Under the Same Sun

Published 4/16/08

By: Kasey Henricks

Many have argued that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s battle to be the next potential president is evidence that America has moved to a post-race, post-gender society. On the contrary, how these candidates have addressed these issues, and at what lengths, suggest otherwise. Contrary to many accusations of playing identity politics, Obama and Clinton have left the issues of race and gender relatively untouched on their campaign trails.

Obama and Clinton didn’t get to the position where they are today by talking about the two distinguishing features that set them apart in the history of American politics – race and gender.

For Obama to address the issue of race, he would likely be accused of playing the “race card.” And this would potentially upset a chunk of the vote he needs to win the nominee, white people. After all, Obama has been winning states like Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado and Alaska. And the snow on the ground ain’t the only thing that’s white in these states. Obama’s candidacy highly depends on the white vote as whites make up three-fourths of the population, as reported by the last census.

Further, the same principle applies to Clinton. If she were to highlight gender issues and seek to remedy them, she’d likely be accused of playing the “gender card.” And Clinton needs another large chunk of the vote in order to gain the nominee, men. (Side questions: What kind of cards are race and gender? And when in America has being a woman or being nonwhite been a trump factor?).

Censorship. Let’s talk about it. Because Obama is dependent upon the white vote and Clinton the male vote, this drastically alters what issues they talk about and how they talk about them.

For Obama, he’s played it politically safe when it comes to addressing race. To his credit, he has persistently connected the past to the present by stating that today’s racial gaps are rooted in the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. This was among one of his central themes in his “A More Perfect Union” speech, or as some call it, his “race speech.” However, a statement like this isn’t any statement that deviates from what previous democratic nominees have said. John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton all made similar statements on their presidential campaign trails.

If Obama were to set himself apart when it comes to acknowledging race, he would have to pose a different argument. Perhaps it would be an argument that addresses a fuller picture of race relations in America. This argument would not only acknowledge the problems rooted in the past but address the ongoing discrimination that maintains and widens the racial divide. It would be an argument that distinguishes racial inequality from all other inequalities. It would be an argument that states when all factors are equal, race remains significant. And plenty of studies are out there to prove this. When variables such as class, gender, age, education, work experience and criminal records are controlled, race remains an influential factor in terms of discrimination in schools, the workplace, housing and other unmentioned areas. (For those interested in these studies check out: Joe Feagin, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, David Embrick, Thomas Shapiro, Robert Bullard, Douglas Massey, Marc Bendick, Marianne Bertrand, Sendhil Mullainathan and Devah Pager).

However, Obama has yet to make any such argument. But this may not be because Obama, himself, doesn’t share these views. He probably knows that constructing any such argument would potentially make a lot of white people uncomfortable and end his presidential run.

For Clinton, she has also played it politically safe when it comes to addressing gender. But to her credit, Clinton introduced a Senate bill entitled the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2007. This policy aimed to help bridge the gender gap in earned income disparities. However, it dwindled and never reached a debate.

Otherwise, when Clinton addresses social issues she tends to downplay gender inequality in areas like health care and education and focus on general access and availability to all people. While general access and availability to all people is a noteworthy approach and needs to be talked about, gender inequality in these areas is another noteworthy issue worthy of attention. But gender inequality is an issue that remains in the periphery of Clinton’s political dialogue.

However, Clinton’s lack of attention toward the issue may not be representative of her political stance. Like Obama, Clinton can only say so much. Too much gender talk may leave her labeled as a man-hating feminist and potentially alienate the male vote.

Another problem emerges from the political dialogue Obama and Clinton have engaged in. These candidates talk of race and gender as issues in themselves, which they are, but it’s problematic to isolate race and gender from other interrelated issues. For Obama and Clinton, race or gender gets talked about in one speech or debate, then remains largely ignored in the next few speeches and debates. Talking about racial and gender equality under these circumstances fails to provide any depth to which these problems reside. This approach skims over the root causes of racial and gender inequalities because it does not give any context for these problems. This dialogue does not incorporate racial and gender equality into interconnected issues of political representation, health care, the justice system, education access and attainment, poverty, accumulated wealth, income disparities, unemployment, among others. Until this dialogue is altered, these problems don’t look to be improved.

In closing, the 2008 democratic presidential race demonstrates how far America has come in making strides toward racial and gender equality. But more importantly, it demonstrates how far America still has to go.