Sex, Race and Gen Y Voters
Even the dimmest media bulbs have noticed that there's something a little different about this year's crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, who won the New Hampshire primary, appears to have an extra X chromosome. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who won the Iowa caucuses, has been blessed with some extra melanin in his skin, which also makes him stand out from the usual crowd of middle-aged, white-guy candidate-clones.
The media just can't stop gushing and clucking and gasping about it all. Oh, my gosh, Hillary Clinton is female! Barack Obama is, uh, black! Will American voters accept a female candidate? A black candidate? Are voters more sexist or more racist? What's a bigger problem in America today, sexism or racism?
Snore.
These questions are tedious and inane. Simplistic efforts to evaluate whether racism or sexism is "worse" are inherently meaningless. Racism and sexism operate in complex and different ways. We should reflect on the ways in which racism and sexism have marred our history and cast shadows over our future, but let's not turn it into a parlor game about who's got it worse, women or blacks.
Increasingly, the media obsession with whether Americans will be less likely to vote for a black man or for a woman is also beside the point -- because to an emerging generation of younger voters, the very terms in which the questions have been framed no longer make much sense.
Start with race. In the context of the 2008 election, the question, "Would you vote for a black man for president?" takes for granted certain assumptions: that there is a clearly defined category we can label "black men," that Obama fits into that category and that belonging to that category matters.
For Americans over 40, these may seem like perfectly justified assumptions. Of course there's a category properly labeled "black men." Of course Obama fits into that category -- he's got that extra melanin, right? Which makes him black, which matters, because "black maleness" triggers a set of associations that affect how people think about him.
But increasingly, there's evidence that younger Americans just don't think about race in the same simplistic ways. They're more likely than older Americans to be minorities themselves, for one thing. In 2006, only 19.8% of Americans over 60 were minorities, compared with about 40% of Americans under the age of 40. And younger minorities come from a far wider range of racial and ethnic backgrounds than their older counterparts. Once, "minority" largely meant "black," which in turn meant "descendant of the Africans brought to the U.S. as slaves." Some of today's young minorities fit that profile, but others are descended from Filipino farmers, Chinese schoolteachers, Iranian engineers, Mexican construction workers, Congolese doctors or Haitian shopkeepers.
The tapestry gets even richer. The number of inter-marriages has gone up dramatically over the last few decades, and as a consequence, so has the number of multiracial young Americans, who -- like Obama -- are neither this nor that, but a bit of this and bit of that, with a healthy dollop of something else. And regardless of their own status, younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to have dated inter-racially, to have close friends of other races and to live in families with relatives from other racial and ethnic backgrounds.
As a result, race literally isn't a black-and-white issue for many younger Americans. Questions like "Would you vote for a black man?" just don't compute because they assume a reality that's ceasing to exist, in which the term "black" has a fixed meaning, in which Obama's rich heritage can be reduced to a single word.
Younger Americans tend to think differently about gender. Generation Y -- those born after 1977 -- is dramatically more accepting of nontraditional gender roles than older generations; a recent survey found, for example, that 63% "completely disagree" that women should "return to traditional roles" in society. These younger Americans are also far more comfortable with homosexuality, which makes them less likely to assume that women who behave in less "traditional" ways must "really" be lesbians -- and if they are, Gen Y-ers wonder, who cares?
Americans under 30 grew up in a world in which women are CEOs and secretaries of State, and in which women make up the majority of U.S. college students. And, as with race, most younger Americans can't see what the big deal is. Of course a woman can be president. Of course being tough -- or getting a little teary-eyed -- on the campaign trail doesn't make you more or less feminine, or more or less suited to power.
For younger voters, "Do you think a woman or a black man could be a good president?" is the wrong question. As women and men increasingly work side by side and share power, as the U.S. becomes a more complex, multiracial and multiethnic nation, younger voters may increasingly be asking themselves a very different question: Can a middle-aged white guy possibly be qualified to lead us into the future?
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
31 Comments so far
Show AllThe younger generation, Gen Why (??), are clearly smarter than a majority of older Americans Gen Old, who, judging by the last 8 years are completely clueless and apathetic.
John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them!
But they do fear John Edwards! Here is another link to the article, read it this time Doug!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
Did you read the article Doug?
It didn't sound much to me like Edwards being bought and paid for.
Sounded to me like Wall Street and our corporate masters are quite scared of him.
Here it is again, just in case you missed it!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
Living in Canberra, I see people from foreign parts around the place pretty regularly, and that includes peole from Africa. In terms od simple skin colour, American "Negroes" including Mr Obama are not black. Not by a long shot.
Edwards is bought and paid for Mike.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
#2 Contributor
Fortress Investment Group
"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
How old are you Mike? Old enough to forget who voted for the war? Old enough to turn a blind eye to all the evidence pointing to the fact that Edwards is a professional sell out? Maybe this country doesn't need people old as you, considering where this country is.
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug.
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 FOR A WORLD OF CHANGE!
