By
Wendy Kaminer
It’s easy to overestimate or over-hype the implications of
the Iowa caucus results, but it does seem clear that Hillary Clinton needs to
re-evaluate her reputed reliance on the “women’s vote.” Reportedly, while
Clinton had the edge with older women (and anecdotal evidence showed that
elderly women found her especially appealing) Obama captured women under 35.
The last results I heard before retiring last night gave Clinton less than a
third of the women‘s vote in Iowa.
Iowa caucus women refused to play
identity politics. Emily’s List, which worked hard for Clinton, is no doubt
disappointed, and some are bound to regard Clinton’s relatively poor showing
among women as a feminist failure. I find it refreshing, although I can only
speculate about its causes, which may not be so lofty: Maybe younger women see
Clinton as a mother, whose grasp they are trying to escape, while elderly women
regard her as a daughter, who can fulfill aspirations that they could never contemplate.
In any case, why should any feminist cheer women
with a bias in favor of female candidates and jeer men with a bias in favor of
males? If the willingness of white voters to support an African-American
candidate is a sign of progress and enlightenment, why is it regressive, or even
a betrayal, for African-Americans to support a white candidate?
Of
course, I know the many explanations that might be offered in response,
involving the historic oppression and continuing discrimination suffered by
black males and all women, and the difference between majority and minority
biases. But shouldn’t we look forward to elections in which no groups practice
identity politics instead of elections in which only some groups do?