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 ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and philosophy.
