« On Executive Orderizing And Badgers Green and Blue | Main | Cancer as Electoral Ploy »
July 21, 2007
What Garance Doesn't Get About Voters
This having been the week of John Edwards' tour from the Ninth Ward to Kentucky, the Prospect was thick with commentary on his antipoverty efforts. I'd been itching to respond to Mark Schmitt's post wishing that Edwards would deal more explicitly with race as well as poverty, but Ezra said it all. Edwards hasn't shied away from race -- he's repeatedly visited New Orleans, where he launched his campaign with lots of black children standing behind him -- but he's followed the wisdom of William Julius Wilson in keeping the issues separate enough that his antipoverty proposals can't be race-baited to death.
Garance Franke-Ruta's latest of many attempts to show that the Edwards campaign is in trouble, however, hasn't received an adequate response. It's titled "What Edwards Doesn't Get About Poverty", though she never says that there's anything Edwards doesn't get about poverty. Rather, she argues that minority and female voters have good reason to prefer the transformative potential of black and female candidates over a white male whose policy positions promote their interests. This is interesting, and I'll discuss it more later. But there are also a bunch of terribly ill-supported assertions in the article, and I'll point those out first.
Probably the most bizarre use of statistics in the piece is this, where Garance tries to argue that Edwards' low poll numbers among poor and minority voters aren't the result of lower name recognition:
But Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, and has high levels of name recognition in key states; in Ohio, which he will visit later this week, he has 97 percent name recognition.
An Ohio poll? As if the poll that showed Edwards' low numbers gave extra weight to respondents from "key states". In 2004, Kerry didn't send Edwards to California, Illinois, or New York -- places where he would've been able to intensify support among large numbers of poor Democrats. National name recognition polls show Clinton at 98%, Edwards at 80%, and Obama at 75%. If we assume that the name recognition gaps are especially wide among the poor, given their lower levels of political engagement, we have a good explanation for why Clinton draws so much of their support. A substantial percentage of poor Democrats don't recognize any name except "Hillary Clinton".
And then there's this:
the 1960s model of the white, male, liberal political leader -- clean-cut, well-to-do, and operating out of a generosity of spirit -- has been judged wanting.
This must be a very new phenomenon, as poor black and female voters liked Bill Clinton, the politician to whom John Edwards bears the greatest demographic similarities. John Kerry, who came from a more well-to-do background than Edwards, had fairly good support among blacks and women in the primaries, whereas Carol Moseley-Braun's candidacy went nowhere. Obama and Clinton definitely have something new and exciting to offer -- more on that later -- but trying to spin this as some kind of negative judgment of white guys is silly.
If there's a paragraph in the article that sums up all that is ridiculous about it, it's this:
Edwards' anti-poverty platform has so little resonance with minority women in particular that, according to a review of Zogby International polls from January, February, March and May for The Politico in June, Edwards drew support from just 4 percent of non-white Democratic women.
I wonder how many non-white Democratic women have the foggiest idea what Edwards' anti-poverty platform consists of? In fact, race and gender aren't the important variables here. How many liberal bloggers can name more than three of his antipoverty proposals? (There are about fifteen of them, setting aside the health care plan, and you can see them here.) Trying to spin Edwards' low poll numbers as a considered judgment of his antipoverty platform makes no sense when the media is so bad at letting people know who has policy ideas and what they are.
And before I start getting constructive, there's the weird comment that "Today's goal, as Edwards' tour shows, is to be noble without being in the least controversial." No. The goal is to promote policies that change poor people's lives for the better. That's why ACORN and the unions -- organizations equipped to look at detailed policy proposals and what a candidate does to advance them -- like John Edwards so much. While Edwards' health care plan is designed to be something we might be able to pass through Congress, it's the farthest left of the big three candidates, and I'd be very pleasantly surprised if it proved uncontroversial. (If you want noble but not controversial, you're probably for Obama rather than Edwards.)
Okay, so that's enough of that. The really interesting part of the article is right here:
for either Obama or Clinton to win a general election, they would have to reorder who has political power in this country in a way that's much more significant that what any other Democrat will be required to do. The people who have flocked to them know this; it is both their challenge and their promise as candidates.