Hi, I'm dougnwagner and I posted this message,
and this one,
and this one,
and this one,
and this one,
and this one,
and this one,
and this one,
.....
du dee duh da la de dah -
"That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
"Of all the new rules passed in Congress's recent ethics overhauls, the most sweeping is a barely debated provision in a Senate bill passed Thursday night that could alter one of the most time-honored campaign fund-raising practices in Washington.
Rushing to complete its promised reform bill, the Senate adopted a measure that, for the first time, would require registered lobbyists to disclose not only the limited money they can donate to candidates personally but also the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they raise from clients and friends and deliver as sheaves of checks — a tradition known as bundling."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html
"Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who was tapped by leaders to oversee ethics overhaul, said the legislation would "ensure that committees aren't slipping in earmarks in the dead of night."
After overcoming resistance inside his own party, Mr. Obama pushed for a provision requiring, for the first time, disclosure by lobbyists who bundle political contributions of more than $15,000 in six months.
"My argument was that it was worth it for us to try to be aggressive on this front, particularly since we were just coming into power," Mr. Obama said, adding that he wished the rules could be enforced by an outside group. "I do think that the public would have more confidence in the process if we had an independent enforcement mechanism."
The legislation is designed to limit the social interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, making it more difficult for them to get together at sporting events, parties at national political conventions and other social activities.
The bill also deprives former members of Congress who now work as lobbyists of some of the privileges that critics say give them an advantage in pushing legislation. The measure revokes floor privileges to former lawmakers who are lobbying, and denies them access to the House and Senate gyms, other exercise facilities and members-only parking.
Also tucked into the 107-page measure are several Senate procedural changes intended to curb a practice that has become more common in recent years: adding surprise, last-minute provisions to bills."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html
"Candidates are not required to reveal the identities of "bundlers" — people who collect contributions from many individuals — and disclosure records range from inadequate to spotty to nonexistent. The best, but still inadequate, disclosure comes from Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have provided the identities of their big bundlers and the amounts but only within broad ranges. Ms. Clinton, for instance, lists 311 "Hillraisers" who have brought in at least $100,000 each — but with no indication of how much each is responsible for. Mr. Obama is slightly more specific; he lists "bundlers" within the ranges of $50,000 to $100,000; $100,000 to $200,000; and $200,000 and up."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901416.html
"While Edwards and Republicans Mitt Romney, Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson are providing no specific information on how much their bundlers or other fundraisers have actually raised (Giuliani has disclosed those who have either pledged or raisedat least $50,000), each of them has provided a substantial list of bundlers or fundraisers. Each has also indicated that some fundraisers were expected to produce tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars. There is no reason to suspect that these campaigns are any less reliant on their fundraisers than Clinton and Obama."
http://www.citizen.org/documents/IndustryCoding.pdf
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org
Edwards isn't a fighter Mike. He's a wuss. He can't raise money that's why he's 'committed' to public financing. He voted for the Iraq war. He voted for MFN status for China. Employees at a trillion dollar hedgefund, Fortress Investment Group, are his second biggest contributor. He's about as blue collar as Donald Trump. Why's he even still in this race? To help Hillary?
Edwards, like all the other candidates in this race, uses bundlers. However, it's a shame he still does not feel the need to disclose how much they raise. See, what happens Mike, is Fortress Investment Group board members, "the bundlers", go around raising money from their employees because the maximum individual contribution is $2,000. Add it all up and Fortress Investment Group is the second biggest contributor to his campaign, the same Fortress Investment Group that expanded its investments in predatory lending while he worked there.
Can you say 'Bought and Paid for'?
"
natone,
Who voted in Iowa? Do you read the news or just make it up for yourself to read?
Obama lost by 3 points in New Hampshire. Clinton lost by 9 in Iowa. Richardson's 5% in New Hampshire votes will most likely go to Obama in future run-offs. People voting for Edwards and Kucinich should be aware of what they're really purchasing with their vote. Today John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama and the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama in Nevada. Obama still has the momentum. He has proved Hillary is not inevitable and that she will have to fight for every vote. Young voters today, unlike previous generations of young voters, are making a huge difference.
"Within the Democratic caucus, over 46,000 young people participated, and young voters comprised 22% of all caucus-goers. According to entrance polls by CNN, 57% of those 17-29 year old caucus goers stood up to caucus for Barack Obama. Tonight, they drove his campaign to victory."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/4/15520/78965
I wanna cocreate with Twyla Tharp. :)
We don't need a woman, a black man, a white man, a uniter, a smooth talker or a negotiater as president, what WE NEED is a FIGHTER, and Edwards is a fighter. He has been knocking the chip off the shoulder of corporate America since he got out of law school, and they're afraid to get in the ring with him or even talk about it.
The only way to take power from these bastards is to beat it out of them, and that is what John Edwards is all about!
EDWARDS '08
The funniest thing about this discussion is that young people don't vote. I remember working in a mayoral election and suggested to my candidate that he court the younger population of our town. He looked at me thoughtfully, kindly, and then suggested that I run a query on the voter data. If my memory serves me correctly, only 18% of the young voters registered -30 years old or younger- voted in any two of the last four elections. Young voters suck. They get all happy and excited, just like you see at Obama's rallies, but that excitement doesn't mean they vote. Obama is a rock star, and it's fun to attend a rock concert. But to vote? That's not any fun for these young folk. Why should a candidate care about young people when they don't vote? What's to be gained? They don't help in the election.
