美國大選：可喜的歷史轉折點

Jo Freeman (顧燕翎譯)

　　慘烈的民主黨初選終於落幕，這是一次歷史性的選擇，不久的將來還有一場歷史性的大選。

　　民主黨在初選時選擇了兩位傑出的候選人：歐巴馬和克林頓，他們兩位在許多方面都十分出眾。

　　其他候選人其實也都有輝煌的資歷，若不是放在今年的選舉，也各有其勝出的條件。　

　　而今年，在這麼多傑出的候選人中，民主黨投票選出了一位黑男人和一位白女人，單憑這點就足以讓美國人感到驕傲。現在大家不大看到美國的優點了，但這個結果卻彰顯了美國的優點：我們有能力克服歷史偏見、我們有能力改變根深蒂固的價值和態度、我們可以透過浮淺的表面看到事物深處。

　　激烈火爆的選舉語言，經由嗜血的媒體誇張放大，留下挫傷的感受，掩蓋了正面的意義，結果關心的重點變成了性別和種族孰者會成為競選障礙，並且認定性別和種族政策對候選人以及對女人、黑人都沒好處。

　　比較種族歧視和性別歧視何者為害較大沒有什麼意義，因為我們無法精確衡量，尤其是人們為了形象未必願意公開表達真心的想法。

　　我們在美國歷史中確切看到，女權和黑人的民權進展同步，不過通常黑人民權領先。任何一個少數族群起步之後都會激勵其他族群跟進。許多先進為了爭取某一族群的平等機會而犧牲了自己的生命、事業、健康、財富，結果也提升了其他弱勢族群的機會。

　　也有例外。在二十世紀初的“進步年代”(the Progressive era)，女權進步，黑人民權倒退。二次大戰後，女人被送回家園，各種機會卻為黑人門戶大開。女權和民權運動者互相學習，結果都大有進展。

　　兩位候選人其實都是站在前人的肩上，1964到2004期間，超過五十位女性參選過總統，雖然大多數默默無名，卻都因為爭取發言權和曝光率而大大增加了女性被提名的潛在機會。曾經參選的黑人沒這麼多，但他們也可能累積了黑人獲得提名的機會。

　　他們兩位也收割了1950和 1960年代民權運動以及1960和1970年代女權運動的成果。

　　比較女人和非裔候選人所可能遭遇的問題和擁有的機會有點像比較蘋果和橘子。女選民人數多，但分歧也大，不像黑人選票集中。民主黨之外的女性選民更因不同政黨傾向而分裂投票，黑人則較無此問題。

　　歐巴馬、西拉蕊兩人都力圖超越性別與種族，證明自己足以擔當全民總統，顯然歐巴馬較為成功。

　　大眾對西拉蕊的懷疑多過歐巴馬，不論男女都將自己對女強人的希望與恐懼投射到西拉蕊身上；但白人對黑人領袖的疑懼卻已隨著時間與經驗而淡化，投射給歐巴馬的只剩下希望。

　　然而，種族歧視仍像幽靈般始終糾纒著歐巴馬，只是人們從不公開表白，甚至也不會在問巻中透露。美國社會比較容忍性別歧視的語言，所以西拉蕊經常成為冷嘲熱諷的對象，而歐巴馬和他的支持者卻不斷懷疑那些隱而不宣的念頭下可能暗藏著何種行動。

　　不過，經過一州又一州的初選，民主黨人畢竟選出了這兩人，這個結果意味著美國真的改變了，而且進步了。我相信改變不是今年才發生的，我相信美國人從1990年代就開始不再接受種族和性別歧視了，只是今年的選舉讓美國人第一次有機會全國性地公開展現了這個轉變。

　　我說1990年代，不是根據民調或統計，也不是發生了任何歷史性的大事，而是許許多多的小插曲讓我看到美國的轉變。

　　雖然右派經常將1960年代的社會運動妖魔化，指控社運導致美國國力下滑，我卻相信是這個世代的努力使得美國人對種族和性別的態度產生了根本的轉變。當年的青年已成為今日的老年，社運世代和其子孫的世界觀已完全不同於之前的世代。

　　過去民主黨提名天主教徒候選人時經歷過類似的世代變化，1928年 Al Smith參選時，反天主教的氣氛正熾，雖然那年我們沒有科學的民調，一般人的感受是他主要受挫於他的宗教信仰，特別是在民主黨大本營南方各州。

　 1960年甘迺迪競選時，他的宗教信仰受到質疑，但反天主教的情緒已緩解了，他小勝。2004年 Kerry競選時，大多數人不知道他信天主教。2008年共和黨的角逐者之一是天主徒（至少看名字是如此），唯一的負面反應是他居然反叛教會，支持墮胎選擇權。

　我覺得今日性別和種族的處境很像1960年代的天主教，仍然受到注意，但已不再是決定性的負面因素。就像甘迺迪當年需要說明他的天主教信仰，民主黨提名人今天也需要說明性別和種族議題，不過美國選民都會注意傾聽。
所有的創傷終將被遺忘，但2008年民主黨提名的選戰卻將長垂青史，值得慶賀。
　
　這樣的一次選舉也是我畢生努力的目標。

This is an historic election. Let’s celebrate it.

