In discussions during the long Democratic primary I’ve heard it suggested a number of times that should Obama not win the nomination, a generation of newly-engaged voters will be disillusioned and may never vote again. While this is understandable, it’s not really a sensible criticism of the process.
Should Clinton actually steal the nomination, by somehow breaking the rules, then this may be a reasonable thing to argue, although it should be clear that if this were to happen, young people’s feelings would be the least of the Democratic Party’s worries. But should she get the nomination by, you know, winning it, frankly I don’t see why some First Time Voters’ (FTV) feelings should trump that.
If I was to be cynical, I might feel it useful to point out that we’re generally talking about acknowledging the disappointment of a group of young first-time voters (mostly male), as opposed to the disappointment of a group of older women who’ve been waiting a lifetime for the chance to see the first female nominee. I guess people figure they must be used to disappointment by now.
But ignoring for a moment the politics of why the feelings of FTV - who have a lifetime of opportunity ahead of them - should be given priority over things like party rules, democracy, electability etc; I think it’s also important to consider the importance of having one’s hopes dashed early on.
Imagine, if you can, that the number-crunching, cigar-smoking superdelegates, sitting in their backroom, decide to support Obama so that the FTV aren’t so disillusioned that they stay home. It might be a success this time, and the FTV may be the group to tip the scales and secure a Democratic victory. But what happens the first time Obama makes a compromise to get a bill through Congress? Or what if it isn’t even a compromise - what if Obama (shock, horror) has a different view at some stage in his first term and does something they don’t like? Will they stay home next time, handing the Republicans the keys to the White House? And how much weight must be given to the next batch of fresh-faced FTV as opposed to the ones who’ve now been Politically Engaged for four years now?
Pragmatism and idealism are often seen as antonyms, and this confusion is, I think, the basis for many intra-left stoushes, (especially Green V Labor in Australia). Pragmatism isn’t always, or even often, the same as selling out. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, the focus should be on teaching FTV (as well as those who’ve been around a while and should know better), the importance of priorities. While the nomination process is still open, it’s perfectly justifiable to continue to fight for the nominee you think is the best. But once over, the fight changes, and it isn’t about control of the party anymore. For the next few months, the fight is for control of the country, and at this point in time the fact that your nominee lost is irrelevant; if you still believe that the Democrats are better than the Republicans then you fight for that. Because whether you campaign or not, vote or not, someone will still become the next US President.
The most valuable lesson that we can teach FTV is not that if you fight hard enough you’ll get what you want. It’s that you need to be smart, strong and flexible. You need to know what you want to achieve, but be aware of what’s possible; you need know how to get the best of what’s actually available. You also need to be humble enough to always keep in mind that just because you know that you are right, there are plenty of people who think that you’re wrong, and they will win sometimes. That’s democracy, and when democracy happens, you don’t just leave and go home. There will always be another primary, another election. Most of them will not be your dream battle.
This is an odd column. It contains more counter-factuals than an episode of Buffy. And in essence it seems to say: ‘if new voters don’t turnout that is petulance. Women voters have a right to be petulant too - but of course we are too mature to ever be that way.’
Good and interesting post, Anna.
One aspect of the issue which you’ve touched on, but which could be more fully explored, is the extent to which the primary system itself feeds the phenomenon in question, i.e. FTV’s first time vote being between Obama and Clinton rather than between either of them and McCain.
Another issue of more general relevance - and I say this as someone whose hackles are often raised by patronisation of younger generations - is that one has to have lived a certain amount of time to be able to see and appreciate what eventually comes out of the working-through of a political process in which (unless you’re a Spartacist) there will inevitably be compromises, zig-zags, retreats, and indeed reassessments of “principled stances” in the light of new information and reflection on the lessons of experience.
My favourite example from personal experience is to contrast my role (along with other lefties) in denouncing Bob Hawke’s “betrayal” on uranium mining from the time of his preselection struggle against Gerry Hand in 1979 until the mid-1980s, with my role as an academic in recent years teaching university students - young enough to be my kids if I had any - about the significant environmental policy gains which occurred over the course of Hawke’s Prime Ministership.
For my 2 Pesos I think the fact that all this USSA election gibberish has set the anti-war movement back is wickedly unconscionable. The sooner we move toward prediction markets controlling every major issue the better. ( Sear Wikipedia ‘ assassination markets’ ) Put up or shut up. Ya Basta!
Yes good post. I’ve always wondered why it’s an unquestioned line of causality in this campaign that disappointment will lead to apathy and nonvoting, where a cursory glance at American history supports the opposite: disappointment usually leads to polarisation and increased militancy.
