News from the New Party

Misogynists vs racists

Anyone who didn't know better might conclude that the American presidency this time around will be contested by two entirely new political parties: the Misogynists and the Racists. 

No sooner had Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Caucuses last week than David Aaronovitch leapt in with this trenchant analysis:

When it comes to choosing people to rule over us, I have long suspected misogyny was even stronger than racism. Iowa has never elected a woman in a congressional or gubernatorial election. So sure, you can have the safe, smily, "witty", mixed-race guy, but let's not go for the scary woman. Who wants to be pussy-whipped by a Glenn Close or Meryl Streep career bitch every time there's a State of the Union address? Shouldn't they really (oh, whisper it) be at home with the kids?

Crumbs.  What a nasty bunch of knuckle-dragging reprobates those Iowa voters must be.  Not as bad as those ghastly racists in New Hampshire though...

[Obama's] campaign seemed to have built up an unstoppable momentum, which was reflected in opinion polls that had him comfortably ahead. So how did the pollsters get it so wrong?

One possible, if unsavoury, explanation is the so-called Bradley effect.

The phenomenon was named after Tom Bradley, the long time mayor of Los Angeles, and describes the difference between what members of the public will say in relation to a black candidate when asked by pollsters and the change in their behaviour when they actually vote.

Bradley, who is black, ran as the Democratic candidate for governor in 1982, but, after polls showed he was consistently in the lead, he was a surprise loser.

It was suggested that voters may have told pollsters they supported the black candidate, because they were embarrassed to admit they were racist, but that when it came to voting in private they supported his white opponent, precisely because he was not black.

Oh dear.  With the two leading candidates for the Democratic candidates comprising one woman and one black male, what is the switched-on, politically correct voter to do?  Is it better to yield to sexism or racism?  Perhaps they could run as a joint candidature - or be president for two years each?

Johann Hari posits a typically original solution to this dilemma: vote for the white guy:

The world is gaping with awe - and disbelief - at the prospect of a black or female President of the United States. If George Bush symbolises everything we hate about the United States, Barack Obama seems to symbolise everything we love about the country: its warm openness to immigrants, its shimmering civil rights movements, its idealism. So it feels strange to say it, but reader, it's time to look away from the woman and the black guy towards the white man from the Deep South - because he is more left-wing, and more electable, than either of them.

You might remember John Edwards as the plastic vice-presidential candidate standing at John Kerry's wooden side in 2004.

Indeed, we do.  And although we are unenthusiastic about Mr Edwards' re-emergence, Hari is right about one thing: this campaign should not be about gender or race: it should be about the real and serious issues facing America and the world.  Commentators who are unable to address that fact would render a real service by keeping quiet.