I'm skeptical that an Obama or Clinton victory would require such a reordering of political power -- I don't understand the mechanisms by which that would happen. A lot of the claims people make about Obama's election transforming politics remind me of the scenes at the ends of video games and bad fantasy movies where the villain dies in a big fight and then his palace inexplicably crumbles into dust. Sure, it's the way the story goes, but reality doesn't work that way. But maybe Garance has more to say about this, and if so I'm curious to hear it. I just don't come to the table with an idea of how an Obama victory, independent of his policy views, reorders political power in a way that moves us significantly forward on poverty issues. I'm willing to learn, though, and if Garance can sell ACORN and the SEIU on her story, Obama should give her a great job.
I'm doubly skeptical that minority and female voters are flocking to Clinton and Obama with the particular agenda Garance describes. It's a lot simpler -- people expect others who share their racial and gender backgrounds to be sympathetic to their concerns, and to advocate policies that address those concerns. This isn't just a black thing or a female thing -- white males do it just as much as anyone else. But given the regrettable state of policy journalism in this country, people are in the dark about a frightening proportion of a candidate's policy views. (Remember all those treaties that Bush supporters thought he supported, but which he actually opposed?) Voters' beliefs about what candidates will do in office are often built on foundations only skin deep. But presidential candidates are unusual people in unusual situations, and looking at their skins is no way to tell their futures.
July 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Excellent job, Neil. I couldn't believe Garance actually believes that Clinton winning a general election would actually reorder who has political power in this country more than any generic Democratic president who follows a Republican president, and Obama only slightly more so.
Posted by: Clark | Jul 21, 2007 7:28:35 PM
Edwards hasn't shied away from race...he launched his campaign with lots of black children standing behind him
That's gotta be one of the funniest and most problematic defenses of Edwards against (what I assume) are Schmitt's charges. Well done.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 21, 2007 7:33:24 PM
Neil v. Garance
=
Not a fair fight.
Question is, does GFR even bother picking herself up off the mat?
Posted by: Jason G. | Jul 21, 2007 7:38:40 PM
Excellent anaysis, Neil. It is a fantasy to think that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will mean real change. They are the change, demographics. Diversity among the upper class is all nice and well, but I want real change.
You have the Obama fantasy pegged. Ineed, seeking a hero is the way we lose. We need to be the change we want, to make it ourselves. Only Edwards seems to underrstand that.
Posted by: Tom Wells | Jul 21, 2007 8:10:32 PM
I'm doubly skeptical that minority and female voters are flocking to Clinton and Obama with the particular agenda Garance describes. It's a lot simpler -- people expect others who share their racial and gender backgrounds to be sympathetic to their concerns, and to advocate policies that address those concerns. This isn't just a black thing or a female thing -- white males do it just as much as anyone else. But given the regrettable state of policy journalism in this country, people are in the dark about a frightening proportion of a candidate's policy views. (Remember all those treaties that Bush supporters thought he supported, but which he actually opposed?) Voters' beliefs about what candidates will do in office are often built on foundations only skin deep. But presidential candidates are unusual people in unusual situations, and looking at their skins is no way to tell their futures.
Yes, but... if there is indeed an expectation that a minority or female candidate is better attuned to the particular concerns of minorities or women, then you can't really fight it with the white guy. And yes, this is a recent phenomenon, if only because Clinton and Obama share a potential for success that Carol Moseley Braun (God bless her) and others just didn't have.
There's two, maybe three things here that put me in a fairly similar space to Garance: first, I think there's been way too much equating poverty with black people, which isn't helping Edwards or the poverty discussion; second, Edwards poverty agenda seems to be failing in actually attracting the voters who would, in theory be helped by it - less educated, less well off voters poll more for Hillary Clinton and for Obama. Third, if most voters are, indeed, skin deep in their assessments, then you can't really pin your hopes on the notion that a thoughtful policy discussion will really change minds. And I think this is the wrinkle in "identity politics" that has loomed ever since Democrats started enshrining them - it's that difficult, charged moment when the people with the identity politics ask for something other than a white man to lead them.