I was born in 1951. I have the same attitude that you ascribe to those born "after 1977."
Barak Obama, by the way, is as much white as he is African. I taught school in an integrated urban school district through the 80s and 90s and I watched those attitudes change both within my students, their families and within myself. We were one of Seattle Public Schools' multilingual orientation schools, and usually had between 21 and 28 different languages spoken in our school at any given time. You could have determined where unrest was in the world by the nationality of the students we served. SE Asian kids were there, then Ethiopian and Eritrean, later Eastern European and so on.
I find the emphasis on race in the discussion of this election embarrassing. I now make my living as a scenic photographer and do a lot of traveling and often find myself in situations where my Norwegian whiteness is in a distinct minority and I would be embarrassed to have the people around me know the crazy way skin color is considered important in my home country (U.S.A.)
Gen X doesn't get any respect! Still struggling against those patriarchical Ys!
Oh lilith!!! You make me feel so Jung!
etenarcadia: "Now, Generation Y (which again, includes myself) may not see anything odd about a female or non-white candidate, but I think many of them are caught between their lack of research and self-perceived "open-mindedness" to look beyond it."
Right you are. I'm also snugly Gen-Y, and am often startled by the way my generation stumbles over itself trying to be "open-minded" at the expense of reason. I think we're a lot more self-absorbed than we're given condemnation for.
Transcendent star children we are not!
The world will change when we go past guilt and shame and dominance into love and fun and suprasex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbOqyDLGa1M
There is one thing about the presidency that has been brought into very sharp focus these past seven years - whomever ends up in that seat, elected or otherwise, isn't alone in doing the job - or, for that matter, necessarily even involved in half of what goes on there. So even if, as etenarcadia calls them, one of these "novelty-candidates" are elected, they'll have hundreds of advisors, cabinet members, etc., to help them learn and get the job done.
The closing question completely contradicts the rest of the article, which, to me seemed to be arguing for judgment of character and ability rather than the more superficial consignments of race and sex. One particular middle-aged president that I have in mind (Dennis Kucinich), honestly DOES stand for change, more so than Obama or Clinton, but is relegated to the sidelines. Why? Apart from media exclusion, he is overshadowed by the fact that these neo-cons in progressive clothing.
I myself am both bi-racial and female; but honestly, I'd rather support a white, middle age man who actually had integrity than to throw my support at one of these novelty-candidates.
Now, Generation Y (which again, includes myself) may not see anything odd about a female or non-white candidate, but I think many of them are caught between their lack of research and self-perceived "open-mindedness" to look beyond it.
This is an awesome article, and gives me so much hope for the future; that is, if there is a future.
Vote Obama!
We indeed do belittle ourselves and our intelligence if we nod along to anybody who boils Obama vs. Clinton down to the trivia of race vs. gender. Perhaps the Gen Y group will be far smarter, even wiser. Let's hope.
The Obama vs. Clinton vs. Any Republican decision process is about first deciding whether you are comfortable with the degree to which corporations control people. If you're "okay" with status quo, you'll likely vote Republican. If you're not, please work for the black or the woman (or the trial lawyer still in the race) who you believe can best champion citizens over the problems you see that make you not comfortable with status quo. (If you are still stuck on favoring a third party, please work for one in 2012 or 2016.)
Here we have the "liberal" press obsessing forever over the color of a person's skin and their sex (gender, BTW-is a linguistic category). Issue? We ain't got to show you no stinkin' issues!
Gen Y are transcendent star children!
And are not as gullible as old senile people like Mike
:)
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
#2 Contributor
Fortress Investment Group
"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318
"Judge Him By His Laws"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html
"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm
dougnwagner, Edwards isn't taking their money, if you don't believe me, go to -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
This is what they say -
"Edwards is maintaining his steady fundraising pace behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, though he has announced that he will be accepting $10 million in public funding-and is encouraging the others to do the same. At the end of the 3rd Quarter, Edwards had $30.3 million, which means he will easily reach the $35 million his campaign originally said he'd need to bring in to be competitive in the early primaries. The former North Carolina senator has vowed not to accept money from registered lobbyists or PACs and only had minimal debt to re-pay after his 2004 campaign."
Can you say "public funding"? I knew you could!
EDWARDS '08
You know doug, I like the idea of young people getting involved, but let's see if we can all share the same facts. You don't get to make yours up. Both Obama and Clinton have already sold out to the
Corporate-Military-Media-Industrial-Complex, and don't represent any REAL CHANGE!
We don't need a woman, a black man, a white man, a uniter, a smooth talker or a negotiater as president, what WE NEED is a FIGHTER, and Edwards is a fighter. He has been knocking the chip off the shoulder of corporate America since he got out of law school, and they're afraid to get in the ring with him or even talk about it.
The only way to take power from these bastards is to beat it out of them, and that is what John Edwards is all about!
VOTE EDWARDS '08