THE PLANK FEBRUARY 25, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Boosters of Bobby Jindal's presidential prospects have suggested to me--correctly, I think--that his racial background could be less of a hurdle for white voters than Barack Obama's was because, as a South Asian American, Jindal would be perceived as a "model minority." Where racially nervous whites might look at Obama and think of some scary African American they saw on "The Wire," they'd look at Jindal and think of that nice young internist who took care of them while the family doctor was on vacation in Boca.
But stereotypes sometimes cut in unexpected ways. Both Obama and Jindal are at the geeky end of the spectrum among American politicians. But Obama's race cuts against this persona, and makes him "cool" in a way (however studiously achieved) it's hard to envision a comparably wonky white politician being perceived. As Michelle noted in her essay on the subject:
Biracial heritage aside, Obama is a black man. And, in this country, black men have long had the edge on cool.... [A]s a thought exercise, imagine Obama as a white politician. Wonky,
overeducated, idealistic, unflappable, reform-minded, big into
basketball, articulate but without the lyrical echoes of the African
American pulpit--far from being brother cool, Obama would be ex-senator
turned failed presidential candidate Bill Bradley.
So while Jindal may not face the same radical-black-guy stereotypes as Obama, neither will he benefit from the same cool-black-guy stereotypes. If anything, the common stereotypes of Asian-Americans--as earnest strivers who may be a little nerdy--could exacerbate Jindal's already wonky self-presentation. When Ace of Spades (exactly the kind of conservative id figure Jindal will want to impress if he runs for the GOP nomination at some point) says that last night the Louisiana governor reminded him of "Achmad, Jaglesh, Clayton, etc., in Animal House," the ethnic geek stereotype is hard to miss. And that could be an issue in a nation where seven of the last eight presidential elections have been won by the candidate widely perceived as cooler, more likable, more popular: Reagan, Reagan, Clinton, Clinton, Bush (arguably primarily for these reasons), Bush, and Obama. (I consider the 1988 election a draw in terms of uncoolness.)
To be clear, I'm not trying to indulge these stereotypes. But it would be silly to pretend they don't exist in the minds of a non-trifling number of voters. Now, if Jindal gives many more national speeches as bad as last night's, his ethnicity won't make any difference. (The fact that he's been most widely compared to Kenneth of "30 Rock" is a nice indicator of Americans' ability to see beyond skin color.) Moreover, for a number of reasons I think it would be a great thing for the GOP, and the country, if Jindal were his party's nominee for president in 2012 or (more likely) 2016. But he may have a trickier path than some of his fans imagine.
--Christopher Orr
12 comments
I consider the 1988 election a draw in terms of uncoolness. Hah. Chris you would have to be a Michaelangelo to draw that high level of uncoolness of both papa Bush and Dukakis.
To be honest, the last cool President was Kennedy. But the likeable and popular angle I agree with.
Jindal will be VP first. And if he becomes VP he can ride that to the WH
- blackton
February 25, 2009 at 6:50pm
Chris, FYI, the uncool, nerdy guy in 2000, Al Gore, got more than a half a million more votes. How does that fit your theory?
Also, I don't think Reagan was widely seen as "likeable" yet while running in 1980 -- more like angry, which perhaps fit the country's mood better. His whole pre-presidential political persona was that of a Cassandra in Brylcream, warning that the the Commies were coming at us via the Panama Canal and the government wouldn't stop them because it was too busy chasing after welfare queens in Cadillacs with bundles of cash wrung in taxes from hard-working Americans. The whole grandfatherly / Great Communicator business came later (it peaked in '86, actually, around the time of the Statue of Liberty centennial).
So, take those out, plus '88 as blackton suggests, and you've got only 5 out of 8. There's a word for that: statistical noise.
- JSmith125
February 25, 2009 at 7:12pm
When Obama tells the story of his family history it comes off as poetic and inspiring, whereas Jindal came off trying to tell the same kind of touching story as hackneyed and comical. The winner of the night was not only Obama, it was also Sarah Palin.
- frilz1
February 26, 2009 at 7:00am
Trackback from PunditKix.com
- Anonymous
February 26, 2009 at 7:35am
Jindal is to Obama as Palin is to Hillary. In both cases, the Repbublicans went for an identity politics symbol that lacked substance. Palin has ovaries but lacks Hillary's intelligence. Jindal has melanin but lacks Obama's charisma.
