This year’s presidential race is unusual. We have a white woman & an African American man in the lead for the Democratic nomination. We have a Mormon & several non-Evangelicals competing for the Republican nomination. This will be an election that is analyzed for years to come.
One issue several of you brought up in your last post is the question, “Is Senator Obama the most attractive candidate for the African American community?” The Democratic party & the African American community are very closely tied together. Many political analysts predict that the candidate that picks up the “black vote” will get the nomination for the Democratic party.
Below are some recent articles that summarize the role of previous African American candidates for the Democratic nomination (Jesse Jackson & Rev. Al Sharpton), the popularity of both Clinton & Obama with the African American community, & the potential barriers to winning over the “black vote”. You are not limited to these articles. I am merely referring you to them because I think they might be helpful for this week’s post.
* “Barack Obama caught between lines in race battle”, The Times, 9/23/07
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
* “Out of Reach?”, 9/27/08, Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
* “Obama Vies for Black Vote While Waging `Deracialized Campaign'”, 9/28/07. Bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
* “Clinton Edges Obama in Black Caucus”, 9/28/07, Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
* “Obama: Jena case shows law's 'inequities'”, 9/29/07, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story
Your question is:
To what degree does a candidate need to represent their community (as a woman, a member of their racial group, a member of their religion, etc.)? What are the strengths & weaknesses to being seen as a representative of a community? Is it better to be seen as an “individual”? Considering our country’s history, is it possible to be seen as merely an individual if someone is going to be the first woman, African-American, Mormon, etc. ever elected to the office of president of the United States? How do you think the campaign(s) should address this dynamic in the race to help their candidate? (Consider the current political realities addressed in the articles & facing our country today.)
(P.S. to the Republicans in the class, the next post will focus more on your party’s issues for the election. I promise.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
I don’t necessarily believe that a candidate must represent their community in order to be elected, but the candidate is much more likely to be victorious if they get a lot of votes from certain groups of people than if they just draw in votes from individuals. These group votes, however, do not have to come from their own community; in the Times article, Debra Dickerson predicted that Clinton would get more African-American votes than Obama (1). “We’ve no doubt that she will fight hard for us,” Dickerson says in the article. Clinton is not exactly a member of that community, but she is still drawing in votes.
The main strength of being seen as a representative of a community is that it is a good way of getting a lot of votes easily. The downside of this, however, is that another community might purposefully not vote for the candidate because they feel that they are not well represented. For example, Hillary Clinton is working very hard on getting the women’s vote. She has many full-time staffers for women’s outreach, special groups for businesswomen, minority women, graduates of Wellesley, and etc. (2). However, this may actually just aid in creating a gender gap because men do not feel sufficiently represented (3). According to a July 2007 poll, 32% of women believe that Clinton is electable, while only 14% of men agree. Obama, however, got 21% from both men and women voters.
In spite of this argument, I do not believe that it is a wise campaign strategy for the candidate to try to be seen as an individual, and not try to win any specific group’s vote. It is much harder to try to get separate people to vote for you, and with this method the candidate has less of a chance. I believe that if a candidate wants to be the first woman, African American, Mormon, etc. in the office of president, that it would be wise for them to try to appeal to their community. I think that they should address this issue in their campaign, but be careful of losing support of other groups.
1.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
2.http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-22-clinton-women_N.htm
3.http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1372074.html
The degree to which a president should be a direct representative of any community largely depends via what means such representation is achieved. That is to say, if a candidate believes implementing certain legislation will benefit citizens on a national level, then the group in support should therein become the represented. A president should not craft a policy agenda based on an issue presented (particularly if the presenters give the candidate/party a nice paycheck in return). If the president should at all, they need to represent the people, not be a representative of them (or some).
I am personally hopeful that representing nominal communities or causes is more of an election mechanic rather than innate candidate choice or agenda. To the point, it would not seem to be the role of the executive branch (let alone the president), either by constitutional definition or pre-current perception, to represent any specific communities what-so-ever.
From what I extrapolate regarding Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, the president is only charged with representing the country abroad as per appointing and receiving foreign ambassadors. Furthermore, it is chiefly the responsibility of the entire executive branch to enforce the laws of the United States (House.gov - Constitution).
Of course, the president does have legislative clout, and this is not to be ignored. The process of enacting formal legislation would become very arduous without the president's approval, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To this end, the overcast of the executive's constitutionally defined goals would seem to be a direct result of the president's role in the legislative process (Ben's Guide - Executive Branch).
However, given that the legislative branch is, I suppose arguably, directly representative of the public majorities policy precepts, does it not then fall on the president to be a neutral party in legislative matters (or even represent the minority) relating to domestic policy?
This problem is exacerbated by the immense public focus surrounding the president, which does lend validity to the executive branch's legislative power. However, it is also the insertion point for the collective communities assault on the president's/candidate's agenda. This would not seem to be a new occurrence, given that hyperpluralism is a well established political theory.
I believe it inherent that a candidate or leader's individuality in a electoral democracy will not wholly stand on its own merits. It seems impossible be seen as a complete individual. Furthermore, it may even be that certain candidate's don't want to be seen as individuals, as evidence by extensive use of opinion polls regarding either platform, policy, or practice.
Being an individual in a free society seems a given. Is it a virtue or vice? Maybe, but it certainly seems to be a fact. It would also seem to me that any elected public servant must connect with constituents on some level, given the nature of elections. To this end, any such connection is immanently beneficial. By the same token, it may a source of great weakness for a candidate.
As stated, we are all individuals, and when a candidate connects with a certain group individuals, likely another group of individuals will feel isolated, unrepresented or uninvolved. It is this likely possibility that detracts from the benefits of voter-candidate connections.
To the point, I do not think the disassociation from a community, group, race, cause, or creed is possible in today's political system. Is this out of a fear of living hell and damnation were the U.S. to ever elect a Mormon, African-American, or, by the deities, a woman as president? Perhaps. But maybe more likely out of the seemingly incessant need to label a person, generalize their stances, and get down to business in this country: are you black or white, red or blue, republican or democrat, intellect or imbecile?
In an ideal world, Americans would look at the issues and ideas presented by the different candidates and vote for the candidate whose veiws match their philosophy. However, because this country has a rich history of racial and gender inequality, chromosomes and skin color will play an important part in this election and many to come.
If candidates support initiatives that help their community it can lead to an "us versus them" mentality that can deter many voters not part of the community, even if the change would benefit all Americans. In order to stay above the label "them," many candidates have not been as supportive of efforts that would benefit the community they belong to (2). This opposes the general philosophy that representing a certain community can be beneficial. Supposedly, if a candidate has endured the challenges the community has faced, they will be better suiting to helping the nation overcome them (1).
Recently, this has not been the case. One example of Americans looking at the issues instead of the candidate is the support for Senator Clinton in the Congressional Black Caucus (3). This shows that people believe that Hilary Clinton will help minority Americans even though she has not personally faced the injustices they have. I hope that this trend toward issues-based voting is not an anomaly and will continue throughout the election. Only when candidates can run as individuals will we have put the sins of our past behind us.
1. "Out of Reach" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
2."Barack Obama caught between the lines of racial battle" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
3. "Clinton Edges Obama in Black Caucus" http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
Like I said in previous post I don't think Barack Obama should not be criticized for not being “black enough” as the TIME puts it. (1) Just because he was not part of the civil rights movement should not make him less favorable for the African American community. Barack Obama should be seen as an individual who happens to be African American. If people like his politics, they should just vote for him. The US should be ready for an African American president because a very long time has passed since the civil rights movement. Even if Mrs. Clinton is gaining popularity in the black community (2) I think the only reason why she's doing so well, is because of her husband Bill Clinton. He was well liked by the African American community and I think she is taking advantage of this. Barack Obama has to gain the trust of both the American public and the African american community. He should not necessarily represent their skng color, but he should be able to represent the issues of the African American community. The African American community wants someone that can be versatile because many Caucasians still would not vote for an African American. If Barack Obama can relate to both African Americans and Caucasians he should have a guaranteed win. (3) Some black immigrants are getting angry that Mr. Obama's “blackness” is even an issue. They believe that even having this debate divides the Black community when it should try really hard to makes some changes to our society. (4) Therefore, Barack Obama should be able to represent the African American community and personally, I think he is representing it just fine, but some people in the community are just very set in their ideas. It will be very interesting to see how things will play out and hopefully we'll see an African American president in 2008 because it is time for the American society to move on and become more accepting.
1) http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html
2) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
3)http://blackademics.org/2007/01/18/are-you-ready-for-a-black-president/
4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501270.html
Elise, I'm responding to your post!!!
I agree with Else when she says that in an ideal world people should look at the issues and not at skin color or gender. However, we do live in a world where all of those things matter. However, it seems that some people are willing to accept the differences in society. (1) Many people in the Black community is willing to accept Barack Obama because he is versatile and also because of his politics. I also agree with Elise that we should put our past behind us and try to accept new candidates like Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. I don't understand why people are so hung up on a candidate's background. Just because Barack Obama is not a descendant of slave ancestors, why shouldn't he be president if people agree with his politics. President Bush doesn't represent the US population and somehow he still became president. Why are people finding faults in Mr. Obama? Maybe the answer to this question comes from the TIME article (2) “ Can Obama Count On the Black Vote?” where the article says that people just want someone with more experience in issues that African Americans face everyday. Mr. Obama's critics believe that he did not face enough adversity to be able to represent those who have faced some adversity. Sadly, people will only change their minds when they are ready and until then, they will keep on voting based on race or gender and not based on individuality.
1)http://blackademics.org/2007/01/18/are-you-ready-for-a-black-president/
2)http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581666,00.html
To a degree I believe that a candidate needs to represent their community but I do not believe that should be there only target group. To be successful and win in a campaign the candidate needs to have the support of many groups. Obama can not rely on the African- American vote alone, just as Hilary can not rely on the vote of women alone. Candidates need to appeal to a wide variety of voters. With the low turn out rate of voters and the right of people to vote for who they choose there is no way that a candidate will win if they only appeal to one group.
