The New Face of the Political Elite

Although I generally agree with the theory that "demography is destiny" in this primary election, I think we've all had difficulty parsing out the meaning behind group preferences for particular candidates.  Narratives include: the struggle between Baby Boomers and Generation Me for political, social and cultural prominence in the 21st century; those by NYC Weboy or Anglachel that reveal the class divides exposed in the Democratic match-up; Paul Lukasiak's well- documented gender gap in primary voting; and endless analyses of race and racism.  Yet, all obscure the more nuanced diversity underpinning voter preferences and campaign competition.  We're focusing myopically on the voting patterns of African-American and whites - and white ethnics, in particular - when our nation's diversity has moved for beyond these traditional categories.  Almost 20% of this country identifies as neither white nor black, and Hispanics have the "freedom" to choose from a range of race options - including multiracial. Since the 1960s, immigration from Asia, Latin America, and Africa has grown dramatically.  We struggle not only with four centuries old black-white cleavages, but also with competition, conflict and collaboration among native vs. foreign-born populations, among and within communities of color, across geographic and occupational class divides that differently constrain these groups, and within the gendered inequality that imprisons us all.

Unsurprisingly, our political, economic and cultural elite do not reflect proportionally our nation's racial/ethnic and class diversity.  We are subjected to the endless, cloistered conversations and decisions of mostly white, wealthy men and their families, and a few privileged white women and men and women of color who have gained tenuous access to this inner sanctum.  While the political blogosphere is more diverse than our political system or the MSM, we more or less follow the same hierarchies and categorizations, with mostly white men held up as the serious politicos, and any prominent non-white-men typified as outsiders - whether they are feminists, activists, or some other classified contrarian.

One case to be made for a Hillary Clinton Administration is the diversity she promises to bring to the White House.  Among the major Dem and GOP candidates, Clinton is the only one with a majority of women in her staff; she also has the lowest percentage of white staff members.  Other than Maggie Williams, her African-American campaign manager who replaced her Latina manager, Patti Solis Doyle, the major names associated with the Clinton campaign are of white men (Garin, Wolfson, Penn).  Yet, her staff is less than 40% white, and around 20% Asian and Black (and just under 20% Latino).  Obama's campaign, in contrast, is 20% female, and almost 60% white, with no AAPI representation at all.

There is legitimate excitement about the potential for the U.S. to elect the first person of color as President.  But despite Obama's personal story, and his promises of a "new" politics and uniting Americans across ethno-racial and class lines, it is Clinton's campaign staff that more accurately reflects what a diverse coalition looks like in this country. Considering Clinton's reputation for prizing loyalty, this indicates to me that she's built this professional coalition of women and people of color over time, and with care.  (I wish I had more information on the GLBT composition of her staff, but I'll just post these links to her fabulous daughter's campaigning instead.)

It is no surprise to me that the mostly white, male political and media elite favor Obama - they see in his advisors and staff a reflection of their relevance and an opportunity for power.  I was struck by a comments thread over at Anglachel several weeks back in which a disgruntled Dem saw Obama as the stereotypical white, liberal, Northern elite (he equates Obama to Josh Marshall, no less) - and others concurred.  One of the infuriating aspects of the WWTSBQ meme, and the writing off of her supporters as thick-skulled, bigoted, voters w/o a pot to piss in is that in capitalizing on stereotypes of racist working-class whites it simultaneously erases voters of color, gay and lesbian voters, and new immigrant voters, to name a few groups.  Add to this the notion that the Clintons are the ultimate Washington insiders, and we've now made invisible the very unconventional team of women and people of color with which Clinton has surrounded herself.  (When we render Clinton inhuman, her voters and staff also cease to exist.) 

The accusations of elitism slung among elected millionaires is ironic; both Democratic candidates are promising to reconfigure political power within the bounds of our two-party, right-center system.  Obama deserves credit for capturing new voters, and for harnessing 21st century youth activism in his campaign mobilization. But Clinton's staff differently reflects the contemporary U.S., as well as the promise of increased political power and representation for women and people of color.  It is in the Clinton campaign that I can already see the new face of the political elite in the U.S,