Discriminations

Do political parties have an essence, character, identity? Insofar as they do, this unfolding campaign season suggests that our two parties are remarkably different — not simply in their politics and policies, which is a truism, but in who they actually are.

I think it has been true for quite a while that — and this will either shock or surprise many observers — that the Republican Party has been characterized by much more political and ideological diversity, if you’ll pardon the expression. It is not hard, for example, to find Republicans (both leaders and followers) who, say, support abortion, gun control, affirmative action, and oppose President Bush’s handling of Iraq — indeed, several of them are running for president. Now, try to find a Democratic leader who opposes abortion, gun control (except for a stray western Senator or two), affirmative action, and supports the president in Iraq. I’m still waiting....

But I think the difference between the parties goes even deeper than ideological conformity vs. at least a certain amount, large by comparison, of ideological diversity.

Again, consider the current campaign. The energy, the core, of the Democratic campaign has concerned race, ethnicity, and gender. Is Obama “black enough”? Is he too black? (Dick Morris has a fascinating article today arguing that it is the Clintons’ strategy to drive up Obama’s black vote, so that he can be dismissed as a black, bloc vote candidate.) Can he get enough women to vote for him? Is Hillary’s appeal to Hispanics based on their objection to blacks? How many voters choose Hillary because she’s white? Etc., etc. It is no accident, as we conspiracy theorists say, that the only viable candidates of the Democratic Party — which for so long has fostered identity politics based on race, ethnicity, and gender — are a black and a woman (the Hispanic, Richardson, didn’t quite make the cut this year).

Now look at the Republicans. Their remaining candidates are a military her and maverick, thumb-in-his-party’s eye Republican, a successful business man turned politician, a Baptist preacher turned politican, and a former big city mayor running on his national security credentials earned in 9/11. They are not racially and sexually diverse (though there was a time that an Italian Catholic would be big news, as is the fact now of a Mormon and a Baptist preacher). But they are arguing about policy issues: taxes, the government’s role in job creation or retention (indeed, the various Romney’s make up a one-candidate debating society), even, if implicitly, affirmative action, since one candidate, Giuliani, has brought Ward Connerly on board while the others, to the best of my knowledge, have remained silent on the issue. Has Romney ever said anyting about the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a big event in his home state away form home? What about McCain on the upcoming vote on that issue in his home state of Arizona? Have they taken a position by not taking a position?

Unless diversity has now become indistinguishable from “diversity,” i.e., differences in pigmentation, food preference (a big component these days of ethnicity), sex, then politically the Republicans are considerably more diverse than the Democrats.