The goal of each candidate in this election, like any other, is to get the most votes possible. This leads to difficult situations for candidates that could be seen as representing specific communities like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney. If any of these candidates appear too strong in their representation of these different communities they could endanger the vote of all others excluded from that certain community. Therefore, I believe that while the candidates should embrace what makes them different they should not too strongly represent these factions of society.
The role of the president theoretically is to do what is best for all the citizens of the United States. Certainly, candidates may be more inclined to serve those who vote for him or her, to neglect the other parts of society is to lose their votes in the future. So, in hopes of remaining in office, the candidates need to focus on making the most people happy. Though it is understandable why members of the black community were angry that Obama did not attend the rally in Jena, if Obama were to become the president of the U.S., his role would be to represent the country as a whole. The events in Jena are certainly disturbing and shouldn’t have happened, but a candidate should not be judged based on their absence at one specific event. In instances like this, any candidate should stand up for justice. As a representative of the U.S., the president should make it a priority to end racial, gender, and religious prejudice. It is not a president’s role to defend one specific community more than others, it is their role to create equality and peace in the country. If a candidate were to represent one group of people above the rest, the members of the other communities would logically only vote for members of their own communities. The government can never work effectively if the leaders only focus on helping one faction of society. A president, if possible, should try to be as unbiased as possible. Race, gender, and religion alone do not determine political values. All members of a community cannot be expected to vote for one candidate, and one candidate cannot focus all of his or her efforts on helping one community without alienating others.
Therefore, in this election, I hope we can see the candidates simply as citizens of the United States with different political views. While I cannot confidently say that I believe all candidates are looking out for our country’s citizens as a whole, this would , I believe, be what we are looking for in a candidate. By too closely relating to one faction of society or becoming too strong a representative for a certain group, a candidate undoubtably alienates other potential voters.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
I don’t think that a candidate needs to represent their community in order to win an election. However, if they are to be the first woman, African American, Mormon, etc. to be elected to the president of the United States, it will be much easier for them to win if they do represent a community or communities. They can focus their energies on specific communities that identify with them instead of trying to campaign to a very broad group of individuals. For instance, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all focusing their campaigns in Iowa on young voters. Many college students like Obama, and many of them come to see him when he comes to colleges. The Iowa Caucus is going to be a close race, and all three of the top Democrat candidates are hoping that these young voters will help sway the results of the caucus (1).
The greatest strength of being seen as a representative of a community is that the community that you represent will vote for you for the most part. The weakness of this is that you may alienate some communities in America, and you will not receive any votes from those communities. Bruce Ransom, who is a political science professor at Clemson University, says that Obama has to “maximize the votes that he can receive from black voters but campaign in a way such that he does not alienate the broader electorate” (2). According to Ransom, Obama should campaign this way because he is black, and he shouldn’t completely focus on the black community.
I don’t think that it is better to be seen as an individual. I think that it is much better to be seen as a representative of a community. Based on our country’s history, it is extremely hard for anyone to be an individual and be elected to the office of president of the United States. In order for a candidate to have a successful run for the office of president, they need to associate themselves with communities in America. If they campaign too broadly, it will be much harder to receive enough votes from individuals, but if they associate themselves with communities, votes will be much easier to receive. To address this dynamic, I think that campaigns should focus more on communities that like the candidate or that the candidate will easily identify with. I don’t think that they should stretch the image of the candidate so that they can represent communities that they shouldn’t be representing. The campaigns should also be careful so that they don’t alienate any major communities by campaigning too strongly to other communities and completely ignoring theirs.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/young.voters.ap/index.html
(2)http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
I do not think that a candidate necessarily has to represent his or her race or gender to be successful. Even in today’s generally politically uninformed society, it is not likely that people will cast their vote solely on a candidate’s outward appearance. However, I do think that certain groups of people will have some expectations of candidates based on the community that they represent.
For example, Hillary Clinton leads the polls in the women’s vote and is admired by many as a women’s rights advocate (1). She is dedicated to many women’s rights issues such as paycheck fairness, worldwide equality, and abortion (2). However, being a female herself, women likely have higher expectations for her in the area of women’s rights than any other presidential candidate. Elizabeth Edwards has criticized Clinton for not being the “vocal women’s advocate” she wants to see and not focusing enough on the issues that women are concerned about (3). However, Clinton has to maintain a balance, as focusing too heavily on women’s issues could drive away male supporters who do not feel represented.
Moreover, some African Americans, despite his attempt to “deracialize” his campaign, will probably have similar expectations of Barack Obama. One example of this is the criticism he has received for not concentration his attention on civil rights issues. Many members of the African American community were disappointed when he did not attend the march in Jena, Louisiana, protesting the unfair punishment of African American students. The fact that none of the other candidates attended either received little attention (4). But, like with Clinton and women, too much emphasis on appealing to a certain group could potentially increase the amount of other groups who feel they are not represented.
I do not think that it is really possible at this time in history to see a candidate purely as an individual. People cannot help but notice that Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama is an African American. Whether their race/gender draws them more or fewer votes, I do no think that most people can overlook these factors.
I think that Obama is doing a better job of downplaying the role of his race than Clinton is doing with her gender. Although some criticize him for not representing African Americans, through “deracializing” his campaign he has tried to prevent his race from being a major factor in his candidacy (4). Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is seen by some as taking advantage of her gender to appeal to female politicians, breast cancer groups, businesswomen, and other female groups. She has had serveral conventions aimed at women and hired six staff members to focus on winning the women’s vote (1). Elizabeth Edwards (although she is likely a very biased source as a rival candidate’s wife) has also criticized what she calls Clinton’s “vote for me because I am a woman” campaign (3). Overall, I do not think that Clinton’s gender and Obama’s race will be a huge factor in the election, although it is not a factor that will be ignored.
(1)http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-22-clinton-women_N.htm
(2)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/
(3)http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/17/elizabeth_edwards/
(4)http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
Personally, I think the importance of choosing a candidate based on their stance on issues rather than their physical appearance is essential to a fairly represented government. This is, a government that represents the vast majority of our diverse country. It’s true that by being anything but a white, protestant, male, a candidate will receive more attention from the media and possibly seem more relatable to certain voters but in my opinion that should not necessarily be the case. Just because Hillary Clinton is a woman she does not seem like a more alluring candidate to me and I believe that most of the country would agree. One of my friends today classified the women in the U.S. as sheep and said she thinks almost all women will blindly vote for Clinton based on her gender alone. Many statistics point to the fact that social groups do not base their votes solely on a candidate’s skin color or gender. For example, I tallied up the amount of girls in our class who stated they would support Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election and only 4 said they would in comparison with the 24 who choose to endorse male candidates (By the way: 2 guys also chose Clinton). Granted this is not a very accurate sampling as the country as a whole, but when we are at the age that many would argue is the most easily influenced, it is apparent that the females in our class at least, are not sheep. Obviously there are always people who will indeed vote for a woman based on only her gender or an African-American based on only their race, but in Presidential elections their have always been single-issue voters and I don’t think the fact that Hillary is a woman and Obama is African -American will affect the election much more than their stance on abortion. Overall I think it is best to be seen as an individual and I believe most people would not sacrifice their political beliefs just to vote for someone who looks like them. It is also apparent that Hillary is attempting to win over the African-American community while Obama may have gained women’s votes by being endorsed by Oprah (1). In conclusion, I think it is very important for candidates to be seen as individuals and the majority of Americans are informed enough to make choices based on political issues and policies.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900971.html
I believe that it is in a candidate’s best interest to represent their community to at least some degree. While I believe in a perfect world candidates would be evaluated based on their policy and performance, the world of politics does not act like this hypothetical proposal. If one does not represent their community, they become open to criticism and possibly even backlash from their own community (1). This is like what is happening to Obama as opponents of Obama will use anything they can against him, even if the criticism may have little relevance to how good a politician and policy maker Obama is. Therefore, a strength of representing one’s community is that there is one less thing that opponents can criticize. A weakness of being a representative of one community is that some voters may not be fond of voting for a candidate if he or she gives the appearance of representing a certain community. Even though America has come along way from discrimination against certain groups, discrimination still exists and will be a factor to some voters in this election. While some voters may say that they’d prefer a candidate who gives the appearance of an individual, I feel that a candidate needs to give the appearance that can provide him or her the best chance of appealing to a majority of voters. I do feel that someone becoming the first of a certain group (women, Mormon, etc.) will be seen as more than just an individual. This is just something that is going to happen based on our country’s history. For example, in last year’s Super Bowl, much was made about the fact that either Tony Dungy or Lovie Smith would be the first African American head coach to win the Super Bowl (2). If Obama or Clinton wins the presidency in 2008, the media will probably emphasize that fact that they are the first African American or female president. I think that candidates should address the community effect by first of all stressing that they are the best candidate regardless of their race, gender, or religion. However, given that some voters may incorporate some or all of their voting decision based on a candidate’s community, a candidate should be able to say or show how their community has helped them become a better person and politician overall.
1. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
2. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-01-16-dungy-lovie_x.htm
The fight for representation has proven to be an incredibly important aspect in the history of our nation, even mobilizing the population for war. But to what degree does a presidential candidate have to represent certain parts of society? The answer is mixed. To say that Barack Obama has to harness the voting power of the African-American community is certainly not true. A candidate certainly should not alienate citizens that they share an experience, gender, race, or anything else with, but they cannot spend all their energy and resources appealing only to a certain population. Also, a candidate should not be limited by racial, cultural, or gender barriers. Sure, Hillary Clinton can champion her work with women's rights, but Barack Obama can promise change for women as a man just as well. An example of successful barrier-crossing can be seen when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spoke at the "All-American Presidential Forum" at Howard University, a historically black University, this past summer. One would assume that as an African American man, Barack Obama would be the crowd favorite when questioned on race issues. However, Hillary Clinton took the lead early on, speaking with "greater confidance" and "bringing many women in the audience to their feet." (1) The reporter of the article later wrote that even Barack Obama's wife seemed more "passionate on the issues when she spoke... earlier in the day." (1.) This demonstrates that voters aren't automatically tied to a candidate simply because they share a characteristic.
