As the Democratic Party primaries lurch forward, debates rage about why Barak Obama is less successful in some states than in others. Is it that Obama has no appeal to white voters? That can’t be true given his twelve state sweep through some of the whitest states in America. Does Obama have problems with Hispanics? Our nation’s most prominent Hispanic, Governor Bill Richardson, is a great Obama supporter and Hispanic votes did not significantly contribute to Obama’s defeat in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Does Obama fail to connect to working class whites, white women or white men? Apparently not. Obama’s numbers in every white group increased in Pennsylvania over his performance in Ohio and Texas and increased again in Indiana and North Carolina. In fact, Obama did well with whites under age 45 in Pennsylvania whatever those voters’ income, education or religion. Only West Virginia, a state where he spent less than six hours before the primary, has failed to show an increase in Obama’s share of the white vote.
Which brings us to the point – Senator Obama’s rhetoric about the old versus the new politics turns out to be true – Senator Clinton does well in the old industrial states because those states are also the sites of old Democratic Party politics. The structure of industry in states like New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia led to large plants or mining operations with strong union memberships. Large unions and crowded urban neighborhoods worked together to empower ward centered politics with powerful local leaders. The Democratic Party flourished in this neighborhood politician based system during the 20th century. Senator Clinton, as a 20th century politician, is now taking advantage of the ward based politics that operates so well in Eastern and Midwestern industrial states.
Where Senator Obama’s campaign is more successful is in the states of the New West and South where people are more individual in their politics. The idea of a ward leader handing out a voting card to elderly ladies as they exit 6 a.m. Mass is laughable to these modern pioneers who depend on themselves to shape their opinions and have no problem standing up in a public caucus in order to make their candidate’s case. The politics of these new arenas is unfamiliar to those of us from older state systems. But these new political systems seem to lead to a great deal more individual participation in the political process especially in terms of contributions to political candidates. In the rush to decide the Democratic primary we sometimes lose sight of the fact that more people are given contributions of less than $100 to these candidates than ever before in history — yet another sign of a new type of politics taking hold.
Thus, as Democrats look at their two remaining candidates they might want to consider: what will the campaign of the future look like? Should the party select a leader who has shown the ability to take advantage of the 20th century ward systems that served it so well for one hundred years or are Democrats ready to move on to a new type of politics? The question for Democrats is their future. Can Democrats afford to stay mired in 20th century politics in our third 21st century election?
Beverly Moran is professor of Law and Sociology at Vanderbilt University. This op-ed originally ran in The Tennessean on My 18, 2008.
Media contact: Amy Wolf, (615) 322-NEWS
amy.wolf@vanderbilt.edu