The 2008 presidential campaign has started early this season, perhaps earlier than ever before. The reality of the non-stop campaign is unfortunate from both a social and policy standpoint, yet the American people are lucky with this field of candidates. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are all immeasurably better than either Howard Dean or John Kerry. And any of Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, would, in my view, restore respect to the presidency and Republican party. A number of interesting observations can be made about the candidates so far.
On the Democratic side, the voters seem to be determined to "break a barrier." No black person, Hispanic person or woman has ever been a serious contender for president, and it is a good sign that this trend is changing. Even so, the rise of these candidates is somewhat worrisome. It seems as if the Democrats are choosing between the least African-American black man, the least Latino Hispanic man, and the least feminine woman (just kidding, Hillary).
Senator Obama, the son of a white woman and a Kenyan father, cannot claim the full African-American experience as defined by long-reaching roots in this country over a history that included slavery and Jim Crow laws. He is an African, and an American, but not an African-American in the traditional sense. Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, is the son of a Mexican and a New-Englander and cannot be identified as Latino by the American people through either his looks of his accent. And Senator Clinton, as a woman, has had to put much more effort into proving her national security credentials than any man would, arguing to the voters that she is, in fact, a "tough broad."
The evaluation says nothing about the candidates, but rather something about the American people. We are in favor of lifting up the status of women and minorities, as long as they act "like us." And we are willing to elect women to positions of power as long as they prove to us that they can be as strong and assertive as a man. Perhaps this is a step forward from where we once were, but it is still a form of racism and sexism, and we should be cognizant of this as we move forward.
On the Republican side, it seems the voters want the most conservative non-conservative. Disillusioned with the Bush presidency and his lack of popularity, GOP voters have started rooting for maverick Republican John McCain, social liberal Rudy Giuliani and former governor Mitt Romney, who can best be described as a "Massachusetts Republican."
Yet, in an effort to appeal to the conservative base, each of these candidates has made a move to the right. Romney has begun to change his position on hot-button issues such as abortion and gay marriage, McCain has attempted to woo the Christian Right, and Giuliani has reassured conservatives that they share common beliefs.
So while preference for Clinton, Obama and Richardson tells us that the Democrats want to eliminate the appearance (though not reality) of American racism and sexism, the preference for McCain, Giuliani, and Romney tells us that the Republicans have no idea what they want, and seem to favor those who aren't quite what they seem.
As we get closer to the election, what is now a social observation could present real problems. The Republican primary has the potential to be a destructive conflict over the heart and soul of the party, leaving all candidates worse off. The Democratic primary, meanwhile, could erupt into a minor cultural war in which those who have traditionally run the Democratic party -- unions, lawyers, and the public sector -- must fight feminists, minorities, and equal rights advocates for control of the party.
The good news, in my view, is that both sides want change. The campaigns of traditional party candidates like Sam Brownback and John Edwards, have seen little success so far. History and current events teach us that the paradigms these candidates support simply don't work.
Though I contend that our current field of candidates are born of the failings of American political culture, of our preference for tokenism over reality, I also believe the results have been positive. People, not tokens, lead countries, and in this case I think we've found six good ones.
-- Marc Goldwein is a senior political science and economics major from Merion, Pa.
