By Christine Rosen
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Presidential campaigns exacerbate solipsism. Not only the
solipsism of the candidates and the journalists who cover them but navel-gazing
of campaign staffers, who all too often mistake an intense period of political
work during a high-stakes election for more worthy labor than it is.
But until recently, campaigns themselves were understood
as a tough but rewarding form of employment for people eager to work in the
political trenches. Popular culture lionized the “war rooms” of some campaigns
(at least when the candidate was a Democrat) and praised the
hell-for-leather, relentless nature of the people who worked for them.
No longer. In our hypersensitive times, fear and loathing
on the campaign trail have evidently been replaced by diversity retreats and
microaggression surveys. As Reid Epstein describes in The New York Times, millennial darling Pete Buttigieg’s campaign is
the exemplar of such efforts.
Recently, staffers on Buttigieg’s campaign who “identify
as a person of color” were asked to complete a survey about “Microaggressions
in the Workplace” that included such questions as whether or not a “white
colleague” has “interrupted/ talked over” them, or failed to include them on a
“relevant email chain.” Further questions explored their feelings about having
an idea dismissed “without explanation” and even asked, “What does good
allyship feel like?”
As well, in early December, the campaign hosted a
“mandatory half-day retreat about diversity and inclusion.” This event
evidently didn’t achieve its intended goals, since, as one staffer told the Times, “there was a daily ‘emotional
weight’ on people of color who felt they were employed in order to help the
campaign meet its ambitious diversity targets.”
Buttigieg has struggled to gain support from non-white
voters since he first launched his campaign, and his eagerness to discuss his
own diversity hiring practices is clearly part of his effort to bolster his
bona fides on race. “Team Pete” took its struggle sessions public in response
to the Times’ story, posting a
lengthy description of its diverse staff and boasting: “We’re proud that 40
[percent] of our campaign’s senior advisors identify as people of color, 46
[percent] of our senior leadership and department heads identify as people of
color, 40 [percent] of our entire campaign staff identify as people of color,
52 [percent] of our staff are women, and 28 [percent] of our staff identify as
LGBTQ+.”
Team Pete also emphasized that the campaign was dedicated
to fostering “safe, supportive environments where people on staff can speak
freely about these issues in a trusted space.”
But a presidential campaign is about the furthest thing
from a “safe space” as one can imagine. It’s a relentless, often brutal slog
with only one winner. People who work for campaigns usually do so with the
knowledge that the job requires a tolerance for behavior and demands on their
time that are different from a regular job. That’s no excuse for bad behavior
by campaign staffers, of course, and, in some cases, candidates have been
pressured to fire staffers whose behavior is outlandishly offensive.
Still, while it is routine for campaign staffers to leak
to the press in order to further a positive narrative about their candidate (or
a negative one about their opponents), it is unusual to find them blathering on
to reporters about their own hurt feelings. Or spending valuable time in the
lead-up to the first Democratic primaries engaging in tearful emotional
wellness sessions about “Building Belonging” into the campaign.
The real test of Buttigieg’s trust-building exercises and
microaggression questionnaires is this: Have they made his campaign better? If
his polling numbers among non-white voters are any guide, they have not.
Diversity might be a strength, but diversity pandering
might prove at best to be a harmful distraction for his campaign, and at worst
an example of inauthenticity on matters of race that, ironically, could further
sour the already-skeptical non-white voters Buttigieg is so eager to get.
No comments:
Post a Comment