It seems pretty obvious at this point that Hillary Clinton won't be winning the Democratic nomination. As DailyKos and the related story at Politico demonstrate, the mainstream media don't seem to be coming to terms with this state of affairs particularly well, and neither does Clinton, for that matter. I guess I can understand why she's hanging on. I'm sure that if I were in her position, with a strong conviction that America can be improved and an equally strong desire to see change given form, I would be reluctant to leave the stage as well. I don't dislike Clinton, and I'm convinced that she could be at least as good a president as her husband was. Still, what bothers me about Clinton's campaign here toward its presumptive end is the way they have gone after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story, and the spin her representatives have put on it. That is, the conflict has proven Obama is not a "known quantity." Since he has not been vetted for the last fifteen-odd years by the public eye, Obama is less "electable." From the DailyKos story:
"Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka [sic], the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable."
So, while I sympathize with Clinton's political situation, I think that's complete bullshit. Setting aside anyone's feelings about Wright's pulpit remarks, the real problem with this story is the concept of being "electable." What kind of word is that? What does it really mean? Describing someone as "electable" boils down the complexities, frailties, and failures of America's entire democratic process to nothing more than coming out on top of a protracted popularity contest. Now, I do feel that to an embarrassing degree, America's election process is a popularity contest, but I don't want to define it as such; I don't want to say that's all it should be. That's the difference here. Why should the ability to win elections, in and of itself, be valued at all? The suggestion panders to the worst, most pessimistic sensibilities about Americans. In what must be a last-ditch effort to save her candidacy, Clinton's team are asking people to vote for her simply because she's more likely to win, she's better able to game the system. Not only does this point of view ignore all of Clinton's legitimate qualities and what I believe is her genuine desire to make America better, it also suggests that American voters are only capable of voting based on their perception of whoever is cleanest after being flushed through the toilet of our media-poisoned election culture. I don't believe this, and I don't like what it says about us. Like many people, I am ashamed of the ridiculous, embarrassing national clusterfuck that inevitably arises during presidential election years, and I don't like the state of elections in general. But we won't do any better as long as we accept the limitations we have now.
The idea of "electability" is also related to the irrationally strong backlash against third parties and their candidates. Why does an obvious libertarian like Ron Paul have to call himself a Republican to even get any national attention? Not that I am interested in voting for him, but why shouldn't he be free to run as a member of whatever party he chooses? Why does Ralph Nader get pilloried every time he even mentions running for president? I've heard the complaints about what he did in the 2000 election, and how we wouldn't have had eight years of Bush if he hadn't run, but look at that statement more closely. Never mind the fact that Bush's supporters stole the election for him in Florida, is it Nader's fault that Gore wasn't successful enough as a candidate to capture all the left-leaning votes he needed? Why should Nader get blamed for Gore's inadequacies, or those of the media that refused to acknowledge the genuine political corruption in the Florida vote? The corrosive legacy of Republicans' post-Reagan era monopolization of the public political consciousness is most visible in this line of thinking. Instead of working to influence that consciousness, shape American opinions for the better, and force the media to be accountable for lackluster political coverage, progressives live in a duck-and-cover mentality of "let's just take what we can get."
I refuse to accept that, and I'm convinced we can do better. I'm not happy with either Republicans or Democrats, and I'd much rather vote for a good third-party candidate at this point. The question to ask is whether we're willing to throw out existing limitations in favor of a more open, honest, democratic process, one that makes room for all candidates, even if they don't fit into popular parties or ideologies. I don't mean to suggest that America's election problems are simple; on the contrary, the same social, cultural, and economic problems that are suffocating other aspects of American life take hold of elections as well. Still, I think the first step is being willing to question these assumptions. If the success of Ron Paul proves one thing, it's the fact that Americans are at least somewhat open to these questions. Moving forward, we have to embrace this openness if we're ever going to change what we don't like about our democracy. While I could live with either Obama or Clinton, accepting either as "the best we can do" is not enough, and I am not at all happy that Clinton is endorsing this outcome. If Maureen Down is to be believed, Clinton wants to win at any cost. I don't think Dowd is right, and I certainly hope not; if she is, then the already tenuous connection Democrats have to true progressive politics may weaken even further. We have to have a future separate from simplistic distinctions like Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal. The rigidity of such thinking is readily exploitable, as demonstrated by the Republicans' infamous "Southern strategy" and the fearmongering tactics of right-wing "news" "sources." Worrying about what third parties do to elections simply because we are unquestioningly attached to the two familiar parties only enforces their limitations, and in the end, we will all have to come together and honestly examine what doesn't work about America to make any positive difference.