I agree, Edwards poverty proposals are hardly controversial - that's not to say they'll solve poverty problems, but some of them, surely, would make a good start; but I have a hard time believing (or finding) how Clinton or Obama differ so greatly from them. It's almost a given that any Democrat would reform HUD and probably make more housing vouchers available, for instance (and probably encourage new development of affordable housing programs in urban areas). And all this energy in the last couple of weeks has the air of an anxious campaign that seems frustrated at not breaking out of third. I don't think poverty programs are the answer to that, and I continue to wonder how long a dance that seems to not change (where Clinton leads, and the opposition is divided between a stronger Obama and a weaker Edwards) without something giving way. If we get to the fall with Edwards still not able to break through, I think these questions - of what he does to break through, and whether a united anti-Hillary front around Obama would be a better bet - will just be louder.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 21, 2007 8:19:58 PM
SomeCallMeTime beat me to it.
Lots of black children ... standing behind me ... near a camera. Hey, either I'm a bold antipoverty crusader or Princess fucking Di.
Posted by: Kyle | Jul 21, 2007 8:35:43 PM
Kyle, SomeCallMeTim:
Please adjust your snark meters. They appear to be malfunctioning. Thank you.
Posted by: themann1086 | Jul 21, 2007 9:28:36 PM
first, I think there's been way too much equating poverty with black people, which isn't helping Edwards or the poverty discussion
Has been equated? By whom?
And what's this talk of getting to the fall? The elections are held in the winter and spring.
Posted by: Clark | Jul 21, 2007 9:33:27 PM
Neil, I think the truth lies between what Garance says, which may be overstated in some points, and the credit you give it.
As weboy points out, the phenomenon Garance describes is indeed new, this being the first time the two leading candidates are a black and a woman. Blacks much preferred Jesse Jackson when he ran, but they knew it was still early, and that he had no real chance. Now it's real, in their grasp.
The kind of change Garance and the poor, minority and female supporters of Obama and Clinton are thinking of isn't primarily near-term change in policies. It's a more fundamental change in how blacks and women are regarded in our culture, and how power relates to them. In the longer term, there's a serious possibility this would have a more profound effect for the better than the great policies Edwards would push for (many or most of which the other two would also push for). But whether that's true or not, I think many of the relevant voters feel that way.
You doubt that, thinking their current preferences are more easily explained by misconceptions or ignorance of Edwards' platform. I'm sure that's a factor too, but I doubt it matters as much as what Garance is getting at. If Edwards wins the nomination, and the other options they prefer go away, they'll mostly support Edwards with enthusiasm. But he's got a hill to climb to get the nomination against a black and a woman. Maybe this explains in part the mystery (to me) of why Edwards polls better in general than primary polls.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 9:57:17 PM
Please adjust your snark meters.
The tone might be snarky, but the point is solid: Neil is gutting his argument before he begins it, though he phrases the relevant point most clearly at the end: "But presidential candidates are unusual people in unusual situations, and looking at their skins is no way to tell their futures." Except, at the beginning of his argument, he responded to Schmitt's race-related argument by effectively saying, "John Edwards? Black people love him!" That's a bad argument, and one with which, I suspect, various minority groups are all too familiar. It's not an argument, I would guess, that someone who shared that skin would have made (or it would have been phrased differently). That the argument is made reflects the sort of deaf ear that, I suspect, GFR thinks might motivate women and African-Americans to vote along identity lines.