- nathang
February 26, 2009 at 9:29am
Fuck yeah he'd be Bill Bradley who I'm still peeved didn't get the nod in the 2000 primaries.
- eharder2
February 26, 2009 at 9:45am
JSmith -
1988 isn't a counterexample, just a case where relative "coolness" might be subject to debate, so I left it out. (Pushed, I'd actually say that GHWB was more likable than Dukakis, especially post-Kitty-rape question.) Anyway, even by your terms we're talking about 5 out of 7, not 8. Now, it's true that Regan was a far-right bogeyman to American liberals. But if you think most of America saw the charismatic former movie star and pitchman as less cool or likable than the borderline-pitiable Carter--well, you remember a different election than I do. As for 2000, your point is taken, but Al Gore still lost the election, with consistent polls showing that voters preferred his policies but found Bush more likable. (I hope never again to hear the phrase "guy you'd like to have a beer with" with such frequency.) In any case, my point is obviously not that the presidential candidate with greater likability or coolness or what-have-you inevitably wins the election; it's that it's a significant political asset--and if Jindal hopes to be president, it's one he will have to cultivate.
- Chris Orr
February 26, 2009 at 10:15am
OK, Chris, I agree that the more likable candidate has a significant advantage. Also that Jindal looks to be in trouble in this regard.
Anyway, I'm impressed to learn that you remember 1980. Since the median age of leading blogger/pundits seems to be about 27, I had assumed it was before your time; I stand corrected.
- JSmith125
February 26, 2009 at 12:56pm
I think the Sarah Palin fiasco proved (shockingly) that the electorate is getting wiser to empty identity politics. There was a national mood to elect a female president or a black man president. But you still have to be at least moderately qualified and charismatic. Obama was both and he only got better as the race went on.
Palin miserably failed the qualification test, and her nomination was seen for what it was, a stunning and thinly veiled attempt to stick any woman out there to take advantage of this national mood, Republicans being the clumsiest political apparatus since the Articles of Confederation. Add in Palin's attack dog nonsense and her ability to parrot conservative blather and you had a candidate dead on arrival (her RNC acceptance speech aside).
We don't hold our white male candidates to such a high standard (see Bush II and McCain as examples of utter mediocrity rewarded and almost rewarded).
The GOP will have a tougher time trying to get people to like Jindal for the same non-political reasons they overwhelmingly like Obama. Jindal is a person in his own right they should let him be who he is. But that won't stop the GOP from trying to use the Obama playbook and looking all the more ridiculous (and transparent) for it.
If Jindal is smart he'll shed this 'GOP rising star 'idiocy, go back to Louisiana, be a pragmatic and well-loved governor (not hard for an archconservative to do in the bowels of the rebel South), and come back in four years.
He could be an effective politician, if he avoids the national GOP and sticks to his instincts. Obama sorta did the same thing, running outside the DNC system because they had annointed Hillary. It arguably led him to victory.
- shaw-man
February 26, 2009 at 1:31pm
Chris,
Doesn't this comparison kind of leave out the part where Obama is ... to quote the BBC's Katty Kay "unbelievably handsome" and Jindal looks a lot more like internal geek. I mean, if he were dumped into an Indian American take on John Thune's body would you still have a point?
- arsonplus
February 26, 2009 at 1:34pm
"Republicans being the clumsiest political apparatus since the Articles of Confederation."
Excellent line, shaw-man. Not so fast, though! Let's not forget James Buchanan. ;-)
- JSmith125
February 26, 2009 at 3:13pm
"but Al Gore still lost the election, with consistent polls showing that voters preferred his policies but found Bush more likable" fails to address the point that Gore won the popular vote and adding Nader's votes polled over half the electorate, so much for Bush's likeability. Actually we will never know who really won Florida since the Supreme Court decided that the Florida electorial votes should be awarded to Bush on a party line vote, so at best Bush backed into the White House!!
I will accept that if anyone other than nerdy, incompentant campaigner Kerry ran against Bush in '04, Bush very well may have lost, but I think the "Vote for us or you'll die" was more relevant than Bush's likeability. I think the evidence is being stretched to fit the thesis, rather than the reverse.
- tpinter
February 26, 2009 at 9:50pm