The race for the White House: The dynamics of the contest and the prospects for change
By
Max J. Castro
How
could all the polls have been so wrong? That is the first inevitable
question that emerges from Hillary Clinton’s surprise victory in
the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
A
plethora of surveys, including the campaigns’ own polls, had
predicted victory for Obama. One poll had the race tied. None
predicted a win for Hillary. What happened? Why did Clinton make such
an unexpectedly strong showing in the Granite State after her
stunning defeat in Iowa, and how does the race shape up from here on?
Most importantly, does it make any difference, in terms of
fundamental change on the domestic and foreign policy fronts, who
wins the Democratic nomination — or the presidency for that matter?
Several
theories have been trotted out to explain Hillary’s New Hampshire
comeback, ranging from a backlash by women upset with what they
perceive as a pack attack on Hillary by her male opponents to a
softening of Clinton’s hard image after an emotional moment during
a media interview. These factors no doubt are part of the story:
Obama beat Hillary among women in Iowa but lost the female vote in
New Hampshire.
By
Max J. Castro Read Spanish Version
majcastro@gmail.com
How
could all the polls have been so wrong? That is the first inevitable
question that emerges from Hillary Clinton’s surprise victory in
the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
A
plethora of surveys, including the campaigns’ own polls, had
predicted victory for Obama. One poll had the race tied. None
predicted a win for Hillary. What happened? Why did Clinton make such
an unexpectedly strong showing in the Granite State after her
stunning defeat in Iowa, and how does the race shape up from here on?
Most importantly, does it make any difference, in terms of
fundamental change on the domestic and foreign policy fronts, who
wins the Democratic nomination — or the presidency for that matter?
Several
theories have been trotted out to explain Hillary’s New Hampshire
comeback, ranging from a backlash by women upset with what they
perceive as a pack attack on Hillary by her male opponents to a
softening of Clinton’s hard image after an emotional moment during
a media interview. These factors no doubt are part of the story:
Obama beat Hillary among women in Iowa but lost the female vote in
New Hampshire.
Analysts
have suggested another possible factor in the upset — race — only
to quickly dismiss it. There is a reticence to discuss the continuing
significance of race in American politics. A candidate like Barack
Obama, whose message and performance differ decidedly from that of
traditional civil rights leaders who have tried their hand at running
for president like Jesse Jackson, reinforces that tendency. That is
no slap at Barack Obama, who is who he is and he does not appear to
be tailoring his racial identity for the benefit of white voters. Yet
it is a reality that Obama is more palatable to white voters than any
other Black political leader.
In
some sense, Obama is to American politics what Tiger Woods is to
American golf. Both Obama and Woods were wunderkinds who beat their
elders before anyone expected them to; both are unquestionable
virtuosos in their field who elevate the game by their presence; and
both are biracial and for that reason appear to have some critical
distance from the American racial dichotomy.
Obama,
like Woods, taps into the yearning of a significant number of
Americans for a post-racial society based on merit and talent rather
than color. Yet the racial divide persists in many ways and in many
areas of American life, and there are many Americans who, although
perhaps not overtly racist, are likely to find good and convenient
reasons, consciously or unconsciously — and possibly at the last
minute after they have talked to the last pollster — not to vote for
a black candidate.
This
racial dynamic works in both directions, however. The alleged
backlash or solidarity vote for Hillary by white women in New
Hampshire is likely to produce an opposite and equal reaction by
black voters in South Carolina, where black Democrats have been
divided between Clinton and Obama. Will Black voters read New
Hampshire as an indication Obama is not a viable candidate and move
to Hillary? Or will they read it as a slap at their champion, whose
gifts the Iowa campaign made abundantly clear, and rise to his
defense? My money is on the last scenario. If I am right, black
voters will give Obama a solid victory in South Carolina.
Nevada
is more difficult to predict. Obama has received the support of key
unions. In the debates, while both Clinton and Obama initially
equivocated on the issue of licenses for undocumented workers, Obama
ultimately came down in favor and Clinton against. That stand should
win Obama a lot of Latino votes in Nevada, but probably not enough to
win the Hispanic vote or put him over the top in the race overall.
The Clintons have a Kennedy-like appeal for many Hispanic voters.
Hillary has gotten the support of some traditional Latino leaders
like Henry Cisneros. She has been making comments such as “no woman
is illegal — or man” that have a resounding symbolic appeal to the
Latino community, especially at this time of massive raids, rising
deportations, and ugly rhetoric. The Obama campaign does not seem to
have a high-profile Latino presence.
At
the national level, it appears as if Hillary has regained the inside
track — but just barely. Major setbacks in South Carolina and Nevada
could once again change the outlook.
But
does any of it matter? Every candidate from both parties running for
the presidency this year is using the mantra of “change.” But
what kind of change are they calling for? By change Republicans by
and large mean moving toward an even more hard-line and seamlessly
conservative stance than that espoused by Bush. More tax cuts, yes,
but let’s cut social spending too. Wars, yes, but let’s send more
troops next time. Immigration raids, yes, but let’s also wall-off
the southern border and none of that legal status for undocumented
immigrants.
None
of the Democrats are nearly this bad. It does make a difference which
party wins in November. But how much of a difference will it make if
a Democrat wins? The New Hampshire primary not only saw the rebirth
of the Clinton campaign but perhaps also the beginning of the end of
the campaign of John Edwards. Of the three leading candidates,
Edwards has been the one who has called for the most fundamental
changes, arguing for the need to transform the distribution of power
and privilege by squarely confronting corporate interests. Unless
Edwards make a miraculous recovery, his demise leaves the field with
candidates whose positions and priorities reflect not a
transformational moment but rather a return to power of the more
benign wing of the U.S. political and economic establishment.
Thus,
if either Obama or Clinton is elected, one can expect much continuity
in policy despite a vast difference in rhetoric. Corporate and
hegemonic considerations will continue to hold sway, albeit with a
softer edge and some concessions to the interests of the middle class
and, more rarely, the poor. On the foreign policy front, there will
also be a softer tone, but not the prospect of a major change, such
as a truly even-handed policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or
an end to the Cuba embargo.
Within
this basic framework of similarity, Obama’s instincts and
statements appear more progressive than Hillary’s. But it is
anybody’s guess whether a president Obama will avoid confrontation
and be inclined to bend over backward and move sharply to the right
as soon as conservative critics begin to fire away at him and the
right-wing in Congress threatens to torpedo his presidency.
On
the Middle East, for instance, any move to make the policy
significantly more equitable will produce the kind of fierce
opposition that Obama will want to avoid. On Cuba, Obama has been
more flexible than Hillary and will have fewer constraints or
baggage. He may soften travel restrictions and other sanctions but is
not likely to use substantial political capital to persuade Congress
to change the fundamental policy of hostility unless Congress itself
provides him an opportunity, which will require a major change in the
balance of forces, and not only the partisan balance, in the
legislative branch.
An
Obama presidency will change some things, and in the right direction.
So will a Clinton presidency, but probably not as many or as
substantially. Many other things are likely to remain the same. Look
for either Barack or Hillary to close down the detention camp in
Guantanamo; don’t expect either then to return the base to Cuba
unless the Cuban government has collapsed in the meantime.