Or, Liam, to use the Hawke analogy again, those of us who were sticking “No Nuclear Hawkes” stickers everywhere and chanting “Pig Iron Bob - Yellowcake Bob!” in 1979-85 still gave him our preferences (after voting NDP, Trot, Commo, Democrat, proto-Green, etc.) ahead of Fraser, Peacock, Howard and Peacock again.
Whatever the outcome of the Democratic primaries, and it now looks certain to be Obama, its a salutary lesson to those RWDBs like Eric Abetz about the stupidity of introducing non-compulsory voting here, so far as the American general election is concerned. One can only hope all Democrats will go out and vote fot whichever candidate gets the Presidential nomination. I don’t like Clinton because I don’t trust her, but if I was an American citizen I’d go out and vote for her anyway, just to do my bit to ensure the Republicans didn’t get the Ptesidency.
On the other hand the fear that the superdelegates’ use of their votes to nominate a candidate unbacked by a majority of elected candidates seems to me like a perfectly valid concern—with consequences for the processes of future nominations within the Party, rather than for the popular vote at the poll.
PN, I am as always awed by your ability to remember your preferences throughout Australian history.
As well as the claims about disillusioning a whole generation of voters (sensitive souls that they are) there has been a fair bit of “our nominee or we vote for McCain” about. All hysterical teenagers need to learn that screaming and threatening to top yourself with the veggie peeler is counterproductive.
I think thats exactly what they’re concerned about, its not about a male/female thing. There would be the same concerns if Clinton had clearly won the popular vote but failed to get enough superdelegates to get the nomination.
I agree with Liam that it’s important for the superdelegates to keep in mind the popular vote when making their decision, but to be honest, if the numbers are really close, they’d also be justified in weighing later primaries more heavily. In saying that, I don’t know what result that would bring, and whether it would be different - I’m just making the point that if votes are changing over the course of the primary then it would be worth examining why, and what it means for the general election. That is one of the points of having an extended primary - providing the candidates with a trial run to see how they’ll go in the general. Which explains why Clinton remains in the race - it’s still possible that a huge disaster in the Obama campaign could see the superdelegates quite rightly, I think, overruling votes that took place months prior.
But all that aside, I’m not actually arguing that this is a man/woman thing, except in the sense that if the tables were turned, I can’t picture anyone caring about the disillusionment of the women who desperately wanted Clinton to win. But in case it wasn’t clear, I’m saying that would also be ridiculous in the context of who is entitled to win, as is the idea that Obama should win because of those poor young people who might get all disillusioned. It’s Presidential politics: they probably should get a little disillusioned about their ability to get their way.
Much as I might personally like smart candidates like Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern and Barry win through; surely we must all recognize some historical reality?
In Amerikkka these sort of candidates not only lose… but also get assassinated.
So why not just go with the assassination politics?
People in general seem fed up with this old model of representational politics in spite of this dubious ‘ fresh prince of Bel Air’ generation being touted here.
We all want open-source politics that amounts to direct democracy thank you very much. Cut the crap.
Interesting post. I think there’s lots of different thoughts that could be had about all this.
One side note I think is telling (and I apologize for being a little bit caustic, but whaddaya gonna do?). There seems to be a breezy consensus here, as if it were really quite a given (and I think rightly so) that a substantial piece of Obama’s base are petulant, not-so-thoughtful, “hysterical teenagers” (whether figuratively or literally) who have a lot of growing up to do politically, n’importe quoi. It would seem to imply certain rather telling things about the nature of Obama’s candidacy, which a lot of folks appear reluctant to admit to.
It’s a weird (and I think unfortunate) accident of history that such an important election, coming as it does in the wake of the worst presidency in memory, should happen at the same time that various forces have unhelpfully pushed so much identity politics front and center. There’s way too much personality and identity loyalty going on, when what is needed is a competent, low-key, clear-thinking individual with a modest but rational and achievable agenda, to reverse some of the damage that’s been done. Zany revolutionary programs, or electing someone because they share some of your biological traits, is really not gonna be the ticket to good political health. We don’t need a president to hit the fast-forward or rewind button; first and foremost we need someone who knows where the pause button is. In that respect your idealistic FTV types are being counterproductive. The good ship S.S. Gigantic doesn’t exactly turn around on a dime without capsizing.
Since I personally wish the Dems and the GOP would both dissolve and reconstitute into new parties, both having become historically of greatly reduced relevance, I think it’s interesting how much potential there is for intra-party disappointment on both sides. Hillary is representing the old-fashioned blue-collar “all we want is a decent shake and a humane safety net” left, and Obama has marshaled the elitists, the crackpots, and the grievance crowd. It’s a key faultline in the Dems, and I wish they would just part ways so we could have a bit more articulation in our politics. Same with the GOP: lots of Repubs are really unhappy with McCain, lots are unhappy with the Bush legacy, and they all seem handcuffed together in an ungainly fashion like the escaped prison mob in “Take the Money and Run.” Would that someone had a hacksaw.