Although not absolutely necessary, appealing to a certain population or audience can certainly benefit a candidate. Each citizen recruited towards their campaign is another fundraiser, campaigner, and local informer. Additionally, close-knit communities tend to take action together - if one person is committed to say, Barack Obama, it is likely that they will convince their community in their favor. However, if a candidate focuses too much on appealing to a certain population, they are also inherently alienating another population. If Barack Obama was to run on a platform of issues strictly supporting African Americans, he would be alienating voters of all other races and not doing anything to gain their vote.
It is entirely possible for a candidate to run as an "individual" in our country. Although there haven't been many examples of this in recent history, John F Kennedy's presidency demonstrates that someone "different" (although still a White and successful male) can be elected president. Elected as the first Roman-Catholic President, John F Kennedy appealed to many audiences. Working dilligently to pass anti-discrimination legislation, John F Kennedy crossed and defeated racial barriers. Kennedy also worked directly with women in an effort to gain their trust and confidance. Speaking directly about their concerns (2), Kennedy was also able to cross another barrier, the gender barrier, in his campaign and presidency.
In my opinion, I think that embracing one's culture, race, gender, or identity without risking alienation is the healthiest option for a presidential candidate. Certain communities want confirmation that as President, a candidate will work to protect their interests and will represent their thoughts and opinions. Although beneficial, a candidate must also be careful not to alienate other voters if they are concerned with getting elected.
1: http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/449024,CST-NWS-mitch29.article
2: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/002PREPRES12SPEECHES_57MAY11.htm
I think it is important for a candidate to represent their community; however, representing one specific community should not be their sole focus. A candidate needs to consider everyone’s interests when running in a presidential election. Just because a candidate may win the votes of their own community, does not mean that they will be able to win the entire election. Their community may only represent a fraction of the population while other people’s interests are also important. On the other hand, a candidate also wants to refrain from alienating their own community. If they focus too much on what the nation wants to hear as a whole, they may neglect their own community’s interests. For example, many criticisms arose of Barack Obama after he decided not to attend the rally in Jena, Louisiana protesting the treatment of the six African American students that were accused of beating up a Caucasian student. Many members of the African American community felt that Obama should have taken part in this rally to demonstrate his connection to the African American community and display how he will represent his community when elected president (1). Obama may have chosen not to directly involve himself in the rally in fear of isolating other parts of the nation. It is my belief, however, that this was an opportunity for him to take a more active role in fighting for civil rights. Many people have labeled Obama as the next great unifier and this was a golden opportunity for him to prove that he is capable of bringing people together as one community (2). A candidate must find a balance between representing his/her own community while also seeing to the rest of the country’s interests in order to be successful in the presidential election. A candidate must also be inclusive of everyone in his/her community. When Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, before Hillary Clinton was running for office herself, she made a comment that isolated a fraction of her own community. In an interview with ABC News Nightline, Hillary Clinton stated, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.” At the time, this was a statement that offended many women who chose to pursue their career as a homemaker. It isolated a fraction of the female community from Mrs. Clinton who had seemed to label herself as an “ultra-feminist” (3). Although this statement may have little impact on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign today, it is a perfect example of how a candidate must be sure to recognize the interests of their own community and not degrade members of their own community. There are many strengths and weaknesses of being seen as a representative of a community. One such strength is that the candidate will gain the popular vote of their own community behind them. Furthermore, because of past history, a representative of a protected class will ensure the rights of people who were oppressed in the past to receive the rights they deserve. A weakness of being considered a representative of a distinct community is that it may cause others to perceive that the candidate will not be as perceptive to the rest of the nation’s needs if the candidate focuses too much on their own community. I believe that it is difficult for any candidate to be seen as an individual. People are always going to be associated with the community in which they are from due to past history. It will clearly be a big deal when the first female president is elected or the first African American, Mormon, etc. It displays that our world is changing and becoming more accepting of all people no matter what gender, race, or religion.
1. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
2. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama_senate_recordjun12,1,5172091.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true
3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html
I believe candidates who are different from the regular mold of presidents this country has had will always be considered to represent the group with whom they are associated. In this presidential election, the candidates who are “special” are Hilary Clinton because she would be our first woman president, Barak Obama because he would be our first African American president and a lesser talked about candidate would be Mitt Romney because he would be our first Mormon president. I think that with all these candidates, people think of them as representing their group to moderate or high degree. Given our past, I do not think Americans will view candidates as individuals alone if they are going to be breaking the presidential mold. For example, when Kennedy was elected, he was a Catholic president, and I think that many people connected him with the Catholic community in the country. Kennedy’s connection to Catholicism won and lost him votes.
I personally think that candidates who do not fit the regular presidential mold should be proud of being the first of some group to be running for president. However, even though they should be proud, I do not think they should be seen as representing only their community. Our president cannot be a president for only a certain group; they must be a president to everyone in America.
In the case of Obama, most people do not vote for a Caucasian president expecting that candidate to represent only Caucasian people, and I think it is unfair for people to assume someone like Barak Obama represents only the African American community. I think people that expect Obama to represent the black community to such a large degree are hurting him. Manning Marable pointed out that Obama cannot represent the black community to the point where he alienates other groups, while Hilary can support the African American community more but still be viewed as representing other groups (1). I agree with this, I think that because Hilary is Caucasian and a woman, she is seen as representing more people. She can then try to make African Americans feel she represents them also without alienating other groups. However, due to his race, if Obama tries to represent the African American community too much, he will be seen by some other groups as unable to represent everyone. Obama has therefore tried to distance himself from being seen as representing only African Americans. As the Times article states, Obama has received a lot of criticism for not attending the Jena 6 rally (2). Although I think it would have been appropriate for Obama to attend, I also think it would have been appropriate for any presidential candidate to have attended. Regardless of race, they could have gone there to support fighting injustice. I do not think Obama should be criticized for not attending just because he is African American.
The downside to representing one community too much is that it can alienate the candidate from other groups in America. A positive part of representing a community is that it can help a candidate get votes from the community with whom they are connected.
I think the campaigns should acknowledge the fact that their candidate is a part of a certain group, and they should make the point that their candidate is proud of being a part of the group they are connected with (women, African Americans, Mormons, etc.). However, along with that I feel campaigns should stress the fact that their candidate would be a good candidate for all types of people in America due to their stances on the issues and their plans for the country. I think that a candidate not acknowledging their connection to a certain group would hurt them, almost as if they were ashamed of the connection. However, stressing the connection could damage the candidate by making them seem unconnected to other groups in America. These “special” candidates must find a balance, and use their connection to a certain group to help their campaign but also not allow the connection harm their campaign.
(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
(2) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
Because of the diversity of our country, it is completely unreasonable to expect our President to represent every community within our borders. However, I do feel like our leaders should be empathetic to every problem that every community faces. A voter is obviously more inclined to vote for a candidate they believe to be concerned with similar issues as themselves, a candidate they can relate to. More times than not, this candidate probably “represents” them in some way, whether it is through religious beliefs, race, gender, or anything else. Hillary Clinton being a woman alone is one of the reasons she is in the lead for the Democratic nomination; much of her support comes from women. Compared to Obama and Edwards, Clinton has 51% of women’s support in a poll done by the Washington Post, where Obama and Edwards have 24% and 11% of support from women respectively (1). When Election Day comes around, I wouldn’t be surprised if women put Clinton on their ballot just because they’d like to see a woman in office, completely oblivious to her platform. Similar to Clinton, Senator Obama gains much of his support from his own minority, the African American community. However, only more recently has Obama gained so much support from that outlet. Another poll by the Washington Post said Clinton had an advantage over Obama with 60% of African American support, but has since dropped to 44%. Obama’s support has risen from 20% to 33% over that same duration of time (2). Interestingly enough, Clinton still has the advantage.
Emil Jones Jr., one of Obama’s early mentors and the president of the Illinois state senate said in regards to Obama, “He doesn’t share the same kind of background as most African-Americans, but he’s addressed those issues that related to underprivileged communities throughout Illinois (3).” The fact that Obama’s background is not that of many of his African American supporters doesn’t seem to make a difference; he is still able to attain to the issues at hand. Our leaders are capable of addressing all problems; their background or anatomy isn’t the factor making the decisions for them. In theory, I do not think any of this should matter. Our country is a melting pot, and our differences are one of the things that make us stronger. Ultimately, everyone running should be striving for a similar goal. I guess in reality things like race and gender play a bigger role in people’s perception of candidates than they should.
(1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216.html
(2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701030.html
(3)http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/us/politics/02obama.html?hp&ex=1170478800&en=258a5c83f02ad44e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
It is obvious that there are a lot of factors that go into a person’s voting habits. This is significant because it means that Obama, Clinton, and Romney must be very careful on how they present themselves. Obviously areas such as equal rights and pay for both gender’s, racial equality, and religious tolerance are hot button issues for these candidates’ potential constituencies, and it is important for them to address these issues in order to stay in the good graces of their respective racial, gender, and religious affiliations. However the most important goal of these candidates is not winning the vote of people who look like them it is becoming the president of the United States of America, one of the most diverse nations in the world. This election will not be won by the support of one demographic. It is important for these candidates to gain the support of as many groups of people as they possibly can and where it may be easier to gain votes from people who fit their demographic they must realize that one demographic will not carry them to the presidential office. So, the most politically sound thing they can do is to run their campaign as normal, appeal to as many groups as they possibly can and give very little special favor to any particular group of people. This is how presidents have won in the past, they get in the good graces of many groups of people not just one particular demographic and if Obama, Clinton, and Romney hope to be future president’s of America I believe they should do the same.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
I think that a candidate should present themselves as an individual to a higher degree than as a member of their specific community, though appealing to their community is important too. The best way would be to find an appropriate median between the two. Becoming a president depends on how many votes a candidate gets, and in order to get the larger percentage of votes, a candidate has to reach out to all groups of citizens throughout the country. A candidate, espessially in the current race, can't only appeal to just woman or just African Americans because doing that won't get the candidate many votes. As president, one has to represent the entire country. If he or she is focused on one group only, the country as a whole won't be represented. If a voter feels that a candidate is paying attention to only a specific group, the voter won't feel strongly towards voting for that candidate because he or she is not representing their group.
