THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S MISTAKE

Identity Politics: I, (self-) defined by some particular characteristic of my body or soul, am a political constituency and force demanding legal, social and cultural approval and representation in all matters of this republic (or something like that) on the basis of how I identify myself to you and everybody else. I will brook no dissent: you will accept me on my terms, as I've struggled for approval and representation far too long to stop now.
_____________________

Rather than nominating for their party's candidate for President of the United States the most qualified, experienced person, the Democratic Party has instead essentially nominated two sacred icons, two holy archetypes: a person with dark skin and a person that is not a man. Rather than nominate a talented and skilled executive, like a Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, or Chris Dodd, the party faithful have decided that skin and sex trump achievement, aptitude and competency.

Alas, now the DNC and its members are in a double bind, one they no doubt hoped to wrap around the country in November. Instead, the party itself is trapped: If we choose the person with dark skin, we will be called sexist; if we choose the person with double XX chromosomes, we will be deemed racist. This can't be! Not us! We're Democrats!

Sexist, racist, sexist, racist. Has this not essentially been the heartbeat of the Democratic campaign? Forget the prevarications and postures over "experience." The exchanges that matter -- at least the ones reported by the press and noticed by the public -- are all about "injecting race" or "injecting gender." And what we are witnessing, especially those of us who consider ourselves political independents, is a big-tent party that no longer has a tent. It's a 3-ring riot, and this without the GOP elephant having to do a single trick.

_____________________

In 2006, Markos Zúniga, the founder of the world's largest blog, the incorrigibly leftist "The Daily Kos," said, "Republicans failed us because they can't govern. Democrats failed us because they can't get elected." I noted at this blog and elsewhere how odd a statement is Mr. Zúniga's, for winning elections is in part an indication of being able to govern.

The current Democratic Party imbroglio is largely the result of passion trumping reason, of ideals trumping ideas. Moreover, the Democratic Party's commitment to the role of "super-delegates," a term and role mostly absent from GOP vernacular and praxis, is rooted in a fear that the Democratic electorate might get things wrong. Hence, the super-delegates were designed to act like facilitators in a crisis intervention: they would intervene and set an errant party on the right course, one that would ensure that the most viable candidate (i.e., the person who could win in the general election) would be nominated. I recognize that you've heard this before; I mention it solely to remind readers that the role of the DNC's super-delegates is not, apparently, always that democratic. Really, the irony is almost too much.

All this exacerbates the aforementioned double-bind: if the super-delegates choose the woman, they are racist; and if they choose the black man, well, they are sexist and, possibly, closet racists acting out of "white guilt." What's the best resolution, at least for some? Put the two party icons on the same ticket. The problem? Neither icon wants to take a secondary role.

_____________________

In the 3 years I've been writing at Contratimes, I have written thrice about Rush Limbaugh. Today marks the fourth, and for good reason. Mr. Limbaugh asked an utterly simple yet brilliant question the other day: If the Democrats can't even run their own primaries, how can we expect them to run the country? And indeed it is quite evident that the Democrats can't run their own nomination process, nor can they even remotely unite their own party. Barack Obama is a uniter? Give us a break. Hillary? Are you kidding? Even recent polls show that the Democratic Party is splitting along racial lines: most blacks support Barack Obama over Hillary. This is unity? This is "healing?" [And then, as if on cue, comes these remarks from a black Democrat legislator. -- added 4.3.08]

Read this post-polling analysis from National Review Online's Byron York:

So — [Clinton and Obama are] both down five percent among whites, but Clinton is down 12 points among blacks, while Obama is unchanged. Thus, Clinton's overall positive rating is down more than Obama's. What does that say? It says what has been clear for a while now. The Democratic race is heavily racialized, and is perhaps becoming more so. Party leaders and pundits may be uncomfortable with that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. [emphasis mine]

In the end, what we are witnessing is the clash of two icons in the mess of identity politics. Democrats were looking for a "winner" rather than a qualified chief executive; they went with persona and personality rather than qualifications and substantive ideas, and they've ended up in a wild mess. Indeed, some even may have hoped to use either icon as proof of America's true evils: If either icon is rejected in the general election, then Republican America is clearly racist and/or sexist.

Ironically, as Mort Kondracke observed recently, the double-bind problems around race and sexism are not the only double-binds facing the Democratic Party. Kondracke recalls that it was the Democrats in 2000 who hooted and hollered that the "popular vote" (which then-candidate Al Gore won in the general election) trumped the "electoral college," which George W. Bush and the United States Supreme Court purportedly hijacked. Now, should the Democrats face a decision at their Denver convention where one candidate holds the lead in the popular vote but the other holds more delegates, one can almost see the paralysis. Hoisted by their own petard as a result of their petulant and indignant reaction 8 years ago, the Democrats will find themselves in a quagmire. In fact, they've led themselves right into one, and this without ANY help from Karl Rove, Fox News, or even Donald Rumsfeld.

And these are the folks who can save us from the "quagmire" of Iraq? Are these the folks Mr. Zúniga believes can govern?

How curious.


©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.