What Happens Behind the Curtain? 
This is a historic time in America. We are considering both a woman and an African-American as candidates for the highest elected office in the country. It appears that we might finally be willing to embrace leadership based upon their qualifications for the job, regardless of their gender or the color of their skin.
Is it possible that we as a community are actually interested in truly seeking, as our leaders, the most qualified amongst us, as opposed to those that most resemble us?
When John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama were the leading candidates in Iowa, I was convinced that, when nobody was looking,behind the curtain, voters would choose -- as they always had -- he with whom they could best relate. In this case, that would have been the white, southern, Christian male, if not the female. But when it was over, contrary to my expectations; neither the white male or even the white female (who had been ahead in the polls), prevailed.
In fact, the inverse of my expectations proved to be the case. I was shocked that Barack Obama had won, let alone to the degree he did. Had America finally gone colorblind?
When I shared that shock with a friend; that I couldn't believe that a state that was 95% Caucasian like Iowa, once behind the curtain, would deliver a victory for the only candidate that wasn't. I was then reminded that the Iowa election was a caucus, which I have learned, doesn't happen behind a curtain. A caucus is not a secret ballot. You have to stand up in front of your friends, family and neighbors and declare your preference publicly. So I guess if you think about it, it would make sense that in public people are likely to present themselves as they desire to be perceived (progressive and open minded), whereas behind the privacy of a curtain, despite what they say when asked, people would express their innermost truths.
Upon doing some research I learned that what I thought was a very creative and astute observation, wasn't so astute after all. In fact, I learned that political professionals in fact even have a term for this.
They call it the Bradley effect. It's named for the former mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, who was expected to win his 1982 race to become governor of California. But the votes he got on Election Day
didn't match up to who people said they'd vote for, and he lost by a slim margin.
That all said, if one were to accept this theory, then one would have had to predict that although Obama was a favorite in New Hampshire because of his extraordinary showing the prior week, that behind the New Hampshire curtain, even though it is more diverse, which should favor a candidate of color, that Hillary should make a considerably stronger showing. As history will now reflect, Hillary not only performed better,
but in fact won.
The vagaries of the Democratic Party's primary system are still somewhat beyond me, but look at how the process has played itself out to date in "caucus states" versus "behind the curtain" states.
Barack Obama has won all 15 of the caucuses so far (except for a split decision in Nevada, and a loss in American Samoa.) Even in Texas, where he lost the primary part of their election, he won the caucus part. Meanwhile, primaries are more even, with Obama winning 17 and Hillary winning 13, and often by a larger margin than people thought she would.
It's a little sobering to realize that maybe we haven't come as far as I thought we had. But maybe what is most fascinating to me about this is that given Barack Obama's recent speech and all of the coverage of the thorny issue of race, I haven't read about this in any of the thousands of editorials being penned daily.
I've been told that there a lot of reasons Senator Obama might be doing better in caucuses, reasons that range from having a better campaign organization to the belief that wives are more likely to support their husbands in public, and men have been voting for Obama. Or that a lot of Hillary's voters, who are older, don't go to caucuses, which can take several hours. I hope those are true, but oddly nobody is suggesting
the "race" factor.
The truth is that being behind the curtain offers anonymity. And when we are behind the anonymity of a curtain (or in the case of one senator, a bathroom stall, or in the case of one governor, the alias of George Fox) there's a tendency to revert to an alternative self, if not the same self rather than the outward alternative expression of "the real self".
While public exposure can force us to rise above our prejudices, the last fortress of fear is the one that exists in our hearts and minds; that of individuals that don't "act like me", "think like me", and are
less likely to "share my values".
In the end the challenge to us all is; can we be both open, as well as "clothes minded".
That's my story and I'm sticking to it (for now).
[Image: ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network]
add to del.icio.us
add to digg
add to yahoo
related at technorati
share on facebook
Check our most impactful articles and see how popular these opinions are with you.
Will others follow in your footsteps? Share your thoughts and ideas for changing the world.
It's interesting that no matter how complicated the world of politics has become, basic human nature and the need to be seen doing the prescribed right thing, still prevails. I suspect the caucus was invented to encourage honesty among the voting public so everyone could see who was voting for who. Ironically, it has the opposite effect and people are only truly honest when they have their anonymity to protect them. Why is it so hard for many of us to say, "This is me and this is what I stand for?"
A little historical footnote - the "modern" caucus system is really a bit of a historical anomaly. The first American caucus was held back in 1796, back when America had just gained its independence from the British crown. As you suggest, Steve, it looks like the caucus system originally was intended to encourage honesty and transparency among the voting public in a still young nation. By 1824, the caucus system had been essentially abandoned as too cumbersome and too unworkable for such a vast, rapidly-expanding nation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_nominating_caucus