Neil isn't Edwards, and his comment doesn't tell us anything at all about Edwards. Hell, it was just a tossed off line on the way to a different and more specific argument; it doesn't tell us much, period. Nonetheless, it weakens Neil's argument and, it seems to me, makes GFR's argument more credible, even if only a little.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 21, 2007 10:15:14 PM
Having someone who is a woman or African American is who expouse stay the course isn't transformative. Having someone expouse policies that will change the lives of women and African American is transformative. I would add to that change the direction of the country. That's the more dangerous. The former is window dressing. The later means more. Do people get this? probably not. Does it change the fact that it's true. No. No more than blackfaces changed racism in our society.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 21, 2007 10:17:05 PM
by the way- the reason I most find the arguments about race here offensive is the blackface reference i mention. The appearnce of doing something about the race, but underneathe the same old policies and behavior. I don't see how tranformation happens if you put a black face or a woman's face on it.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 21, 2007 10:21:05 PM
Okay, Sanpete, that makes more sense. I'm curious about how the following works out, though:
"there's a serious possibility this would have a more profound effect for the better than the great policies Edwards would push for"
If you need an abortion, or if your children's father isn't paying child support, or if your kids don't have health care coverage, how does the femaleness of the president help? Do you see a Hillary administration catalyzing a cultural transformation in which (for example) glass ceilings break because people are more comfortable with women in leadership positions? I wouldn't think someone was crazy for suggesting these things, but I'd think there was at least a little bit of wishful thinking in there.
I see it as a more promising issue with Obama, because a black president seems to smash through black stereotypes even more than Hillary's presidency would smash through female stereotypes. This is partly because there are unfortunate female stereotypes in which Hillary can be cast. Obama is far enough outside black stereotypes that he could blow a lot of them apart.
And certainly, if they face down a major national crisis and become national heroes as Lincoln and FDR did, the effects could be amazing. But if they're just moderately successful, like Bill Clinton, with most people being generally positive and some groups being intensely negative on them, it's hard for me to see how an Obama or Clinton presidency changes the game.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 21, 2007 10:26:26 PM
Akaison, I don't think your "blackface" comment applies to either Obama or Clinton.
If you need an abortion, or if your children's father isn't paying child support, or if your kids don't have health care coverage, how does the femaleness of the president help? Do you see a Hillary administration catalyzing a cultural transformation in which (for example) glass ceilings break because people are more comfortable with women in leadership positions?
I'd say no in the short term for the first question, but possibly yes in the longer term, not because of any particular policy Clinton would enact, but because of a new vein of empowerment for women. So that's a possible yes for your second question.
I think there's definitely some wishful thinking that goes with this in the minds of some voters, as you suggest. But it's still a powerful wish and hope that works against Edwards in the primaries.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 10:40:38 PM
akaison, I agree with you - I think that's the trouble with "identity politics" - if all you're getting is the same old politics in a dress, or with a tan, what's really been accomplished? The whole idea was that, as you point out, the minority experience was suppose to inform a new type of politics, a new set of ideas... something. Especially with Clinton - though I also think with Obama - what you get is very much a person of the establishment, with a very establishment approach. What's different, I think, is that they've mastered the language of identity politics, an "I'm one of you/us" way of talking to the issues that makes the audience feel involved.
I happen to think identity politics is a problem, not a solution; and I think some critics are dead-on in pointing out that if we have to wait for a poor person to the have the authority to speak on issues of poverty as a candidate, we'll never get one. But this is a genie that Democrats unleashed onto the world, and it can't really be put back into the bottle. And I think as Sanpete points out, if Edwards somehow takes it, he'll get the strong backing of Democratic constituencies; but I have a hard time seeing how a white man overcomes the identity politics at play right now, and I've never been convinced that Edwards has this figured out. In some ways, the hard-edged comments from Elizabeth this week underlined that when the gloves come off, it's not going to be pretty trying to make the woman look anti-woman (one can only imagine how bad it will play trying to make the black candidate look bad for blacks). It's a bind, and I don't know that white liberal men have a good answer for why the vision of a polyglot culture they helped sell is okay until now, when a non-white or non-man might actually take the top spot.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 21, 2007 10:45:25 PM
Except, at the beginning of his argument, he responded to Schmitt's race-related argument by effectively saying, "John Edwards? Black people love him!"
That is not what Neil said. Not at all. The point about Edwards going to New Orleans and appearing on stage with black people who live there is that Edwards is not avoiding race - he's making Katrina central to his campaign theme. The argument has nothing to do with black people loving him.
Posted by: Blar | Jul 21, 2007 10:47:44 PM
Except, at the beginning of his argument, he responded to Schmitt's race-related argument by effectively saying, "John Edwards? Black people love him!"
