drops out; were she elected she would have only served to hide a still androcentric, if not misogynistic reality in America. Now, our best chance lies with Mr. Obama.
Andy Granias (agranias@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and philosophy.
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 2:59am):
GREAT TO SEE THAT ANDY KNOWS HOW TO USE BIG WORDS IN HIS CONCLUSION. I HOPE THAT HE CUTS THAT HAIR OF HIS, IT OBFISCUTED HIS NARRATIVE FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THIS COLUMN. FUNNY HOW ONE CAN BE IN TURMOIL OVER WHO THEY WILL VOTE FOR WHEN THEY END WITH SUCH A CONCRETE SOLUTION. SORTA LIKE WITH THE 123 WOODS COLUMN - A PUBLICITY STUNT HAH
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 3:22am):
And Granias voted for a black female in a different election!
He's a diverse decider!
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 5:46am):
What a joke. Remember who this kid told you to vote for in the alder race? Another Austin King, or Ashok, if you would...
He can't even get it right in a local election, what the hell's he thinking trying to call a national one?
You wouldn't know "progress" or the candidate that represented it if it kicked you in your "identity-politics" (bullshitting) ass.
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 7:14am):
Oprah in 2012
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 8:48am):
The way she's relied on her husband's legacy? I believe both candidates sent their spouses to campus before the 19th, first of all. But more importantly, how much of Clinton's stump speeches have focused on the Bill Clinton years. She has been talking about issues that she has been advocating for separate from her husband for years. Is she relying on her husband's legacy when she says flat out that she will end Don't Ask Don't Tell? Is she relying on her husband's legacy when she outlines her plan to provide quality, affordable healthcare to every American?
It's a lot easier to be sexist than to be racist these days. Thanks for writing a column that confirms that. As a woman, I'm glad that I have to meet your standards to have my accomplishments considered progress.
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 3:07pm):
Exactly how does the BH decide what to put on the comments and what not to? Fucking oppressive.
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 4:44pm):
Strange, I don't remember the Michelle Obama presidency. When was that?
Yes, Hillary differs from Bill on some issues.
No, that does not mean she isn't benefiting from his legacy.
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 5:49pm):
I think Clinton and Obama both have the same circadian rhythm, Andy. Unless one of them operates on a different sleep cycle. Melatonin is the hormone that sets your day and night schedule. MELANIN is what makes me brown and your lack thereof makes you white.
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 7:54pm):
Inferring that John McCain is a warmonger is grossly ignorant. Do you not remember that John McCain was tortured and imprisoned for five years in Vietnam?
If you think that his memory from Vietnam doesn't enter his mind every time the US considers military force, than you've been on the isthmus too long. Regardless of how you feel about his ideology, you have to grant that the man knows much more about the reality of war than you.
Once again, your article comes off as a cheap political advertisement rather than a solid piece of journalism.
Anonymous (February 21, 2008 @ 8:57pm):
what. the. hell?
this column literally makes no sense.
seriously. WTF?!
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 9:40am):
BUUUUUUURRRRRRRRNNNNNNN!!!
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 10:43am):
SPIRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNN (probably wrote those)
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
