common ground

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrianFitzpatrick/2008/02/07/how_the_media_stir_the_brew_of_identity_group_politics

This was an interesting point. In a country as diverse as America, I'm not seeing a reason to focus on the diversity of persons, rather the diversity of the interests that are collected, perhaps as a direct result. Intellectual diversity is of much greater value than mere cultural gaps. There is merit that appealing to different cultures helps with elections. But why? What about them appeals? Policy? Speeches? Values? What? The two most effectively claimed candidates for this are Hillary and Obama, who in effect are described as capturing the women or black voters. Again why? Because they're a woman or a black man? That seems like a paltry reason to vote to me. Both features are worthy of mention for the historical value implied (because America is still dominated by white men apparently), but in order for either to win elections they would also have to appeal to other demographics (those evil white men apparently).

Out of all the reporting on these racial/demographic voting trends, some of it has been useful in the way it indicates some biases. But again, what do these biases represent? Clinton is having trouble among young people and with white males. Ok, what does that mean? Obama gives nice speeches, which might inspire young people to take action in politics, but it's not clear that any particular policy issue has resonated (partly because his ideas aren't that different from Hillary's). White males just seem to plain not like Hillary, but again why? Because she's a woman? What's wrong with her besides her gender? Her history? Her positions on various issues? "Experience" in her case does seem to be a detractor, especially if she were to make it to the general election. Maybe she would win female voters, but again, why would she?

Curiously, very little of this reporting goes on in the GOP race, partly I would assume, because they're all white male candidates. But judging from the polling data, I think it is because GOP voters tend to judge based on issues or at worst, the vague and equally useless concept of values (as useless as demographics that is). That campaign has thus been staunchly focused on issues from the beginning because there were real differences on issues or records and no differences in demographics.

I'm not convinced this is a Marxist ploy as the article contends, but it does seem effective at explaining that gaps exist in this country without explaining why they do or what they mean. Are they artificial? Do they signal real problems? Should we even care? Why does it matter that Latinos vote for Hillary or that Cubans vote for McCain? The idea that reporting on the existence of a gap is newsworthy is not enough. Real reporters would conclude that this gap might mean something and would seek to explain it. Which is not editorializing. It's journalism. The fact that these gaps are merely expressed and not explained is in fact editorializing because it assumes that we would expect it to occur. I personally do not see a reason that any particular group of voters should act as a monolithic entity without some common issue that unites them. And that common issue is much more important than the genitals they have or the color of their skin.