However, a president should devote some of their energies to their specific community, just not all of it. If the candidate wins trust of, say in Hilary Clinton's case, women, she will gain a substantial number of votes. But, there are some situations in which a candidate should pay special attention to their community. Currently, this is the case in Jena, Louisiana. Barack Obama was absent from a civil rights rally in accordance to the issue, and his absence has provoked anger, opposition, and abandonment towards him from African Americans. This is an example when a black candidate, such as Obama, should appeal directly to his group. Because of his absence and lack of support, he may have lost some African American voters.
One can say that Obama shouldn't be attacked for his absence from the rally. Some maintain that his job is to appeal to as many different people as he can. In my personal opinion, he should have attended, but even if he didn't, he is still a huge advocate, supporter, and fighter for civil rights, so Obama shouldn't be getting so much opposition.
It will be hard for the United States to think of a candidate as an individual and not as a representative of one group. However, a candidate can reverse this view by representing as much of the population as possible through their policies.
In conclusion, the best candidate for the country is the one that is reaching out to all the citizens of the country. But, a candidate should also set aside time for his or her community. A candidate who balances these two elements out should be the most effective president in terms of representation (because that is a president's job: to represent the nation). A candidate who finds the appropriate median between the two will get the most support.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
In a reasonable world, race would not matter. The only important factor would be the issues that the candidate is running on. I believe that a candidate does not need to represent his community at all. The community should pick the candidate that best represents them. I find it ridiculous that members of the black community are angry that Obama did not show up to the Jena rally (1). The situation in Jena was appalling, but it seems manipulative to use one’s race to win votes. Obama said himself that he was in Washington D.C. working on ending the War in Iraq (2). If some of the offended blacks saw that Obama was working on a more important issue, they would see the explanation for his absence from the march.
Obama is trying to reflect himself as an individual in the upcoming election. He knows that he is black and is not afraid of that fact. However, he does not want to alienate a group by pandering to its whims (1). Obama is trying to run solely on his issues, but the black community wants him to be more racially oriented (1). Clinton, in contrast, is doing all that she can to get the black vote (2). She can’t lose her place with the white electorate, so she is trying to expand her base to include black voters too. The black vote will be crucially important in the upcoming election
I think that if Obama wants a better chance of winning, he will have to cater to the black vote. This might lose him some white votes and add an extra racial tone to the race (2), but it seems like the only way that he can win. Hopefully, the extra black emphasis will not add to racial awareness. Increased racial awareness will only add to more racism and polarization of the country. Manning Marable said Obama is emphasizing issues such as Iraq above civil rights because ‘to play the race card’ would evoke ‘the old Jim Crow era (2).’” One voter summed up my views the best: ``It's not all about race sometimes,'' said Carter, 58. ``It's about issues (2).''
(1)http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
(2)http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
I believe that a candidate should not have to represent some sort of community to win a political race. Ideally, a decision to vote for a candidate should be made on whether or not that candidate would be the best at the job, if you agree with their stances on issues, and other political reasons. The decision to vote for someone should not be made on whether or not they represent your community, race, gender or whatever.
To win an election a candidate must obviously have the greatest number of votes, and accomplishing this would take a great variety of votes from many different communities of people. For example, Hillary Clinton could not realistically win the presidential election on the female vote alone. Bruce Ransom, a political scientist says Obama needs to run a decentralized campaign. He explains Obama must, “maximize the votes that he can receive from black voters but campaign in a way such that he does not alienate the broader electorate.'' I believe this to be very true, and would be a good way for Obama to go about winning the nomination. Though being part of a community may have it’s strengths, such as getting a good number of votes from that community, ideally this would not work. When asked if African Americans would vote for Obama because of his race many said that they would vote for whoever they thought would be the best candidate, and not just vote for him because they were the same race. Donna Brazile, an African American and Al Gore’s 2000 campaign manager said, “It really is a concern with black voters. They're worried about whether the country is ready for a black President. They're pessimistic ... He has the electability problem with black voters too." This shows that even being part of a community doesn’t always have the advantages that it would seem to have.
I think that it really should not matter if the candidate is part of a community. Being part of a community may have some strengths, but trying to win an election in a country as diverse as ours would make it hard to only campaign as part of a community. To win the election I believe that the candidates need to campaign for a wide variety of people and other communities to bring in the most votes.
Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262-1,00.html
Today, the public is looking for a candidate who can stand up to the failed administration as an individual and offer change. A representative of a specific community will not be able to offer this to the American public. A candidate that is seen as a strong individual will fare better in this election, simply because of what voters are looking for. According to wnbc.com, a plurality of voters who support Hillary feel this way about her because they view her as a strong leader (1). This is true for voters across the board. Voters tend to support people they see as leaders, not because they are representatives of their individual community. Like many people who have posted before me have said, the president is supposed to be a representative of a majority of the country. At election time, 51% or more percent of Americans (barring the 2000 election…) support the next president at the polls. If the president were merely a representative of the community that he or she came from, a majority of the American public would not support him or her. A wide base of support is necessary, as any candidate could tell you. This is apparent when viewing conservatives scrambling to get the religious right to support them and liberals scrambling to maintain the antiwar vote. People who have lambasted Obama for not being ‘black enough’ are making a ridiculous point. Nobody is pointing out that Clinton is not ‘feminine enough’ or Edwards is not ‘white enough’. We must not compartmentalize the candidates, we must instead view them in a broader perspective- the way they will handle themselves once they are in office.
1.http://www.wnbc.com/politics/13280435/detail.html
From Liana B.:
A white male ANGLO running for the United States presidency has a much different role in serving his community than a minority candidate. Especially in the upcoming election, the relationship between a candidate and his / her community is very important. It is not to say that this is ideal, or the way things ought to be, but it is obviously important for a minority candidate to at least have a close relationship to his/ her community. The black communities’ response to Obama and his candidacy is a prime example of the importance of this concept. The “Jena Six” incident caused much controversy in the black community because Obama did not attend the march in protest of the treatment of the six boys involved with the threatening of black students at a high school in Jena, Louisiana. Many charged Obama with “not being black enough” because he distanced himself from this civil rights issues. Obama is striving to be seen as a national candidate representing all of the United States- not a black civil rights activist. But this exact mentality lost him much support from the black community in favor of Clinton whom has had a close relationship with the black community for many years.
I believe it is impossible for a candidate such as Obama or Clinton to be seen by the public as objectively from their communities (black and female) as John Edwards or Mike Huckabee are perceived. This is due to the fact that white men have been ruling the country since its founding- their community is white, and there is no shortage of candidates reaching out to white voters. Minority candidates must run their campaign strategy with a strong focus on balancing the needs of the community they come from, and the needs of the entire public. At least in this election, Obama cannot be seen as solely an individual- he is the first nationally elected black person to run for president and it is in this light that he will be perceived by the public and his community.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ec
This is Liana's post NOT mine.
Many candidates try to be individual and say that they represent a certain group to get votes. A good example of this phenomenon is Hillary Clinton. She is trying to be seen not just as a candidate in her own right based on her merits and political strengths, but also as the women’s candidate. Hillary Clinton wants to be seen partially as an individual because then that would satisfy the feminists, who believe that she would be elected based on her merit. However, Hillary Clinton has tried hard to connect to women and be seen as a representative of them. One example of this was her 2005 speech about Roe V. Wade and how it helped create equality of women. She also mentions in this speech that she would help defend it and protect women and let them keep their rights. Even though this speech was from 2005, it shows that she has purposefully tried to maintain the image that she is the women’s candidate or the women’s politician. I think that the candidates will do whatever is in their best interest to get votes. In Hillary Clinton’s case, that means appealing to women. I think that candidates should represent their community partially, but not just run as the “women’s candidate” or the “African American candidate” because that takes away from the issues. It leads to the image mattering more than what that candidate will actually do as president. Would I like to see pro-women laws passed by Hillary Clinton if she became president? Yes, but I don’t want to see candidates running just as a spokesperson for their ethnicity or gender. Within the community, there are always conflicting viewpoints on major issues and I feel that running as the spokesperson of that community would end up putting words into people’s mouths and stereotyping. It should not be said that all women are pro-choice just because Hillary Clinton is. As shown by the poll projects, whether a person is pro-life or pro-choice does not have much to do with gender. It is impossible for Hillary Clinton to be seen as just an individual because if she won, she would be the first female president of the United States. In conclusion, candidates should partially represent their community but not be completely ruled by their community. Then the actual issues in the election will be considered and not just the candidates image.
Sources:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/coalitions/womenforhillary/
http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/
In today's society I do not believe it is necessary to be the typical white protestant male in order to be a presidential candidate. Nowadays, I think people look more into the values and positions on different issues that these candidates have. This belief is demonstrated by the 2008 candidates. We have a black male, a woman and a mormon.