No, I'm not saying anything remotely related to that. Did you read the Schmitt post?
Schmitt is accusing Edwards of trying to sweep racial issues under the rug. I'm showing that Edwards isn't doing so, and that he's acknowledging racial divisions in society.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 21, 2007 10:50:15 PM
Thanks, Blar :)
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 21, 2007 10:50:52 PM
Ah yes, I well recall the transformative effect that the Thatcher regency had on the UK. Just ask any average British woman how Maggie's reign empowered her. Likewise consider the transformative effect of Indira Ghandi's career in India or Benazir ali Bhutto's effect on the condition of women in Pakistan.
Naturally we can't expect black folks distinguish between politicians based on anything other than skin color. J.C. Watts and Alan Keyes understood this well when their political careers sparked a mass defection of African Americans from the Democrats to the GOP. Why, if black folks judged candidates on something other than skin color, neither Watts or Keyes would have ever become GOP power brokers. Whoever heard of black folks voting for white politicians anyway?
Snark off.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 21, 2007 11:31:26 PM
No one has suggested that blacks or women consider race or gender only, of course. Both Obama and Clinton speak to the issues that matter to them as well.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 11:36:35 PM
No one has suggested that blacks or women consider race or gender only, of course. Both Obama and Clinton speak to the issues that matter to them as well.
Of course not! It's only been suggested that they won't vote for Edwards because he's a white guy.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 21, 2007 11:41:42 PM
It's only been suggested that they won't vote for Edwards because he's a white guy.
Nope, not quite that simple. It's a factor among others.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 11:51:51 PM
Neil,
Excellent take down! I respect the Prospect but every now and then I can't believe my eyes.
Take Los Angeles for example, Antonio Villariagosa (a Hillary supporter) has been advancing a very timid agenda. In fact, it has been very friendly to the affluent westside and the conservative valley. BTW, developers are doing the best. I am certain that an Obama or Hillary presidency will be similar on the national scale.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 21, 2007 11:54:56 PM
Wb and Weboy:
That's exactly my point. This smells to highwater of racism.
On Obama, I feel that some of his white liberal support isn't because of his ideas, it's because he makes them feel better about themselves, and that's really not the damn point.
Look, racism exists in the society. Many black people are bound to want to respond to it like some people are saying.
Sexism also exists in this world. The rate of pay for women among other things when compared to men proves this.
But stick a woman or a black person in a position of power because they are woman or a black person is patently offensive to me. I want people there who are going to get shit down.
If Obama and Clinton come out with policies that are as aggressive as Edwards- I will support them. But right now, as it stands, I am favoring Edwards because of policies and what he stands for. Not because of race or gender.
The point of the civil rights movement was not that we should ignore ideas. It was that we shouldn't be excluded if we have the best ideas. That when I am going into an interview, a person shouldn't be going okay he's black, so let's not give him a job. That's what racism is. The same is true or can be here too. It's not reverse racism because that crap is a conservative frame, but it is bad side of identity politics. Namely, that all we look at is race. All we consider is gender.
As WB points out- with that kind of logic one could call Marget Thatcher liberal because she was a woman. One could say that of Alan Keyes. I am not saying either HRC or Obama are that far to the right or even to the right. My point is that the very notion that we are suppose to give them a pass about their ideas is sexist and racist.
I also don't need a blackface to tell me that their ideas are the best if they aren't.
By the way, where I will say this again- I think alot of this is white liberal guilt or fantasy idea of a just society. i appreciate teh sentiment in the sense that I too want to see a black president or a woman president- but I want to see one that will be transformative of our politics, not one that is a blackface for it.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 22, 2007 12:35:15 AM
by the way- let me say one other thing- this doesn't mean i don't think obama or hrc are democrats- i just don't think their policies are the strongest for helping the very communities with whom they are using identity politics. this is not some conservative construction that women and minorities aren't the equals or that race and gender are neutral consideration. it's rather my positon that you can not use it as the sole or major criteria.it can be a factor. but my problem is this construction of it as the dominant factor.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 22, 2007 12:38:12 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.