If there’s enough of a ruckus and cries of “Foul!” in Denver, who knows? Maybe things will get really weird. It’s not like they haven’t been weird for a good long while anyway.
1. the post misses the point that if you vote early you actually do vote often. people who enrol young are more likely to vote and more likely to continue to vote for the rest of their lives.
2. hillary isn’t going to win on any metric.
I suspect the disillusionment angle is more an ageism thing anything else. One is the (perhaps unfair) view that the young of today are more likely to give up if they don’t at first succeed. The other is that in a decade or so a lot of the older voters are going to be dead anyway.
Indeed. I can think of many much more effective (and quiter) way for them to top themselves.
This is a very interesting post as a hypothetical. I don’t think it relates to the specific case all that much. Since shortly after Super Tuesday its been clear the only way Clinton was going to win was if she found a way to either get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated, or guilt-tripped a lot of super delegates into voting for her on the basis that she really had won the popular vote if you included Michigan and Florida.
I’m not sure this could be called breaking the rules, but certainly the former would be re-writing the rules, and the latter rewriting history.
It’s been during this period that I’ve seen most of the articles about young Obamaites being disappointed, and frankly if Clinton did win this way they’d be entitled to feel the party had betrayed them, although of course I still think they should vote.
I’d also note that at least the Obama voters are just threatening to stay home if they don’t get their man. Heaps of the Clinton voters have been saying they’ll vote McCain. Interestingly, the polls generally seem to show them saying this at the time of the primary in their state, but as time goes by their opinions soften. Immediately after Pennsylvania McCain was leading Obama in polling there. Now Obama is 5% up. He’s picked up nationally at the same time, but nowhere near as much. It seems like the Clinton supporters are coming round once the focus moves to another state.
The opposition to Hillary doesn’t necessarily come from FTVs. It comes from those who presume to speak on behalf of FTVs, which is not the same thing and is not just a semantic quibble.
The machinery (political/fundraising/media/other) that put Hillary Clinton into a seemingly unassailable position as recently as six months ago is the same machinery that put John Kerry up against Bush last time, and the same machinery that put up Al Gore the time before that (and let’s not have any nonsense about hanging chads: if Gore had won his “home state” of Tennessee, Florida would have been academic). Each time, idealistic Democrats were told: we need a safe, experience choice, someone who’s worked their way up through the system and paid their dues. Each time, the Republicans tailored their campaign around the well-known shortcomings of the successful candidate. Each time the so-called professionals in the Democratic Party were unable even to anticipate the Republican campaign, let alone counter it.
Those who position Hillary Clinton as this year’s Experienced Safe Choice (ESC) are hoping for third-time lucky. Those who oppose her oppose the very idea of ESC - but to do so doesn’t necessarily mean being reckless.
If FTVs were that big a constituency, the main opposition to Hillary Clinton would be coming from a doomed Corey Delaney-style cult figure, or even a fey Eugene McCarthy/Adlai Stevenson-style character - not someone like Obama. All that rhetoric about change and not-politics-as-usual represents opposition to the machinery that Hillary Clinton has worked to her advantage. Until, of course, it ceased to be an advantage. She can’t dump the machinery, where else would she go?
Hillary Clinton has hoped she can get around the animosity to the Democrat machinery with all that hotdog-eatin’ beer-drinkin’ blue-collar nonsense, proving that patriotism isn’t the last refuge. There’s a fundamental shift on here - and while it’s on, it really is best not to lecture FTVs that they must work to assumptions that are clearly causing experienced, high-ranking and not-unintelligent political operatives to fumble, misstep and ultimately fall on their arses.
Not being American, or a woman, I’m reluctant to wade into US feminist political debates. I definitely have no comment on a woman candidate seeking to differentiate herself from a skinny man with a high-calorie food intake, oh no. I do note, however, that Camille Paglia has said that she’s more than happy to vote for a Democrat woman President, just not Hillary Clinton. Whatever one thinks of Paglia, not only is she entitled to her view but it is entirely possible that it is shared by many - a significant, election-outcome-changing many, including (but not limited to) FTVs. If you think the Democrats are riven now, wait until Hillary Clinton stitches up some backroom deal and goes on to lose this year’s general election - after three close losses, any Democrat vaguely resembling an ESC would be publicly disembowelled.
Most of the American feminists I know (personally) who are over 40 are backing Obama. From the outside, it seems much more like a centre/left divide than a man/woman or black/white one.
The problem with Hillary isn’t her gender. The problem with Hillary is her policies, her record, and her surname.