(1)I believe that in order to receive support, a candidate has to represent their community. For example, when Barack Obama did not rush to address the Jena 6 racial controvesy in Louisiana, Jesse Jackson commented that he's "acting like he's white." Although I think Jesse Jackson is a little extreme, Obama should have been a little more involved with that issue. Being more involved may have helped him gain even more support, especially from the black community.(2) One big strength of being seen as a representitive of a community is that members of that community may be more inclined to vote for that person, depending on what political party they belong to. I know I would not be more inclined to vote for Hillary even though she represents women. A big weakness to being seen as a representitive of a community is that many people may count on that one person to completely represent that certain group. For example, Obama cannot completely bank on the fact that he is going to get all the black votes even though he is black as well as Clinton cannot bank on getting all the womens' votes just because she's a woman. In fact, pollsters say that black voters appear deeply divided, with Obama winning among younger and male African-Americans and Clinton running stronger among older African-American women. (3) To a point I think it is better to be seen as merely an individual because that way, a candidate may not be judged as much by people if they were to be seen as an individual.(4) I really do not think it is possible to be seen as merely an individual if someone is going to be the first woman or black president etc. Obviously there are going to be those people who judge the candidate on appearance or beliefs; that is a fact that simply cannot be avoided.Obama obviously is not going to receive a vote from racists as well as Clinton not receiving a vote from sexists. Even though American culture is becoming increasingly open to new ideas, I think it will be a couple more elections before candidates outside the typical stereotype of the presidential candidate can be seen merely as individuals.(5) I think campaigns should embrace the idea of a fresh-faced presidential candidate. I think many Americans are ready to have a fresh-face in office because they believe it can bring a change to our situation in Iraq and can possibly improve the image of our nation as a whole. For example, Americans like the idea of Clinton in office because a woman president would open a whole new world for women. It would open new doors and prove that a woman really can become president.
Sources:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
“Because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.” Part of his famous speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, former President John F. Kennedy effectively articulated the priorities he held in his presidential campaign. Regarding the future of the nation above the media’s concerns of his religion, Kennedy remain focused on campaigning for America, not the Vatican. This bold attitude earned JFK the presidency in 1961 and his words remain entirely practical and applicable to this day. In our current election, an African American and a woman are leading the polls for the democratic nomination and similar words are being voiced. At the Democratic National Convention this past July, Barack Obama stated, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America, a Latino America, an Asian America - there’s the United States of America.” Rather than highlight the differences that exist within this country, we must embrace them as a part of diversity and focus on the issues that are at the forefront of our government and this election.
Though Abraham Lincoln was the tallest president in history, his championing of slavery cannot be wholly attributed to this. It takes character and integrity, experience and understanding to shape a president, not a cookie cutter mold. In order to protect and maintain the best interest of our very diverse nation, we must select the candidate who will best represent these goals.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_United_States_Presidents_and_presidential_candidates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_age
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fdrbio.html
Michelle Ludwig
I think that a candidate should represent their community, but I think that representing their community isn’t the most important thing. A woman candidate should probably listen to women somewhat, because chances are she’s getting a large amount of support from them, but I think that a candidate needs to be able to do what’s best for the entire country as a whole instead of focusing on simply the needs of their community. I really enjoyed this quote from the article on Barack Obama entitled “Barack Obama caught between the lines in a race battle”: “I don’t think he had to be at Jena. He is not a civil rights person, he is an elected public representative. Barack Obama has to answer to everybody.” (Debra Dickerson.) This shows that while Obama can’t ignore the African American community, he is not only a representative of them, but every single group. Therefore he needs to do what’s best for the whole. Being a part of a community can prove to be extremely beneficial, because that community will be extremely beneficial when it comes to voting time. However, one downfall of being part of a community as opposed to being more of an individual is that not every is going to agree 100% with their community. People will end up stereotyping a candidate based on their community, saying that Hilary Clinton is a woman so she will probably want this, this, and that, however she may not agree completely will the majority of women. The African American community is upset with Barack Obama, saying that he “isn’t black,” and are therefore turning to Hilary Clinton because Obama isn’t doing a good enough job representing them. I think it is possible to have a candidate seen as an individual, but it will be extremely difficult for them to break through the stereotypes. I think the only way that it is possibly is to look solely on the candidates stances on the issues rather then their appearance and personality, which is difficult because that is what people, focus their voting on more and more. I think it is possible for them to be seen as individuals, but extremely unlikely at the same time.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
A candidate does not need to represent a community that he or she is associated with to any given degree. Communities will vote for a candidate that champions their interests, and their support will not be influenced by the race or gender of a candidate’s background.
Hillary Clinton is collecting a larger number of the American black vote than the African-American Barak Obama. According to the Associate Press, Clinton holds more supporters in the Congressional Black Caucus than her opponent Obama (4). Clinton has reached the African-American community more efficiently than Obama despite her Caucasian race. She will lead the Congressional Black Caucus conference and has been termed “the real civil rights candidate” for her views on African-American rights (3). Her lead in the African-American community is an exemplary illustration of the unimportance of a candidate’s ethic background.
There are fews strengths associated with being a representative of a specific community beyond pure historical importance. More often, the weaknesses of association trump the strengths. Representing a specific community puts strain upon candidates to “ ‘not alienate the broader electorate’ “ as they rally their respective community (1).
In addition, Juliana Goldwater of Bloomberg quotes Bruce Ransom that Obama’s campaign is “ ‘deracialized’ ” (1), and Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe revealed Clinton’s “de-gendering” in the presidential race (2). The media, which is largely responsible for a candidate’s image and causes great influence upon voters, is no longer associating presidential candidates with specific gender or racial profiles. The media is suggesting it is more proper for a candidate to be an “individual” rather than a representative of a given community.
A president’s race or gender will only bear historical significance after he or she is elected to the presidency. Prior to election and inauguration, a candidate must establish his or her individuality in issues and leadership qualities to win. The community agrees by saying, `` ‘It's not all about race sometimes...It's about issues’ '' (1). Therefore, it is possible for an “individual” to achieve presidential status.
Candidates must appeal to communities through their stance on issues during a campaign rather than relying on personal background. Obama’s lack of support for civil rights after Jena 6 caused him much criticism and loss of support from the black community (1).
Representing a specific community in the United States is unimportant in the presidential election of 2008. Communities are more concerned with an individual candidate’s position on issues rather than personal heritage or genetics.
(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
(2) http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/05/the_high_risk_season/
(3) http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=46c3631f71ca76aead65446b78482173
(4) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
I think that a candidate's representation of their community is one of the key components of earning votes from that community. (Probably shouldn't be that important but lets face it, that's how it goes) If you are a woman it would obviously be in your favor to support women's rights if you want better chances of winning the votes of women. Being apart of a certain religion is one of the communities that I would say have a fine line that can easily be crossed. A candidate can still be a representative for that religious community without crossing the line. Now to bring up the whole Obama situation. According to my source it says that Obama is described as being not "black enough." Now as I have previously stated, I am not the biggest supporter of Barack Obama, but I believe that this is a very unfair statement. Along with being unfair that assumption is very stereotypical. Representing a certain community, such as the black community, is not about acting the way people "think" a black person should act, but connecting with that community and relating to them on a personal level. There is also a statement from my source that says "It is unfairto expect him [Obama] to be a national spokesman for black folk." This quote made me stop and think for a bit. Is it really that unfair? If there was a Mexican American candidate running for president would we not expect that person to be a "spokesman" for Mexican Americans? A Jewish candidate? When running for an offics such as the presidential office, that person automatically puts them into the spokesman arena. One of the strengths of being a representative of a community is that the community will feel as though someone in a position of influence cares enough to be apart of their community. That encourages a lot of support. A weakness would be that there are a lot of situations in which that community can feel misrepresented. If there was a candidate who decided that they wanted to to be seen as just an individual I think that person will be very unsuccessful. If you are only seen as an individual that means you are not connecting well to those groups and communities who have a lot of votes to give. Since you are not connecting with them they are going to give those votes to the next best person. Considering our country's history, I don't think that its possible to be seen as an individual, if you are a woman, a person of a minority race, or a person who is of a religion that certain people may see as unorthadox. Our country follows such a traditional pattern when it comes to selecting a president, that when the time for a change comes, its going to be a big deal.
~Asia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
I believe that a candidate should need to represent their community to small degree. In a perfect world, people would be individuals that would be the best choice for all people, and not just one specific gender, racial group, etc. Why should we have a president that just represents one specific community? The president should represent all people of America.
In our world, however, we sometimes label people instead of thinking of them as just human. In this sense, I do believe that having the support of your "community" is a rather important goal to a higher degree, because if your own "community" doesn't support you, who will? Could this be why Hillary Clinton currently has the advantage in the democratic nomination? In an article from AP, (1) it states that Clinton was "extremely well-liked and loved....particularly [by] African-Americans," by the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of people who give endorsements to candidates. Clinton has 13 endorsements, while Obama, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, has just 12.
I believe that this could be a deciding factor in the Democratic nomination because if Clinton has the assumed support of the majority of African-Americans, then Obama needs to find other groups to campaign towards in the final stretch.
In the current polling for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, with the assumed support of African-Americans, is in the lead with 42%, followed by Barack Obama with 20%. (2)
(1) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
(2) http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm
I do not believe a candidate should represent a single community, whether it be as a woman, a member of their racial group, a member of a specified religion, etc. I believe in voting for a candidate who closely coincides with your political beliefs, and who you want to represent America to the world. I believe that it is better to be seen as an individual. Yes, it’s an honor to be the first anything; the first female president, the first African-America president, etc. but I believe someone should be remembered by what they do and what they accomplished, not just that they were the first “insert title here.” I definitely believe it’s possible for someone to be looked at as an individual, rather than just the first etc. Naturally, they will be remembered for the first “title” but if they stand out as an individual as well, they will be greatly remembered.
