Every Constituency Doesn't Count

Alas, we are heading full steam into the nadir (Nader?) of the presidential election season. I can't wait. For the next couple of months, I'll be concentrating this blog on the elections, and I'll be paying close attention to the presidential "debates" over the next few weeks, so make sure to stop back.

Today, I want to address a claim that I've seen made repeatedly the last two months:
"Because this election is so close, the candidates can't afford to ignore the needs of (insert groups of people here.)"
I kid you not, I have heard this claim made regarding: native americans, log cabin republicans, catholics, jews, evangelical christians, greens, environmentalists, small business owners, urban voters, rural voters, first-ring suburban voters, black voters, hispanic voters, yadda yadda yadda. Everyone is the most important group - the potential difference between victory or defeat come November 2. This of course means that no one group is the important group that will be the difference between a win and a loss in this election, and the campaign strategies of both campaigns demonstrate that quite well.

Honestly, I found the news story about the importance of the native american vote this November to be really sad, since the sincerity of the speaker who declared that "this time around, politicians can't afford to ignore the native vote" cannot be questioned. The problem is that the premise is so amazingly void - no presidential candidate in recent memory has been responsive to native american issues, and this will not change no matter how close the election. The image of Kerry and Bush criss-crossing the country, listening to and being attentive to the political issues that any of these groups care about is pretty silly. The reality is that both campaigns have conceptualized a stock character called "the swing voter" (TSV) as the key to winning this election. TSV does not exist, per se, but TSV has had an enormous impact on the political messages of both campaigns.

I find this interesting since during the primary season there was so much talk about how this election was all about mobilizing your base and turning out your strong supporters, since the country was so polarized. And there lost of evidence of that polarization, what with the new the Swift Boat ad that calls Kerry a traitor (no shit, it pretty much says it) and the polls that show a very small slice of the electorate as undecided for this point in the election season.

This emphasis on TSV is pernicious, not just because the mythical swing voter group doesn't really exist, but because it shapes campaign rhetoric into dangerous distortions. Consider one mythical TSV group - "NASCAR dads." Great - what a nice image of masculinity to base a campaign around, and what an effect! What issues do "NASCAR dads" care about? Apparently, it's kicking terrorist tail and cutting taxes (simultaneously, but that's another issue entirely).

Okay, so NASCAR dads aren't the greatest example, but here's my point: the mythical swing voter is always a projection of the "average" American as conceptualized by the folks who run campaigns (nearly always white, upper-class, highly educated folks) - a stereotype. Sure, this stereotype is buttressed by demographics, polls and data, but in the end the numbers always add up to the same equation:
- TSV is white. Everyone else is fighting to be the most important of the groups I talked about above.
- TSV is upper-middle class to middle-class. TSV despeartely wants to believe that their relatively privileged economic position is solely the result of dessert, that they "earned" what they have and that other folks who are less privileged are lazy, and want to steal the results of their hard work.
- TSV has health insurance. People without health insurance don't vote. TSV is concerned about increased out of pocket HMO costs.
- TSV is patriotic. TSV likes the military.TSV believe that American dominance of the world is good, the only question is how best to do it.
- TSV holds a grudge. TSV wants to like the candidate they vote for, not just agree with them. The candidates pasts matter more to TSV than TSV wants to admit.
- TSV is undoubtedly a Christian, but TSV isn't really always practicing actively. TSV likes to lie about how devout they are, and TSV likes to hear that candidates give lip service to their beliefs the same way that TSV does.
- TSV is worried about gas prices because they just got a new lease on an SUV that gets 14 mpg.
- TSV has kids. TSV thinks that couples without kids are selfish.
- TSV is definitely straight. TSV uses "gay" as a term of derogation toward things that they dislike. TSV thinks that gay folks are abnormal. The most tolerant version of TSV thinks that gay folks are tragic, but at least they aren't hurting anyone but themselves.
- TSV likes to shop. TSV thinks that s/he is winning when they find cheap goods - like it is some sort of contest.
- TSV owns a home, and TSV has cashed out equity from their home during the last two years.
- TSV watches lots of television. TSV has a TV in their bedroom. TSV's kids have TV's in their bedrooms.

I could go on, but why? Feel free to add to the list by making comments below.

Sure, I'm engaging in some rank stereotyping here, but that's kind of the point - campaigns conceptualize target voters as stereotypes, gather statistical information to support their stereotypes and then base their campaigns around these stock characters. Where does that leave the rest of us?

k