As we continue to stagger through the endless presidential campaign, there are certain rules emerging that are both rigid and flexible:
It’s OK to vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman – there are hundreds, if not thousands, of news reports out there quoting people who express excitement at “finally” having the chance to elect a female president, and those people are never accused of being sexist.
But it is not OK to vote against her because she is a woman. In that case, you’re guilty of unpardonable sexism.
Same for race. While Barack Obama has made a commendable rhetorical effort to get beyond the politics of racial identity, saying that there is not a Black America, a White America, a Latino America or Asian America, but only the United States of America, the reality “on the ground,” as they say, is different. News reports on the string of primary elections constantly refer to Obama’s overwhelming support from black voters, and there is never an eyebrow raised about whether this might reflect racism, prejudice or discrimination.
But say you intend to vote against Obama because he is black, and you are guilty of pernicious racism.
And then there age, as in John McCain and, uh, well, his “longevity.” Seems that in his case, it’s OK to vote for him because you agree with his principles and philosophy, but it’s also perfectly OK to vote against him just because he’s old. Of course, the age remarks are generally cloaked in euphemisms. Things like, “He represents the past.” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, in a speech, said the Republican nominee “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.” This was a twofer – it let him criticize McCain simply for being white and male, and also reminded voters that McCain has been eligible for the AARP for more years than some young voters have been alive.
I guess if leading Democrats are doing it, age discrimination is OK.
But how can you root out discrimination when it’s such a moving target?