I feel that is what Sen. Barack Obama is trying to do. Rather than just attracting the African-American vote, he is reaching out to all races. Yes, it would mean a lot to him and his race to be the first elected African-American president, but that’s not why Sen. Obama is running. He’s running for president because he wants and feels he can make the important changes necessary for our country. That makes him stand out as an individual. A political science professor, Ronald Walters commented “As a candidate who happens to be black, he has to run what I would call a deracialized campaign. Maximize the votes that he can receive from the black voters but campaign in a way such that he does not alienate the broader electorate.” (1)
"Race is not just an issue in the back of the minds of white voters," Democratic activist Donna Brazile, an African American who was Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager said. "It really is a concern with black voters. They're worried about whether the country is ready for a black President. They're pessimistic ... He has the electability problem with black voters too." (2) I feel it is unnecessary to make such a big deal about who could be the first African-American president or female president or Mormon president. Continually addressing the discrepancy of a person’s race, religion, or sex continues the path towards discrimination. Being that these characteristics are talked more of, instead of the political agendas and policies of candidates, I believe it hurts the campaign trail and hinders the presidential race. Focusing on these traits of the candidate instead of their politics harms the process in choosing the leader fit for the job.
(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD
5OiaQqdU&refer=home
(2) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262-1,00.html
Although it is an exciting time to have a woman or a black man considered for president that should not be the most important aspect of their campaigns. What should matter is their character and the substance of their ideas.
The recent Jena 6 case still shows there are deep divisions and discrimination in the country. The black leaders have varying opinions on how candidates should oppose that discrimination. Jessie Jackson has a more activist approach to the issue than candidate Obama. (1) Obama has challenges on how he approaches discrimination issues. (2) Washington Post article Jan 2007 - “Neither (diverse candidate) will have the luxury of a misstep. Unlike other candidates, they will have their every move and every mistake magnified by the media lens that will follow them at every step.”
Having viable diverse candidates for the 2008 election emphasizes the existing discrimination and lack of power for certain classes in our country. We have to ask ourselves as a country: Does the general electorate finally have the confidence to elect a diverse leader.? /Does a diverse candidate have enough credibility and money to be considered? Are we at the point in this country where race and gender finally should not matter?
The campaigns must first get the candidate visible and emphasize their elect-ability. Next does their party have the courage to nominate a diverse candidate. Finally, in the general election, the country has to see this individual as a leader that will represent the majority.
Perhaps in 2008 our country can heal discriminations and finally consider candidates based on their ideas.
(1) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601848.html
Personally, I would like to believe that the American political system has matured enough to the point where we are able to evaluate a candidate based on their individual beliefs on issues and their potential for success in office, instead of based on the community they “represent”. However, it’s clear that candidates as well as political analysts see in the current system that this is unlikely to happen. (2) Obama has taken careful measures, approaching some civil rights issues more cautiously than Clinton has, in a manner that some analysts seem to be stating is meant to keep from scaring the rest of his political base away. (1) While Clinton is able to forcefully call for civil rights action or other issues, Obama seems to be restraining himself from diving into the issues, in fear of alienating a base that he could have difficulties reaching anyway. The two Democratic candidates seem to have captured an equal number of “black votes”, suggesting that at least for now the election has become centralized around the issues more than whether or not a candidate best represents their community visually. I think being seen as an individual is probably preferable to other alternatives, because at least as an individual, the issues are evaluated on face, rather than being simply accepted based on who delivered the stance. Of course, seeing the large potential for the United States to have its first black/woman/Mormon/etc. president, I doubt the ability for a candidate to be viewed more as an individual as the presidential race gets closer to November. I feel like it’s almost guaranteed that as Election Day closes in, certain candidates will be seen as rallying points for many of their communities. The best I think that can be hoped for is that current trends hold for as long as possible where people seem to be focusing strongly on the issues, instead of just whether or not a candidate represents them more physically. Political parties are by far able to use a candidate’s community to their advantage in an attempt to gain more votes when election day comes, but it becomes a question of how far can the American people be pushed into rallying behind one individual in the name of community representation. I would like to see a political election system that doesn’t see the need to give support based on a candidate’s race/sex/religion, and which bases its support upon the beliefs of individual candidates.
1. “Clinton Edges Obama in Black Caucus”, 9/28/07, Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
2. “Obama Vies for Black Vote While Waging `Deracialized Campaign'”, 9/28/07. Bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
In an ideal world, people would vote for the candidate they believed would best represent them. However, in this country and the world for a matter of fact, outward appearances can usually be the first impression and also a lasting one. In this case, I think it can have two different effects. Some women and African Americans respectively hold Clinton and Obama to higher standards and are more critical of them than they are of the other ‘normal’ candidates. They wonder if this person would be able to represent them well enough or if they would just use their votes to climb up the political ladder. On the other hand, some will believe that sharing a common background would be enough representation in Washington.
I tried looking online for the political scientist we talked about way in the beginning but failed to find his name. However, he was the on who added on to the thesis by C. Wright Mills of the “The Power Elite.” He claimed that even though the same rigid structure of elite has adhered, there are new faces in power. He argued that these new faces had to work hard to fit the mould of the elite. This is why it makes sense that people wonder about Obama: “Is he black enough?” Even though the question sounds slightly racist, it makes sense that experts and your everyday citizens would ask this question. Ever since Reconstruction began, the current Democratic Party has never won without the ‘block’ votes of the African Americans.
Time magazine reports that the African Americans are deeply divided over their “longstanding allegiance to the Clintons or the prospect of seeing the first African American in the White House.” Time claims that younger African Americans tend to support Obama while the older generation leans more for Clinton (2). This will play a key role for the Democratic primaries.
Lastly, people seem to make a big deal about the Jena 6 controversy (3). I personally believe that Obama was trying to “deracialize” his campaign by not appearing at the protest and I think his heart was in the right place. I can see that solely banking on your own ‘community’ would be a double-edged sword. He would alienate his other constituencies. However, in this case, the magnitude of the injustice should be able to bond Americans from all walks of life to gather around a common cause. This was a mistake for Obama. He should have known that he would be scrutinized more than his opponents in this incident.
In conclusion, I believe that it would be the most practical for the minority presidential candidates to capitalize on their unique aspects but also try to represent the diverse nation that is America as a whole.
(1). http://www.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/power.html
(2). http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
(3). http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
I suppose the more pressing question for me is: what is meant by “their” community. People assume that the Community the candidate is going to represent their racial and gender group. Which is definitely usually the case, but does it have to be? Does the black candidate have to represent the black community? Does the woman candidate have to represent women? Should they, or should they choose to be less discriminatory in their voter targets?
Honestly, I think the candidate will represent “their” community if that means the people who support their policies. Sarah Baxter proves my point in her article that claims Obama is considered “not black enough” and that Hilary Clinton picks up the African American vote (1). Other sources state that the African American vote is divided between Clinton and Obama. Obama is a new and young face, but seems to be avoiding the topic of racial discrimination. Clinton has been a long time supporter of African American rights and is therefore gaining some votes.
I suppose the sad part in this whole question and ordeal is that America still sees in differences of appearance. Obama has obviously gained wide support. It’s his policies that are getting him there, not the fact he’s African American. I think the main goal of his campaign is to get as many people as he can voting for him and not to use his obvious lever to gain the presidency. Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, has jumped all over the women’s vote. She is trying to get young women to vote and as a result many women support her. Unfortunately her efforts mean that she has pushed men away from her campaign (2).
Clinton and Obama are running their campaigns very differently. Both campaigns have their weaknesses and both loose specific votes. I still stand by my opinion that a candidate should be supported for their policies, not for gender or race.
(1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
(2) http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0201/p01s04-uspo.html
(3) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
Candidates for the 2008 race that represent a specific community are going to have to perform a balancing act. While they must be loyal to their community, they cannot alienate the rest of the vote. Barack Obama faces these challenges as an African American. Hillary Clinton is seen as representing women. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. These all create delicate situations for running a campaign.
In my opinion, being of a minority race, Barack Obama is going to have the hardest time of this. After he didn’t take a tough enough stance in the Jena case in the opinion of African American civil rights leaders, Jesse Jackson said Obama was “acting like he’s white (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
).” Bruce Ransom described the kind of campaign that he thinks Obama will have to run as “deracialized (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home).” So how does Obama meet somewhere in the middle? Well Jesse Jackson will never get elected to president because of the radical way he goes about civil rights, but at the same time Obama cannot just ignore his community. The hard part is as Debra Dickerson described it, “Barack Obama has to answer to everybody(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
).” This is a balancing act that I believe all of these candidates are face with, but for Obama it will be the hardest.
In being representative of a community one does have the advantage of holding the whole community’s vote, if the community feels that enough attention is given to them. This would also help give minorities a big voice in the government. However, if a candidate narrows their interest down too much to a specific community a broad range of voters will feel left out and probably not give that candidate their vote.
Maybe someday, with the minority population increasing, it may be possible to be interested in one community and win an election. However, in my opinion the only way to win this election is to appeal to a broad range of voters. Although a specific community may get upset that the candidate is not representing them enough, they have to realize that if he or she wants to get elected they must appeal to many, many people. Being the individual and not entirely dictated by one community's needs is the only way to get elected.
The downside to this is that the media will always play up the fact that we have candidates who are African American, female, and Mormon. This makes it hard for the candidate to be seen as an individual. In running a campaign with such community issues at stake, these candidates will have to juggle and balance to make it work.
I think it’s very important that a candidate be versatile enough to both represent those who easily identify with them (race, religion, etc. ) and those who identify with their political stances. Versatility is key in order for a candidate to win a substantial amount of votes. Yet, a candidate can not completely disregard their background, because it is the basis of many of their personal beliefs. For example, a black mans experience differs greatly compared to that of a caucasian man. If an african american male was a candidate he would need to be able to cooperate with all, but it would be impossible for him to deny the mistreatment of his fellow african american men in the process.
