Of the 1968 candidates, only RFK gave all his energies and risked all his chances in dealing with [the issues of poverty, race and crime]. RFK builds a new coalition of the poor, the black and the young… Momentum lost after 1968.
The above quote is taken from a 1974 review of The Presidency on Trial: Robert Kennedy's 1968 Campaign and Afterwards by Stuart Gerry Brown (review written by Fred Greenstein and published in the American Political Science Review. Lexis-Nexis access is required to view the article). I quote it here because, even though I was born well after the fact, I believe it expresses the sentiment of many in the progressive movement forty years ago as to the type of electoral and governing coalition they were seeking to forge. Certainly, there was no unanimity among progressives of the time, as RFK's main rival in contested primaries was Eugene McCarthy, who certainly fomented a lot of excitement among the younger, liberal, anti-war activist class of the time. Also, anti-electoral radicalism was, as I understand it, quite prevalent among the left at the time, and I imagine there was also a lot of liberal / progressive affinity for Hubert Humphrey, as well.
Before I am crucified for my weak understanding of the election of 1968, let me first freely admit that I am neither a historian, nor a political scientist. The reason I present the quote, "RFK builds a new coalition of the poor, the black and the young," is not to debate the accuracy of the statement, or debate the potential electoral power of that coalition had RFK not been assassinated. Instead, I wish to discuss the similarities between that vision of a governing progressive majority and the one we face as progressives today. As a descriptive term, "the poor, the black, and the young" welded together the major areas of leftist activism of the time. A coalition of "the poor," connects to the New Deal and Great Society form of governance, "the black" connections to the great civil rights struggles of the time, and "the young" connects to the huge wave of youth activism and culture that exploded in the 1960's as the Baby Boomer generation came of age. Whether or not this coalition would have been successful in 1968, and the degree to which it actually existed under RFK's campaign, are not nearly as relevant to our own time as much as the attempt to bring these constituencies, and great centers of activism, together under a single umbrella. This is because today, in the contemporary "fourth wave" manifestation of the progressive movement, we face a similar challenge in forging a coalition of the non-white, the GLBT, the unionized, and the non-Christian that, in different terms, comes close to the slogan used to describe RFK's 1968 coalition.
Like the formulation of RFK's coalition described above, a coalition of "the non-white, the GLBT, the unionized, and the non-Christian" is an umbrella term that not only identifies the four key constituencies that vote for Democrats by super-majority margins (to my knowledge, no other group outside of these four is all that close to a super-majority), but also describes four of the largest areas of progressive activism today: the immigrant rights movement, the gay rights movement, the new wave of union activism perhaps best personified by Change to Win (forgive me Judith) and, of course, the progressive netroots who overwhelmingly fit into the "non-Christian" category. Thus, these are the groups from which a progressive governing majority would not only draw the majority of its votes (already, Democrats draw about 65-70% of their votes from these four groups), but also from which their would draw the political resources and machinery to make that governing majority a reality. As such, I think a reasonably fair measure of the role of the contemporary progressive movement in the 2008 presidential campaign to measure who the Democratic voters in those groups are currently supporting, and if the candidates receiving that support are living up to the ideals of the progressive movement. In other words, has the progressive movement made enough of a connection with its potential electoral and activist base so that said base is only supporting candidates who support the ideals of the progressive movement? To put it a third way, around which candidate is our version of the RFK coalition most clearly forming, and do we consider that candidate to be "worthy" of that coalition?
Obviously, this is a huge and complex task, but in the extended entry let me take a quick whack at the first part, determining where the potential base of movement support currently rests:
Non-whites. Without question, right now Clinton and Obama have dominant support among non-white voters in the Democratic primary. In every poll I have seen, they combine for a far larger share of the African-American vote than they do even for total support in national polls. Among other non-white ethnic groups, crosstabs have been more difficult to come by, but preliminary indications are that Clinton holds a dominating advantage. The overall edge in this category goes to Clinton, with Obama second.
Non-Christians. In this category, it seems Obama has a clear edge. According to an April poll from Pew, secular voters were the most pro-Obama, and least pro-Clinton, of all Democratic demographic groups. In the more activist oriented secular / non-Christian world, perhaps best epitomized by the progressive netroots, Edwards and Obama are regularly at the top of straw polls. The overall edge here goes to Obama, with Edwards in second.
Unions. In the absence of any labor endorsements, and the absence of poll crosstabs on union membership and the 2008 campaign, perhaps the best estimate of how unions are currently leaning comes from David Sirota in his latest piece on Open Left:
The article details how labor leaders are worried about endorsing a candidate who doesn't end up winning the nomination. For instance, my friend Steve Rosenthal accurately tells the Times that while "there's a pretty strong sentiment across the labor movement for Edwards" nonetheless "some unions are a little leery of endorsing him without more evidence that he can win."
At least partially due to the lack of further evidence, I am going to have to say that the edge here goes to Edwards.
LGBT community. On this front, I honestly have no idea. I have heard of no major endorsements, nor have I seen any polling. Due to the lack of data here, I won't even attempt to venture a guess as to who is running best within the LGBT community.
It does not seem like any one candidate is clearly forming the "the non-white, the GLBT, the unionized, and the non-Christian" as this time. With a first and a second place among the two largest groups, Obama might be the closest. However, really all three candidates seem to be doing well among significant portions of this potential coalition, despite Edwards currently struggling among non-white voters. In fact, Clinton might hold a slight edge on Obama among the original RFK coalition of "the poor, the black and the young" because of her large lead among lower income voters.
Figuring out which candidate best "deserves" the support of these communities is not something that can be done in a single post, especially without real potential for the sort of flame wars I would like to avoid on Open Left. However, that might be impossible to determine anyway, since the clear fracturing of these groups to different candidates makes it clear that the modern version of the RFK coalition simply has not formed yet. Non-whites, non-Christians, and labor would not be breaking differently for Clinton, Obama and Edwards if "the non-white, the GLBT, the unionized, and the non-Christian" had formed into a coherent progressive movement. Right now, each group appears to still have separate concerns that are leading them to support different candidates. As such, the values of that coalition don't even seem clear at this time. That strikes me as something worth worrying about, although I am open to arguments that indicate otherwise.
Update: As multiple commenters pointed out, single women fit into this group as well, voting D by a 66-31 margin in 2006. I think is is probably obvious that Clinton leads among that group.
© OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by 