Race, gender—& class

The latest news stories about the Democratic campaign trail are all about “race vs. gender,” its use in the campaigns of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, its perception by voters and the media coverage of it all.

Several articles in the corporate press have attempted to determine which is the more oppressed group—women or Black people. Such posturing facilitates the “divide-and-conquer” tactics the ruling class has used since the founding of this country. Furthermore, it evades the real issue—which side are both candidates on when it comes to support of all oppressed peoples, worldwide?

Should we be concerned that Clinton is targeted by misogyny? Of course. At a campaign rally in Salem, N.H., two men stood in the crowd with signs reading “Iron my shirt.” Media coverage of Clinton focuses on her looks and a gendered perspective of her campaign—whether it be her tears or what one writer called the predication of her candidacy on the “masculine virtues of toughness [and] resolve.” (New York Times, Jan. 13)

But let’s not forget that it was the Bill Clinton administration, presumably with the First Lady’s approval, that threw hundreds of thousands of women off welfare, taking away what little income they and their families had. In her role as senator, Clinton has supported a war that has killed tens of thousands of women and children.

Should we be concerned that Obama is targeted by racism? Absolutely. Even before Obama seemed like a viable candidate, Sen. Joe Biden described him as “clean” and “articulate.” And many Black people are legitimately concerned that racist forces will try to hurt or even kill him for attempting to be the first Black president.

Yet when Obama plays down racism and pretends that it doesn’t exist, he is appealing to the bourgeoisie. He is signaling to the military and corporations that if they choose him, he will do their bidding, and he will not stand for working people of color.

Race and gender are serious factors in the election campaign. However, it’s capitalism that exploits and oppresses both people of color and women. Class is the elephant in the room.

Some op-eds suggest that voters should ignore race and gender and simply choose the most qualified candidate. This begs the question, qualified to do what? If the answer is “to protect the capitalist system and those that profit the most from it,” then both candidates are aptly qualified.

If the answer is, “to push for an end to sexism, racism and all oppression,” better candidates could be found in cities and towns throughout the country. Gary Kamiya, in a Salon.com article, states, “A figurehead, albeit a powerful one, will not necessarily advance women’s rights or race relations.” (Jan. 15)

As collaborators with the ruling class and staunch believers in the capitalist system, neither Clinton nor Obama can bring about the change that is so desperately needed by working-class people of color, women and whites—including an end to poverty, police brutality and war; accessible reproductive rights and health care for all; environmental justice and so much more.

The only reason the issue of race vs. gender has come up in this election is that all women as well as men of color have been excluded from high office in this country. Therefore, the whipping up of the race and gender “rivalry” around the campaigns of Clinton and Obama only serves the interests of those who want to keep the status quo—i.e., the rich ruling class dominated mostly by conservative white men.

Yet in the streets, the potential for solidarity among Brown, Black and white workers, women and men, lesbian/gay/bi/trans people and straight, etc., is growing as the economic crisis deepens. It can be seen in the events throughout the country on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, demanding an end to racism and sexism at home and abroad. In New York, the Jan. 21 march will begin at the studios of anti-immigrant Lou Dobbs and end at the studios of racist, sexist Don Imus. (troopsoutnow.org)

It is also in the streets, through an independent movement, that real social change will come about—not in the ballot box, no matter who gets elected in 2008.