There are both strengths and weaknesses to being a representative to the community. One obvious strength (especially in the race category) is that it is easy for those within the community to identify with the candidate, sometimes regardless of the political stance they uphold. Many know that the minority groups usually have Democratic policies( like welfare reform, tax increases for government involvement, affirmative action, etc.). Individuals may see the darker hue in skin tone and quickly identify a candidate with the Democratic ideals. This could work against them if the candidate’s identity didn't coincide with his/her political beliefs. Another strength of representing a community is that it allows them to mobilize a group of voters for their cause quickly and efficiently. Hilary Clinton has the support of many women ( same gender community) and this advantage has given her the lead in the polls. Groups such as Emily's List and the National Organization for Women have endorsed her. By giving representation to females, Hilary has been able to capture support from organized groups with the power to endorse Clinton ( Washington Post)
A weakness would be that you can’t be catering to the entire nation if you feel the need to strongly represent one group among the majority. As seen with the La Raza Unida group in the 60s ( Chicano! ) because they catered to only one minority group they ended up limiting the amount of political power they could obtain. By only representing a small minority an individual is in danger of losing votes from those that differ from that group. By representing a community a candidate also has to make sure that they represent the individuals to the degree they wish to be represented. This is easily seen with the case of Barack Obama and the Jena Six incident. Many African Americans( including prominent ones) claim Obama isn’t representing the African American community to the degree which they wish. Jesse Jackson supposedly claimed (in the heat of the moment) that Obama was, “acting like he’s white”. The lack of reprepresentation the african american community may feel from Obama could easily hurt his campaign, even though he is clearly of the same race community.
Party dealignment is a growing trend in America. Often it is found that the masses identify more with the individual versus the political parties.(Gov. Textbook). The increase in party neutrality allows a candidate to be seen as an individual instead of being tied to their parties political stance. Though party neutrality is on the rise, I still believe that it is better to be tied to a political party than to be seen as an individual. By representing a political party a candidate is able to have a large group of individuals behind them from the get go. Political parties have been around since the 1800s and play a strong role in the election of an individual.
I believe that if a candidate is a “1st”( woman, black, etc.) in the political arena it is impossible to run without the support of those within their community. The candidate must build from the ground up, and this starts first with those who easily identify with and are willing to work for the same goals as the candidate.
The candidates of the 2008 election have a very tough job ahead of them. The nominees must create some type of balance between the communities that identify with them and the communities they aspire to represent. Obama must be both accessible to his race and a representative for the Caucasian community. Clinton must be both a strong female leader and seen as an equal to her male counterparts. A balance must be achieved to have success in this upcoming election.
Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy 12th Edition by George C. Edwards III
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
Chicanos! A Fight for political Power
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216.html
I believe that a candidate does need to represent their community, but not to an extent such that they alienate themselves from other communities. A point that was addressed on Comedy Central's The Daily Show was that Obama may not be black enough to get black votes, but may be too black for white people. This show is a fake news show, thus it makes fun of this topic, but it is a serious issue. If he gives the image of a gangster, he will lose botes form whites who do not want to see a thug run the country, and blacks who do not want to see their community portrayed in that way. If he does not represent his black community then he will not get their votes because they will not relate to him. Hillary needs to relate to her community also, but if she overdoes it people will see her as weak and not capable of running the country. It is very hard for a candidate to be seen as an individual regardless of their background. Our country has seen too much hatred to totally ignore background on race and gender. Historically presidents have been Protestant almost always and the W.A.S.P.S. have been the highest tier in society. The candidates should try not to acknowledge racial, gender, or religious differences because the president should not be chosen based on these things and therefore the candidates should not try to win based on these.
(1): The Daily Show
(2):"Obama Vies for Black Vote While Waging 'Deracialized Campaign'" Bloomberg.com
When campaigning for the 2008 presidency I believe it to be important for a black, woman, or whatever to represent themselves as an individual. For if one represents themselves as an individual, this should reflect on the issues that portray his or her particular community. Regardless if one is to accurately represent this community, there will always be individuals that will vote for a candidate that is within the same community as they see this as their cue to what they believe. Therefore, to be successful in the 2008 presidency one must be seen as both an individual and as a representative of a community, for if a candidate is from a group that is not the president norm, the votes from their community will most likely be needed to receive enough votes to win the presidency.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story
I do not think that a candidate should have to or be expected to represent their community. Most of the time this does happen due to the fact that they are more in touch with these people of similar communities and have the same issues wanting to be addressed. Candidates should not be expected to act a certain way based on sex, race, or religion because then it becomes a stereotypical thing. However, this representation may be helpful to the candidate in getting a certain minority group to support them in terms of elections. So it is most likely a good idea for the candidate, but should not be expected to or harassed for not doing so, all people are different.
One strength is people being able to relate to candidate or the other way around, which makes the election process easier on both groups. Another strength is being able to use personal background or past experiences in working to make a difference in that community. A weakness is if a candidate were to be affiliated with a very small minority group whose issues do not apply to the majority, could work against that candidate during elections. Another weakness is that the candidate needs to be an individual, even if s/he may be affiliated with a certain community that person will not be able to please everyone within that community all the time. Individuality is very important to candidates during elections. If all of the Republican candidates were the same, then how would we choose one to ultimately be on the ballot?
Michelle Howard
* “Obama: Jena case shows law's 'inequities'”, 9/29/07, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.
* “Barack Obama caught between lines in race battle”, The Times, 9/23/07
I do not think it is important at all for a candidate to represent their community. Unless that community is America. A candidate is elected to do what is best for the country of America, not what is best for one certain group. And also, think about this the other way. If Hillary Clinton focuses on supporting women or Barack Obama focuses on supporting black people, what happens if George Bush decides to support his community and say “I support rich white men who are the sons of ex-presidents, and ex-owners of baseball teams.” Clearly his approval rating would drop even farther. I actually don’t really see many strengths in representing a community. If you represent a community as the first black president or the first woman president, that will set a precedent for future black candidates or woman candidates to represent their community. And look in the past as well. If all the rich white protestant men represented their community, we would have made absolutely no strides in racial equality or gender equality. So it is definitely best for a candidate to look past his background and look at America. More importantly it is important for the voters to look past the color or gender and elect the president that they feel is best for the country. If a racist white man refuses to vote for Obama because he is black, he could be missing out on the best candidate. Likewise, if a racist black man refuses to vote for Ron Paul because he’s white, he is missing out on the best candidate. If sexist men refuse to vote for Hillary they could miss out on the best candidate. So whether or not the candidate is representing his community is kind of useless, because it all comes down to the voters in the end.
This is really the first presidential race where a person’s color and gender have seriously come into effect with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama being frontrunners for the democrats. It’s hard to say whether or not it would be smart of them to campaign to please “their community” because no minority or woman has ever been the candidate for one of the main two parties. However, I feel they should be treated no differently than any other candidate. A voter should just look at whatever they look for in regular candidates. If you’re looking for a way out of the war, vote for whoever you agree most with on the war. If you want the candidate who shows the most character and integrity, vote for the candidate you feel has the most character and integrity. I feel this is how the voters should look at it, and I feel this is how the candidates should address their campaign.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story
Macall Smith's post:
I find that it is inspirational when a candidate represents their community, but that it is not the most important thing to accomplish. A candidate should profess their beliefs based on the way they feel, not from pressure of members of the community. Obama receives a lot of criticism for not being “black enough.” But really how can you define that? Obama should represent the American community as a whole, not specifically/only the African-Americans. Yes, Obama should pay a little special attention to racial inequalities, but definitely should not have that as his main focus. What makes me not follow what critics say of him not being “black enough” is by the fact that the only evidence they have against him is the Jena issue. That is one issue of MANY that maybe he just does not know how or if he wants to tackle that certain issue. Or did someone ever think that maybe he is afraid to step way out there and support blacks? Maybe he fears by doing that the rest of America will see him as a civil rights activist only, one who is prejudice against other ethnicities. Either way, if Obama doesn’t support one civil rights issue he is considered not black enough, but if he supports too many civil rights issues he would be seen as too black. Where do you draw the line?
It is a good thing to represent your community and make them proud of you. It is your job as a member in that society to fulfill their wishes. Completing tasks of that community will give you all the votes of that community and of others because you clearly show fierce dedication. However, representing a community can be weakening to the candidate. They will face harsher criticisms and have a challenge to not only please their people but the rest of America at the same time. That is a near impossible duty.
By having Obama as a popular African-American presidential candidate, it shows great strength and power he has as a person. I think it is the upmost importance to be viewed as an individual. An individual with passion, ambition, and kindness…whatever the public seeks would be best suited to run our country. It does not matter what race, gender, or religion they are, it is their leadership capabilities and policies that make all the difference. It is the candidate’s job to receive the widest variety of votes, not only one specific community. You want a leader that represents the broad public.
I think being the “first” of something makes you an individual as well as a special member of a certain society. JFK was catholic; therefore he was seen as an individual but also a member of the catholic community. You are an individual because you are different from the norm. And you are an individual because you represent that one special community.
To answer the last question is a hard one. Before I talked about how Obama will either be considered “not black enough” or “too black” goes into play here. A candidate will always face negative criticism and can never be seen ‘in the middle.’ It’s the role the public plays to rip candidates apart. The best way to approach such a difficult situation is to use outside sources. Rely on diverse individuals from all over for advice. Evaluating criticisms for across the region can help the candidate shape their policies to please the majority. It is important to represent everyone, not a specific group. Be sure to always follow what you believe before you listen to anyone else. Be yourself and try to stay moderate. If your gut reflects what the majority thinks, you will succeed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
"As a candidate who happens to be black, he has to run what I would call a deracialized campaign,'' said Bruce Ransom, a political science professor at Clemson University in South Carolina. Obama must ``maximize the votes that he can receive from black voters but campaign in a way such that he does not alienate the broader electorate.'' - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
I found this quote interesting because i dont' think that Obama is required to represent the african american community. Yes he is an african american, but he is also an American, a person who is attempting to represent the American people as a whole. I think it is difficult for people to see beyond what a candidate obviously represents because of the mass media pegging a candidate and sending messages out to people of who will vote for who simply because of one commonality such as race or gender..
