The Stereotyping of America
david einstein , M'11
The swing state, the undecided voter, and middle America—three vague terms subject to intense political analysis and media scrutiny amid the angst of the Democratic primaries. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards all dedicated their campaigns to the plight of the working class, and the Democratic party—as countless columnists have pointed out—should face an easy election with promises of progressive economic policies in the midst of financial crisis, smart foreign policy as Iraq claims more lives and resources, and new approaches to healthcare in the face of increasing health disparities. But this election cycle increasingly highlights the misguided efforts of political and media elites to understand and categorize the American everyman.
Obama and Hillary both lay claim to the “most average” voters. Obama has inspired unprecedented numbers of young people to vote and has in many states assembled broad coalitions spanning gender, race, and socioeconomic status. However, Hillary and the media have enjoyed focusing on the results in a series of “critical states,” each more critical than the last in its supposed strategic significance and representation of the average American voter. Hillary did manage decisive wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but only by half of her original margins, and only after losing the white working class in many other states. The “war,” if the unfortunate term must be used, is much larger than these few battles, and it is impossible to say that any candidate “owns” a certain demographic.
Meanwhile, Obama has put new states into play for the Democrats. Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi could become Obama territory in November, while Hillary’s Texas primary victory has little implication. States like Ohio and Pennsylvania could well go to McCain in an Obama-McCain match-up, but Obama has found new support in areas of the West and Southeast; support from these regions in the general election would eliminate the old conceptions of “crucial” swing states.
Hillary’s gun talk, whiskey drinking, and support of a summer gas-tax reprieve reveal her stereotyping of the typical American voter. But the misunderstanding does not end with her campaign. Charles Gibson of ABC has been roundly criticized for portraying an average Pennsylvanian family as a two-professor household earning $200,000 (the 95th percentile of American household incomes). McCain proposes high-deductible health insurance as a solution for average voters, when even only the very wealthy use and benefit from such plans. Responsibility lies jointly with the campaigns and media coverage to study real population statistics and focus on effective solutions for those most in need.
Democrats are fatigued by this primary season’s artificial fighting, and McCain has been given a free pass amidst irrelevant media banter about Reverend Wright. But occasionally there are voices of clarity and understanding from within the media or political circles. Joseph Andrew, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and one of many super-delegates who have recently switched support from Hillary to Obama, explained his perspective: “We must reject the notion that we have to beat the Republicans at their own game—or even that the game has to be played at all. It is so easy for all of us involved—candidates, campaigns and the media—to focus on the process and the horse race that we forget why we got into it in the first place. Barack Obama has had the courage to talk about real issues, real problems and real people. Let's pause for a second in the midst of the cacophony of the campaign circus and listen.”