Many mainstream media analysts and web analysts of various political persuasions have focused on the virtues and liabilities of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the talented and pioneering Democratic Party candidates for president. The election of either would be a major breakthrough in U.S. politics, and I for one would certainly work for and vote for either, especially given the Republicans who are likely to provide the opposing candidate. Among other things, these breakthroughs would be against an array of stereotypes and understandings that make up the major sexist and racist frames still held in the minds of many in this society.
Yet, however much many analysts seem to think that their election is possible or probable, they need to do some tough reality checking. The racist and sexist framing of this society is still extremely strong and mostly unchallenged in a great many minds of likely voters. Yet, the mainstream media seem to tiptoe around these obvious issues of old sexist and racist frames, especially as they affect electability.
The reason for this seems to be the naïve but very common notion that somehow we as a country are "beyond sexism and racism." (Indeed, even if they lose in electoral attempts, mainstream explanations will not note widespread sexism and racism as the reasons, but rather something like Clinton’s alleged flip-flopping or Obama’s political inexperience.)
The data are reasonably clear on public resistance because of gender and race. In December 2006 a national Newsweek Poll _Poll (MOE +/-4) of registered voters found that 14 percent would not vote for a "qualified" woman for president or were unsure, with 7 percent indicating they would not vote for a "qualified" black candidate for president or were unsure.
In the same poll 35 percent of registered voters thought the country was not ready for a woman president, with 30 percent saying the same for a possible black president. Ten percent more were unsure in the case of a woman president (for a total of 45 percent), with 14 percent unsure for a black candidate (for a total of 44 percent). Similarly, in January 2007, a national CBS News Poll Poll (MOE +/- 3) asked adult respondents if the country was ready to elect a female president (43 percent said no or unsure) or a black president (42 percent said no or unsure).
Given that many survey respondents speaking to a stranger on the phone are known to try to sound unprejudiced in gender or racial terms (the public correctness or desirability response), these latter percentages of people saying the country is not "ready" for a female or black president may well be closer to the actual percentages of voters who will not vote for such candidates once they are in the voting booth. Having done considerable research on gender and racial issues in 25 research studies involvings hundreds of U.S. respondents, I venture the educated but speculative guess that the actual percentages would be in-between those for the direct questions and those for the general-readiness questions. That is, they would be very substantial.
Of course, we cannot be sure what these voters might do in an actual election, after there is intense discussion and debate and the candidates are well presented to the voters, but the great depths of sexist and racist framing in this country make it likely that both Clinton and Obama would get a lot of voters voting against them just because of the gender or racial characteristics. (This would likely much more than offset those voters who are attracted to them only because of their ascribed characteristics.)
That is, running as the Democratic presidential candidate, while a great step for the country to get past its discriminatory reluctance to have female and black candidates, would probably mean a loss for their party.
We can already see how the sexist and racist frames are shaping current public discourse about both Clinton and Obama. There is much discussion about Senator Clinton’s vote on the Iraq invasion and her unwillingness to call it a "mistake"—a decision often portrayed as indicating her "toughness" in regard to military or foreign policy decisions. This discussion would not exist if she were male. Similarly, there are the frequent comments about Senator Obama’s parents and "how black" he really is--a clear sign of the ancient racial framing that categorizes people as "white" or "black" based on percentage of racial group ancestry. This discussion too would not likely exist if he were "white."
Some might counter a pessimistic view of their electability chances with the argument that both Senators have already been elected, and have garnered votes from those who might have been expected to vote against them. Both have done well in statewide elections. However, they have both been elected in very blue states where the Republican opponents have not been particularly strong and where a minority of counter-voters could not make the critical difference. If the Republicans run a reasonably strong candidate in a national election, the movement (especially in key states) of just 2-8 percent (quite possibly much more) of the registered voters from a Democratic candidate to Republican candidate because of their deeplying sexist or racist frames would probably guarantee the Republican victory.
It is great political news that such candidates are being seriously considered in the United States, but given the power of continuing sexist and racist frames, and the continuing failure of U.S. political and educational systems to counter these frames in strong and systematic ways, the likelihood that a female or black candidate can be elected in a national election is very, very low.
Better news can come in the future, but only if we as a nation work aggressively to change such results by deciding to disrupt and break down the dominant sexist and racist framing once and for all. Of course, this is a huge moral, educational, and political challenge, but since we human beings made these oppressive frames, we human beings can also undo them. The time is now.