What’s in a Name?
BY GRACE PORTELANCE
Think back to the last election you voted in- it may have been student government; it may have been for your state government. Odds are, you found yourself staring at two or more unfamiliar names, and you made an arbitrary choice, picking the candidate who “seemed the best.” Unless you closely followed every race on the ballot, you had no information whatsoever about the candidates and made a snap judgment. When little other information is available, the results of our subconscious biases can come out in a way that seriously alters political outcomes. There are hundreds of elections voted in by people with less than perfect information, yet something informs their choices. Is it the perceived race of the candidates?
Consider the 2012 Washington State Supreme Court elections. In this race a well-qualified incumbent, Steve Gonzalez, was heavily endorsed for re-election by state officials and the legal community because of his exemplary work and extensive experience. His opponent, Bruce Danielson, did not campaign and was widely seen as extremely unqualified. The majority of voters likely knew only the names of the candidates; no information was distributed officially and the race was relatively low-profile. Despite all this, one would assume that such an unbalanced race in terms of qualifications would yield a clear result for Gonzalez. Shockingly, 30 out of 39 Washington counties voted for Danielson, who garnered 42 percent of the vote. So what’s in a name? The concept that an unqualified unknown with an Anglo name could come so close to beating an exceptionally qualified incumbent with a Latino name is troubling to say the least.
The effects of a name are not lost on candidates. Loretta Brixey, a California politician, upon losing a local race as a Republican, switched parties and names to become Democrat Loretta Sanchez (her maiden name) and won an election to represent a heavily Latino part of the state. These kinds of changes are not made arbitrarily, as name politics are a tool in contemporary politics to be manipulated just as appearance, diction, and message are. Our judgments based on names extend far beyond simple race comparisons. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton frequently used name changes to her advantage–while she began her career in the public eye as Hillary Rodham, she altered her name to fit her new roles as her public profile changed. When her husband ran for president, she became Mrs. Bill Clinton, a family woman that could fill the traditional role of First Lady. This simple adoption of her husband’s name has cultural meaning that resonates with voters who have a certain image in mind of whom they want in that role. Clinton’s name games continued when Mrs. Bill Clinton became Hillary Rodham Clinton as she gained more political power; by keeping both names she projected both a family persona and an independent, feminist attitude. These changes are considerable when you realize that Hillary initially wished to keep her maiden name (Rodham) because it “ showed I was still me.” It appears sense of self is not what sells in politics today.
Name perceptions can be difficult to shake. President Obama’s middle name, Hussein, while an extremely common Arabic name, also carries a heavy political load because of recent conflict in its region of origin. The idea that people may feel that simply because our president shares a name with Saddam Hussein, he is unfit to be president, anti-American, or even a terrorist speaks volumes. On a similar (yet lighter) note, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee essentially became the butt of every late night joke during his brief run because of his allegedly ridiculous sounding name. According to Conan O’Brien, “[T]he only way it could be worse is if his name was George W. Huckabee.” Voters look for strength in a leader, so a weak and silly sounding name can be very damaging — after all, a candidate who is ridiculed by popular media figures hardly projects a leader-like image to the nation.
Names can be molded like any other facet of political life to achieve an intended image, yet the negative implications of name politics are severe. Whether it involves a name being criticized for sounding ethnic, weak, or anti-American, a whole lot of judgments are being made on an arbitrary and inaccurate basis. So what’s really in a name? Names hold our heritage and our history. They cannot adequately convey someone’s ability to represent his or her constituents, and they cannot be used to decipher values or beliefs. Name politics seems to be a part of a larger trend of identity politics. In times of intense media scrutiny and mass misinformation, the focus has shifted and those looking to be elected have reacted in kind, zeroing in on how public persona can be changed to help election outcomes. Politicians do this because it works. At the end of the day, a politician’s defeat or success could hinge on his phrasing something the right way, wearing the right outfit, conveying the right sense of authority. Or, perhaps, there is a chance it could just be his having the right name.