By Carly
Regina
Elizabeth
Warren’s suspension of her presidential campaign last Thursday capped a series
of contenders exiting the race for the democratic nomination. The narrowing of
the primary field, which began after the South Carolina primary and continued
through Super Tuesday, has left Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden in a two-way race
for the Democratic nomination. Over the ensuing days, Warren supporters and
sympathizers have lamented these developments. Many
have bemoaned that the race is now between
“two old white men” and identified sexism and racism as the
culprits behind the shirking list of candidates. This narrative is part of an
approach to electoral politics in which candidates’ race, gender, and sexuality
serve as the framework for explaining their success and even the worthiness of
the candidates themselves.
The reach
for an identity-based framework to explain electoral outcomes is hardly unique
to Warren. Four years ago, in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s November 2016
loss to Donald Trump, her supporters, staff, and even Clinton herself, propagated a narrative which
blamed sexism and misogyny for her defeat. More recently, Kamala Harris’ December exit from the
Democratic primary spurred an uproar from supporters and portions of the media who cited racism and sexism as
the reasons for her early withdrawal. Additionally, others have cited homophobia as a major contributor to Pete Buttigieg’s loss
despite the insistence that his candidacy center on policy and not sexuality.
It is
surely the case that candidates who are women, people of color, and LGBTQ do
face some unique hurdles during their candidacies. However, casting race,
gender, and sexuality as the driving force behind electoral outcomes
depoliticizes and decontextualizes electoral politics. For instance, it isn’t
difficult to explain Warren’s inability to establish herself as a viable
candidate. Warren consistently backtracked on her policy commitments to
progressive politics, perhaps most notably in her retreat from supporting single-payer
healthcare and her decision to start taking money from Super PACs. Additionally,
blunders such as her false claim to Native American ancestry and
her bizarre myth-busting website further undermined her
campaign. But understanding Warren’s defeat in terms of sexism and misogyny
masks her significant shortcomings as a candidate.
In the
same way that an identity-based approach to electoral politics misrepresents
the more nuanced causes of electoral failures, it is equally as obfuscating
when used to explain Sanders’ and Biden’s successes. Approaching Sanders’
candidacy through an “old white man” framework inspires the dubious conclusion
that his viability is unremarkable, even expectable. But Sanders’ success has
been anything but unremarkable. Prior to his 2016
presidential campaign, it seemed unfathomable to think that a self-described
democratic socialist could be a serious contender in the Democratic primary.
Sanders’ unprecedented ascendancy has been built from an avowedly working-class
platform, which takes on economic and political elites and addresses the
interests of the multiracial working-class. The breadth of his support is even
more remarkable given the relentless attacks he has faced from the corporate media and the Democratic establishment.
Just over
a week ago, it was unclear if and how the centrist-establishment wing of the
Democratic Party could slow a surging Sanders campaign. In the 72 hours between
the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday, however, we witnessed a
jaw-droppingly efficient consolidation of support around Biden’s candidacy. In
the aftermath of his win in South Carolina, the Democratic establishment and
corporate media catapulted Biden’s floundering campaign into its now
frontrunner status. The fact that Biden is a white man does little to explain
why he has remained in the race. Instead, his resurgence represents an
astounding display of elite power driven by an increasingly acute fear of a
Sanders presidency.
In
addition to depoliticizing and decontextualizing electoral outcomes, under this
identity-based framework candidates become defined not by their politics but by
their race, gender, and sexuality. Such was the case in 2017, in which media coverage of local and state elections
lauded the victories of women, people of color, and LGBTQ persons such as the
election Virginia’s first openly trans state lawmaker. Missing from
such commentary, however, was any discussion of the candidates’ platforms.
Foregrounding
identity in this way insidiously renders a person’s identity as a proxy for, or
even the determinant of, their politics. It leads to the erroneous belief that
the interests of identity-based constituencies—women, people of color, LGBTQ
folks—can best or only be met by someone of their same identity. It isn’t
difficult to expose the flaws in this argument once you look closely at
programs such as Medicare for All. If passed, it would disproportionately
benefit women, people of color, and LGBTQ persons by virtue of the fact that it
will provide free and universal healthcare to all. Yet despite their own race,
gender, and sexuality, Warren and Harris backtracked their support of
single-payer healthcare and Buttigieg has been vocal in his
opposition.
As for
the Democratic primary, only two candidates remain in the race. Biden opposes
Medicare for All and College for All, is financed by the healthcare industry
and union-busting law firms, authored the infamous 1994 Crime Bill, and has repeatedly
supported trade deals that depress wages and
move jobs overseas. Biden’s policies protect the interests of political and
economic elites at the expense of working-class people. In contrast, Sanders’
campaign has centered on around universal public-goods programs and his funding
has come from millions of low-dollar donors.
Sanders’ campaign is founded on representing the working class in all its
diversity. So yes, it’s true that both are old white men. But the difference
between them couldn’t be more stark.
Carly
Regina is a doctoral candidate in Political Science at the University of
Pennsylvania.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario