In yesterday’s class we spent a substantial amount of time talking about how politics are often racialized - both in regards to President Obama’s campaign and presidency and the concept of ‘dog whistle politics’ presented by Ian Haney-López in the interview we were to watch for today. Naturally, our conversations of these two topics became intertwined. However, my post class thoughts got me thinking about an inner relation even more. I was thinking about the ways in which our society perpetuates the racialization of politics which is often presented by government or media. One of the most challenging quotes from the interview video for me was when Haney-López said that “most racists are good people” in supporting the claim that their racist ideologies towards politics is a product of the environment they're in. While I agree with this, I believe the claim shouldn’t end here with racist mindsets being rationalized. There should be efforts to educate the broader public on the ways in which it's problematic to make such influential decisions on the whim of race. This goes both ways - for those who would identify as White, I'd just encourage them to think about how voting has historically functioned I'm communities of color. Voting rights were restricted and infringed upon for the longest time and even in the short period between solid voting equality and the 2008 election, there were barely any non-White candidates to choose from. So, if people groups which have historically been oppressed, marginalized, exploited, condemned and killed by White people can find it in them to vote for a White candidate, I’m sure it’s possible for a White individual to look past skin color and truly analyze potential candidates. Besides this, there are ways in which President Obama’s policies could benefit White individuals [especially those geared towards poverty which isn’t a racialized element in many communities] which were disregarded simply because he’s been perceived as a Black man and Black president for Black people. On the other side, voters of non-White race backgrounds shouldn’t jump on board with a candidate of color simply because of their race. In both cases, policy should be the focus on politics and while there’s opposing forces such as the dog whistles used by media and government, there needs to be an active attempt to tune these out and not be so easily and animalistically swayed towards a side from this language.
Like we discussed in class, there seems to be a lack of dog whistle usage in current campaigns, with race being explicitly discussed. It’s interesting that the candidates of non-dominant race backgrounds came from the Republican party but have since all fallen out. Also, in the ways that the 2008 and 2012 were racialized, I believe this current presidential race will be gendered if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Again, it's ridiculous to think that people wouldn't vote for her, not based on policy but solely on the fact that she's a women. That being said, I also see this trend as a product of the society we live in where successful men are more so perceived as respectable and genuine while, for some, successful women seem threatening and cold.
All in all, I think it'd be cool to experimentally do a blind caucus or election where the race and/or gender of a candidate wasn't disclosed with voters - only their policies - and see how that affects the likelihood of individuals with racist//sexist mindsets crossing over racial/gender lines.
-Tarik Mckenzie
No comments:
Post a Comment