Jo Freeman

As we emerge from the miasma of the primaries, let us not forget that this has been an historic Presidential selection season and it will be an historic election.

The voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses chose as their favorites two extraordinary candidates – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- who are both extra-ordinary individuals in many, many ways.

They chose them out of a field of exemplary candidates for the Democratic nomination for President, who in other years would have had been excellent choices in their own right.

That these voters chose a black man and a white woman over so many outstanding white men is something of which we can all be proud. It illustrates what is good about America, at a time when many find it hard to see the good. It demonstrates that we can overcome historic prejudices, that we can change deeply buried values and attitudes, that we can look beyond the surface to see the substance.

The significance of this has been buried in hot and heavy campaign rhetoric -- magnified by media who feed off of blood -- which has left bruised feelings in its wake. Is has led to comparisons of race and gender as handicaps and as platforms in ways that benefit neither candidate and neither demographic group.

Weighing sexism against racism will always be futile because there is no way of measuring either. Indicia are at best imperfect and particularly hard to discern when hidden by the fear of making socially unacceptable statements.

What we do know is that in the span of U.S. history, rights and opportunities for women and for blacks have generally gone in tandem, but those for blacks have usually moved forward first. Whichever group moves first inspires others who want a fair share. Many of the individuals who risk their lives, their careers, their health and their fortunes to advance opportunities for one group have generally gone on to do so for the other.

There are exceptions. During the Progressive era, women’s rights advanced while those of blacks retrogressed. After World War II, women were sent home, while long-shut doors were just beginning to open for African-Americans. In both cases, each group learned from the other and eventually followed suit.

As candidates for President, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama stand on the shoulders of many who have gone before. Between 1964 and 2004, over fifty women ran for President. Most were unknown, but all advanced the cause of women as potential Presidential candidates by being seen and speaking out. Fewer blacks have run for President, but they probably achieved the same impact through more publicity.

They also are reaping the promise and the victories of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

Comparing the problems and possibilities of women and African American candidates is a little like comparing apples and oranges. Women start with a larger demographic base (there are more women than blacks), but it’s less cohesive (women are less likely to vote their gender than blacks are to vote their race). Outside the Democratic electorate, partisanship divides women, while it has a minor effect on the black vote.

Both Hillary and Obama have sought to transcend gender and race in order to convince the voters that each can be the President of all the people. In this Obama has succeeded more than Hillary.

Hillary has been a Rorschach test in ways that Obama simply isn’t. Men and women both project onto her their hopes and fears about strong women and women in leadership roles. Whatever fears whites had about blacks in leadership positions have been mostly worn away with time and experience, leaving Obama to inherit the hope.

Obama, on the other hand, will always be haunted by the specter of hidden racism – the kind that people don’t express publicly, often not even to pollsters. Because it is still more socially acceptable to make sexist statements than racist ones, Hillary has been the brunt of a lot of bad jokes, while Obama and his supporters must always wonder what lurks in people’s minds that they do not say – but might act upon.

Nonetheless, the fact that the Democratic primary voters chose these two candidates to be their choice for President in state after state tells us that something has changed in America, for the better. I don’t think that change happened this year. I think the turning point in the acceptability (or rather non-acceptability) of racism and sexism happened sometime in the 1990s, and that this campaign is the first opportunity that Americans have had to demonstrate that change nationally in a highly visible manner.

I pick the 1990s not because of any polls or statistics, but because of a lot of anecdotes which told me that some sort of threshold had been crossed. Nor do I think there was any particular event in the 1990s which caused it.

Rather I believe that a fundamental change in attitudes toward race and sex were a hard-won result of the social movements of the 1960s – the ones the right wing so often demonizes as leading to America’s downfall. The youth of those days are the seniors of these days; they and the generations that followed see the world differently than earlier generations.

We have a precedent for this kind of change in the Democratic nominees who were Catholic. When Al Smith ran in 1928, anti-Catholic sentiment was open and raw. Though we don't have scientific polls for that year, general sentiment was that his religion contributed significantly to his loss, especially in the traditionally Democratic South.

When Kennedy ran in 1960, his religion was questioned, but anti-Catholic sentiments were small and subdued. He won, though not by much. When Kerry ran in 2004, most people didn't know he was a Catholic. In 2008, one of the Republican wannabes was Catholic (at least in name); the only negative response I saw was that he defied his Church by being pro-choice.

I think sex and race are where Catholicism was in 1960 -- still a concern, but not an overwhelming one. The Democratic nominee will need to address the issue, as Kennedy did, but the American people will listen.

The 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination will be something to celebrate long after the wounds are forgotten.

This is the election I’ve been working for my entire life.