The 2016 Election and the Invisible Primary

The American voters are currently enjoying or, more likely, enduring what is called the Invisible Primary.  I suppose the closest analogy was the experience of the British in 1939/40 when war had been declared but little happened. In the US, there are currently a few Democratic presidential hopefuls, headed by Hillary Clinton. In contrast some twenty Republicans have either declared their interest or have indicated they might run. Until a few days ago, little seemed to be happening but this is the norm for this part of the election cycle.

Traditionally, the Invisible Primary was a time for retail politics. Candidates would attend numerous small fund raisers as they tried to get their faces known to the local and national media. The period was regarded as a test of character, not policy. Has the candidate got the personal attributes to get votes? Is he one of us? It is unusual for any candidate, no matter how well known, to get into policy in general, let alone detail.

This time around, there may have been a game-changer: Charleston. The murder of nine people at a black Methodist church has produced a number of reactions. The narrow point is the call by the South Carolina governor and other politicians for the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse. Major retailers like Wal-Mart, Amazon and eBay have announced they would no longer sell products that feature the flag. Whilst this flag is a symbol of the American Civil War and slavery, thus offensive to many Americans, it is merely a symbol whose removal will make little difference to entrenched racist attitudes amongst some whites and, indeed, may harden them. Yet most politicians have centered on the issue, ignoring race relations, racial hatred and gun control.

I have looked at the reactions of some of the presidential hopefuls. The Republicans have, by and large, stammered and stumbled in their response. Initially, most stopped short of calling for the removal of the Confederate flag. Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, declined to comment, save to say that the shooting was committed by a racist and evil man. Ted Cruz, the US senator from Texas, showed incredible insensitivity in saying, “gun control means hitting what you aim at.” The following day Cruz campaigned at a shooting range. Jeb Bush, currently the Republican front runner, at first said he was unsure whether Dylann Roof was a racist but later clarified his statement that the shooting was racially motivated.

I suppose the Republican contenders are forced to adhere to the conservative base and the family heritage and traditions of the South. Also, I suspect most, if not all, are supported financially by lobby groups like the National Riflemen’s Association that wields astonishing political influence and power. Whatever. The response has been mealy-mouthed as not one contender has offered any policy initiative in the short, medium or long term to address mass killings, which now litter America’s violent history. Instead, they adhere to the spin doctors’ Invisible Primary rule, no policy announcements till the primaries begin.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton has seized the moment. Eight years ago, she called for the Confederate flag to be removed from the South Carolina statehouse. This week, she has praised Governor Haley’s decision for making the same call. Of the Charleston murders, she said, “Let us be resolved to make sure these nine righteous men and women did not die in vain.” She has already waded into the issue of race relations on many occasions this year, placing emphasis on the need for criminal justice reform. Addressing the Conference of Mayors last week, she said: “I know this is a difficult subject to talk about. There are truths we do not like to say out loud or discuss but we have to.” On another recent occasion, she said: “Whether you live in Ferguson or West Baltimore, in coal country or Indian country, you should have the same chance as any American anywhere to get ahead and stay ahead.”

By taking the race relations issue head on, Mrs. Clinton will be looked upon as a fighter for minorities. The black and Hispanic communities will be encouraged to vote for her. Blue collar workers may feel the same. But I detect far more than a calculating political move on her part. I believe Hillary means what she says. Last April, she spoke at Columbia University on mass black incarceration, stating: “Not only as a mother and grandmother, but as a citizen and a human being, my heart breaks for those young men and their families. We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.”

Does Mrs. Clinton’s stance mean she will now start campaigning in earnest? What will be her position on unemployment, gun control, social security and the budget deficit? I, for one, would like the phony election period to end and find out now what policies candidates might introduce. I would also like to know what plans potential candidates have to break away from the old patterns of Washington where there is a steel cage separating the parties. Will Mrs. Clinton have the right stuff to reduce the influence of partisan politics?