I'm posting this for Liana:
A white male Anglo running for the United States presidency has a much different role in serving his community than a minority candidate. Especially in the upcoming election, the relationship between a candidate and his / her community is very important. It is not to say that this is ideal, or the way things ought to be, but it is obviously important for a minority candidate to at least have a close relationship to his/ her community. The black communities’ response to Obama and his candidacy is a prime example of the importance of this concept. The “Jena Six” incident caused much controversy in the black community because Obama did not attend the march in protest of the treatment of the six boys involved with the threatening of black students at a high school in Jena, Louisiana. Many charged Obama with “not being black enough” because he distanced himself from this civil rights issues. Obama is striving to be seen as a national candidate representing all of the United States- not a black civil rights activist. But this exact mentality lost him much support from the black community in favor of Clinton who has had a close relationship with the black community for many years.
I believe it is impossible for a candidate such as Obama or Clinton to be seen by the public objectively from their communities (black and female) as John Edwards or Mike Huckabee are perceived. This is due to the fact that white men have been ruling the country since its founding- their community is white, and there is no shortage of candidates reaching out to white voters. Minority candidates must run their campaign strategy with a strong focus on balancing the needs of the community they come from, and the needs of the entire public. At least in this election, Obama cannot be seen as solely an individual- he is the first nationally elected black person to run for president and it is in this light that he will be perceived by the public and his community.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama_blacks
I think that the idea of having a specific "community" to represent is flawed. Within a community of people, whether women, African Americans, Christians, or whatever, there will always be opposing viewpoints and disagreement. Expecting people to think a certain way just because they were born as a member of X group is silly. Experiences as a member of a group can shape who you are, but there are many other parts of your identity that also shape your opinions. For example, just because Clarence Thomas disagrees with most African Americans on affirmative action, does that make him less of an African American? Of course not. But the perception is that all members of a specific group think alike, and that's not always true.
To some extent, it's helpful for candidates to be seen as representing a community; that way they're almost guaranteed a certain amount of votes. In our diverse society, however, a candidate will have to represent more than one ethnic/religious group in order to get elected. A candidate that only appeals to one group of people is not going to win.
I think it's better to see candidates as individuals, but people don't usually do that when the person will be the first of their group to be president. If Obama was elected, he would be seen not just as Barack Obama, but as the first African American president. After some time and more elections, however, the distinctions aren't as important. No one cares whether candidates are Catholic anymore, even though it was controversial when Kennedy ran.
Candidates should try to address their community's concerns when possible, but they shouldn't neglect other groups in the process. In order to win a presidential election, they will need to appeal to a variety of people. Candidates such as Obama and Hillary Clinton have to walk a fine line between appealing to their community and finding a broader appeal among other people.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21192590/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19392253/site/newsweek/
^
|
*is Kendra*
I don't think personally it's important for a candidate to represent me as a woman, a catholic, etc. in order for them to do a sufficient job as a politician/leader. As long as they have a viewpoint I support and a good way of going about getting their policies passed I will support them. However, I think it is easier for many people to support someone that represents their culture specifically because they are under the impression the candidate has gone through many of the same problems and have the same views on the issues. Whether this is true or not depends on the person and the candidate he or she is supporting.
The strengths of being considered as a representative of a community are haveing a guaranteed group of people who will support you, and a guaranteed group of people who will campaign for more people to support you. This could also be a bad thing because it may discourage people in other groups to support them since they are not a specific part of this group.
I think it is virtually impossible to be seen as just a person in charge when you are out of the norm. People will constantly be looking for your flaws and watching your every move moreso than other candidates/politicians. You will always be considered the Black President, the woman, the mormon, etc.
The campaign could push this as being a good thing by considering it new and fresh. Something different and hopefully beneficial can be offered by this candidate that aren't offered by others. It may also almost be easier since they will have a more diverse group of supportors than other candidates.
Given the varied demographic field for the ’08 election, it seems very likely we’re going to end up with at least one “first” in one of the major parties. A lot of people seem to be asking whether America is ready for a female, African-American, or Mormon president. That this question is even considered relevant shows how little distance Americans have come from the past. This question, however, is exactly the reason candidates seem to be distancing themselves from what is considered their community. In representing their community, candidates might feel they can win votes easily from people who feel underrepresented or simply want to see someone “like them” in office. However, most of the people who would cast their vote for that reason alone probably won’t vote, and in tying themselves too closely to a specific group, candidates run the risk of alienating other voters, who might suspect them of pursuing a community-specific agenda. Therefore, Clinton, Obama, and Romney are going for generalities in their campaigns. Distancing themselves from their “communities” isn’t a difficulty for Clinton and Romney like it is for Obama. Clinton would be hard-pressed to ingratiate herself to all women, and frankly, since Mormons aren’t the religious majority, all Mitt Romney has to do is highlight policy and use the argument of John F. Kennedy as to why it shouldn’t matter that he’s a Mormon. Obama is having a hard time of it, because some people feel he isn’t reacting strongly enough to the issues in the African-American community (Jena 6; it’s everywhere), while others don’t want a candidate who is too tied to a community. (In my opinion, this is mostly nitpicking, since the main reason for his campaign falling behind seems to be Clinton’s popularity—or some would say “notoriety.”)
While it would be nice to see candidates as individuals, or at least just as members of their specific political ideology, it isn’t going to happen in this election, and there’s very little that can be done to correct that. Until the “first” is out of office and we’ve gotten another one, candidates’ backgrounds are going to be an issue. Once the novelty has worn off, all the furor over candidates’ religion, race and gender should die down.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
It is important for candidates to represent their communities, but it is also very important to appeal to all audiences in order to win the presidency. Given our country’s history, I think that at this point in time it would be very hard to run and not be seen as a woman, African-American, Mormon, etc. This is because for the past 200 years we have had nothing but white, Christian men as our presidents. Except for JFK (who was a catholic), we haven’t seen anyone outside the typical image of an elitist in the white house. Naturally, the first time someone who is different gains control, Americans are going to focus on what makes them different. These candidates should represent their community to a certain extent. Barack Obama was criticized for not being more opinionated in the recent Jena 6 cases (Times Online). While it is true that he is not a civil rights activist, I think that it would be wise for Obama to at least show support for the Jena 6 or make a significant statement. Barack has also been viewed as “not black enough” (Times Online). While I don’t think it’s accurate that a candidate can be something “enough”, I think that there is a need to appeal to the necessary voters to gain the nomination. This means that a candidate should try to draw in all types of groups, especially those that are speculated to be some of their biggest voter bases. Hillary Clinton has appealed to black voters as well (Associated Press) and has been quite successful due to her connections with Bill Clinton. Hillary has also appealed to her speculated voter base, women, by enlisting thousands of them to help her presidential campaign (NY Times). While the appealing to the represented communities has strengths in the fact that it promotes support for the candidates, it also has weaknesses in the fact that it can drive other support away. Typical, moderate Americans tend to be turned off by too radical of action or representation. Candidates must stay mostly centered in order to win over the U.S. While Barack maybe should have stepped in a little more in the Jena 6 events, it may also have benefited him not to have been seen as part of the issues because it could have turned people against him. It is important to maintain a good appearance to all groups of voters. While these candidates’ attributes spark new meanings in Congress and the white house, I think that most Americans still view them as individuals that represent one party or another. Although these differences help the candidates stand out, I do not believe that they will completely define them. What these politicians stand up for, fight against, and overall represent is what will put them in the white house. The parties need to promote their policies and plans for the future more so than the candidates’ individual attributes and histories. The winning-over of voters- white, black, man, or woman- is what is most important.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06voters.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I don't think it's a necessity to be representative of their community, and being seen as such could be either positive or negative. Atheists are a good example of where this could work against a candidate; according to a Feb 2007 Gallup poll, only 45% of Americans would be willing to vote for an atheist for president, ranking behind blacks (94%), Jews (92%), Mormons (72%), and homosexuals (55%) [1]. In this case, emphasis on being part of this group would work against a candidate. In fact, these polling numbers have actively discouraged atheists from running for president.
Being seen as a representative of a group may garner some votes from the group in question, but in reality, all of the three Democratic front runners that belong to minority groups have failed to gain a monopoly on votes from the group they belong to [2]. This has contributed to their perceived legitimacy as candidates; clearly, none of them are favoring their own groups at the expense of others, or perhaps at all [2].
Being seen as an individual is better for the voters; ideally, biases or prejudices wouldn't be as strong an influence on their choice of president. Unfortunately, I think that people who are more likely to be influenced by biases are those who are least likely to see the candidates as individuals. As the first election where we have a significant number of candidates from minority groups both running and gaining wide mainstream support, it's unrealistic to expect people to overlook the fact that these candidates don't fit the mold of past presidents.
What candidates who belong to minority groups need to address is the issue of stereotypes surrounding the group they belong to. As minorities in the political arena, there are less precedents to either confirm or deny the accuracy of stereotypes, leaving people inclined to believe them. Hillary, for example, has taken care to not appear too soft on issues, the perceived reaction of a woman. Without a strong campaign based on the individual, or widespread public knowledge regarding the person in question, stereotypes can undermine public image and confuse stances on issues.
[1] http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611
[2] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/03/campaign_diversity_gets_real/
A candidate needs to represent their community as a woman, a member of their racial group, or as a member of their religion, to a degree that the members of that community can still relate to a candidate. It is very important for the members of their community to feel that the such candidate still portrays the values that are associated with that community. An example would be the criticism Obama is facing right now. He has been criticized by Reverend Jesse Jackson, an active political activist in the black community, as “acting too white.” The reason for this accusation is Obama refuses to comment on the Jena 6 in new orleans. It is an advantage for a candidate to be seen as a representative for their community because it creates strong support for the candidate in the community, but at the same time it can create mistrust of the candidate. Members from other communities might feel, the candidate has his/her community's interest at heart.
That being said, it is better to be seen as an individual because it allows more room to make decisions based on personally thinking, and not what a community thinks should happen. But it is not possible for a candidate to be seen as merely an individual when the candidate is has a minority background. The members of the community expects the candidate to act with the interest or values of the community and members outside the community judge a candidate's decision based on their background.
Post a Comment