As the Iowa caucuses draw near, there has been increasing rhetoric on all sides about the electability of the various Democratic presidential candidates. I think most of us would agree that a candidate's chances of winning the general election are something worthy of consideration in the primary process. After all, I would suspect that the median voter in the Daily Kos community probably has political views that are closer to a candidate like Dennis Kucinich than those of the three main frontrunners, and yet Dennis receives very little serious support at this stage of the process.
A concern about electability is basically framed as follows:
"I'm not concerned about such-and-such, but I'm concerned that other people will be concerned about such-and-such. Therefore I'm not voting for so-an-so because of such-and-such."
To pick a humorous example:
"I'm not concerned about Joe Biden's hair plugs, but I'm concerned that other people will be concerned about Joe Biden's hair plugs. Therefore I'm not voting for Joe Biden because of those hair plugs."
Let me immediately point out one of the ironies here, which is that this sort of thinking has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, let's say that nobody in the United States is actually concerned about Joe Biden's hair plugs. It doesn't matter. As long as everyone is concerned that everyone else is concerned about Joe Biden's hair plugs -- and this is the determinative factor in their vote -- it will have the same ultimate effect. Thus the concern will tend to be self-perpetuating, regardless of its underlying validity. This is what I call the Concern Cycle.
The Concern Cycle is problematic in light of this year's election, because two of the three leading candidates for the nomination come from historically disadvantaged groups: a woman and a black man, respectively.
Let me give you one very tangible example of the Concern Cycle in action.
If you ask Americans "would you vote for a black president?", the answer is overwhelmingly affirmative. Specifically 94 percent of Americans now say they'd vote for an otherwise qualified black president; a number analogous to that of a Catholic (95 percent) or Jewish (92 percent) president, and actually higher than that of a woman president (88 percent).
However, if you ask Americans whether they think the country is "ready for a black president" -- that is, whether they think other people will vote for a black president -- only 62 percent say yes. Likewise, only 60 percent think that the country is "ready" for a woman president.
Thus, roughly 30 percent of Americans are caught in the midst of the Concern Cycle: they personally are ready for a {black, woman} president, but they don't think anybody else is.
Of course, it is possible that 94 percent of Americans would not really vote for a black president. Surveys are notoriously unreliable on questions of race. Some people who are mildly racist might be too "politically correct" to say that they have concerns about a black president, but if the question is framed in terms of what other people think about a black president, they can defray any moral responsibility and express the concern through that vehicle. It's more a "Northern"/institutional/implicit form of racism than an explicit/"Southern" form of racism. I doubt that anything like this is very often the case in a progressive community like Daily Kos, but it's something to be aware of.
A more insidious form of the same phenomenon may involve the use of the "electability" meme itself. Some people may be too "politically correct" to mention outright the electoral implications of a candidate's race or gender, for fear of triggering the Concern Cycle. Instead, the argument takes the form of the amorphous concept "electability". For example, this recent comment by the Des Monies Register's David Yepsen could arguably be read in that light.
Despite the risks, it's important for Democrats to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Clinton's negatives are well-known, Obama's less so. Any shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements in Obama's past will be exploited by Republicans in the fall campaign if he's the nominee. It's best for Democrats to vet them now.
It's not quite clear what "negatives" David Yepsen is referring to. Although my opinion may be influenced by the fact that I'm a Barack Obama partisan, I see a candidate whose negatives are relatively few in number and relatively well exposed -- Obama has been a declared candidate for Preisdent for the better part of a year now. Is "electability" code for the Concern Cycle over a candidate's race or gender? Again, it's something that we need to be aware of.
We should pause here to mention that, while being black or female might be a turn-off to some voters, it could be a turn-on to others. A black voter or a woman voter might be more likely to vote for a black candidate or a female candidate, respectively. And some people might vote for a black or female candidate precisely because they think electing them might fulfill an end unto itself (racial or gender equity). So, even though we can say with near certainty that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will lose some votes somewhere in the country because of their race and gender, respectively, we cannot estimate with much certainty whether this is an overall electoral negative for them.
Nevertheless, the Concern Cycle is something we need to think about. It's entirely possible, and perhaps somewhat likely, that Obama's race and Clinton's gender are in fact net electoral negatives for them.
Fortunately, there is a way out of the Concern Cycle. It rests on a moral decision to be made by each of you. Namely, I asking am each of you to take a pledge.
"I pledge not to let concerns about a candidate's odds of electoral victory influence my support in the Democratic primary, insofar as those concerns reflect the candidate's race or gender."
I would argue that such a pledge is a progressive end unto itself, regardless of the outcome of the election. I am not asking you to vote for Barack or Hillary because they are a black or female. In fact, that is somewhat antithetical to what I am trying to achieve here. Rather, I am simply asking you to vote your preference, and not be concerned about other people's preferences, with respect to the specific categories of race and gender. I am also asking you to recognize that there is some degree of moral equivalency between refusing to support a candidate because you're concerned about their race or gender, and refusing to support a candidate because you're concerned about other people's concern about their race or gender.
Will you take the pledge with me?