![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)

(*SWCM = straight white Christian male)
OK, we've had our share of Hillary talk, even Warren talk, and for a while we might've imagined that a female US president was even a viable scenario. Heh.
I've wondered at times how come a developed society (presumably the most developed, actually) which often likes to declare itself the paragon of freedom and democracy in the world, has not had any female president, religious minority president (hell, even openly atheist president to that matter), or why not, openly gay president (hm, Buchanan doesn't count as "open", right?)
I've heard all sorts of
Reasons for no female POTUS yet: From what I've heard, the
Anyway; so what's your take, folks? Why still no female president? Why America still hasn't joined the glorious club of democracies like Haiti, Nicaragua, Burundi, Guyana, The Philippines, Indonesia, Liberia, Gabon, Kosovo, Malawi, Central African Republic, Mongolia and Guinea-Bissau?
And what about the first gay president? OK, Buchanan might or might not have been one, but even if he indeed was, he wasn't openly gay, he didn't run while people knowing that he was gay, and they probably wouldn't have elected him if they had known. So what would it take to see the first openly LGBT prez? Hell, when will we see the first openly LGBT Republican nominee, let alone prez?
And here we come upon the elephant in the room, so to speak...
"Americans are somewhat more open to the idea of an atheist president"
"Somewhat more open"? What does that even mean? Oh right. Even if some of the candidates may've been atheist, so far few of them have dared declare that openly. Most major candidates never stop blabbering about God and the Bible, even the more progressive/liberal/heathen/you-name-it ones. Why is that? Maybe because "America has been founded on Christian principles", etc. At least that's what I'm being told by our more conservative friends. So when will we see an openly atheist candidate who doesn't have to pander to the religious majority, and still retain their chances of getting their party's nomination, and even being elected president? Would that EVER happen in the US?
What about non-Christian candidates? A Muslim, perhaps? THE HORRORS!
Or a representative of a smaller racial/ethnic minority? Asian, anyone?
We might ask similar questions about other "minorities" (hey, are you sure non-believers are actually a minority any more?) - like physically disabled candidates. FDR may have been one at the time he ran, so we may have a precedent already. But do you picture a candidate in a wheelchair ever having a viable chance of getting nominated and being elected into office?
All that said, here's a poll for ya. Which minority (from a political POV) has the best chances of getting a representative of theirs into the White House? And which will never see it happen?
[Poll #1972687]
[Poll #1972688]
Your turn, guys. Any votes / opinions / 2 cents / mocking macros / curses at the OP?
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:49 (UTC)Heh, but a goodly portion of our population thinks
we already have one - a Kenyan to boot. Some
people still aren't buying that birth certificate,
long-form or otherwise. :p
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 18:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:10 (UTC)Wait.
What?
This isn't black enough for some people?? Really? How much more black do you have to be? Almost all African American's are mixed race, to some degree.
Also, we've had plenty of religiously unaffiliated (Lincoln) or ambiguously affiliated (Eisenhower, Obama) presidents and a fair share of Unitarians (both Adams's, William "I don't believe in the divinity of Christ" Taft, even a couple of Quakers (notoriously Hoover and Nixon), a denomination of less than 100,000 souls. If that doesn't count as a minority, I don't know what does.
Not sure what "ethinc" minority means, but Van Buren grew up speaking Dutch and Kennedy's Irishness should count for something.
What you are really saying is that no US president has come from outside the mainstream of American culture. Well, duh. Isn't that what a democracy produces? How many elected German or Turkish or Swedish or Indian leaders have come from a religious, ethnic or racial minority?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:12 (UTC)Who has reached the national stature enough to actually pull it off? As it stands, the most likely person in the last few decades is Hillary Clinton, and her resume is pretty thin. It's mostly a lack of opportunity combined with the reality of party politics creating a sort of line to ascendancy that women have only recently started hitting the top of at the state level.
There just haven't been enough women to reach the point to become president. It's no vast conspiracy.
And what about the first gay president?
Statistically, it's bound to happen, but there aren't that many gay people to start, never mind gay politicians, never mind gay politicians with presidential ambition, never mind gay politicians with presidential ambition and ability.
So when will we see an openly atheist candidate who doesn't have to pander to the religious majority, and still retain their chances of getting their party's nomination, and even being elected president? Would that EVER happen in the US?
We won't, not anytime soon. It has nothing to do with pandering to the "religious majority," it's, again, a statistical numbers game. There just aren't enough atheists out there to make that sort of political splash, never mind swing enough religious voters over to his or her side to get enough votes.
What about non-Christian candidates? A Muslim, perhaps? THE HORRORS!
Islam is the third largest religion in the United States, and that represents less than 1% of the population (http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population-graphic/#/United%20States). It's simply demographically unlikely.
Or a representative of a smaller racial/ethnic minority? Asian, anyone?
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw an Asian before a woman, honestly, in part because the Asian minority group has done a better job of assimilating into American culture, but, again, who? What Asian politician is even close? Michelle Rhee?
But do you picture a candidate in a wheelchair ever having a viable chance of getting nominated and being elected into office?
I do think this is possible-to-likely, in that it wouldn't be an hindrance. The person would probably be a veteran anyway.
tl;dr, it really comes down less to some sort of discriminatory action and more about a lack of viable candidates from those areas.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:39 (UTC)Strawman. Never implied such a thing.
This is not some game of roulette. This is real people making real-life decisions.
Not that many have come out, you mean. Wonder why that is?
Same about atheists.
How many are "enough"? 6% atheist/agnostic + 14% with no particular religious affiliation (http://www.alternet.org/belief/number-atheists-us-spikes-protestants-minority-first-time) makes 1/5 - as pointed above, presidents have been elected from even smaller numbers, like JFK who was Irish (the Irish are less than 2% of the population). So again, how many are "enough" for ya?
Why would a person in wheelchair have more chance, since people with difficulty walking are 19.4 million out of 318 million (http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/statistics/census-figures.php) (i.e. 6%) - which is exactly the share of atheists/agnostics (not counting those with no particular religious affiliation)? What's this ever shifting mathematical criterion that you've been using here?
What alternative parallel reality do you populate? There's no discrimination against minorities in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_in_the_United_States)!? WTF?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 21:30 (UTC)Bobby Jindal. Assuming you include South Asia.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 00:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 21:40 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 03:59 (UTC)But let's be clear, if an openly atheist candidate were able to make it to the running, he would fail due to his atheism. Period. The President says "God Bless America". The President presides over the National Day of Prayer. The president issues proclamations of national religious observances. The president buttresses every major speech and address with religious frippery. The President prays for our soldiers at war .. in other countries .. The President says "God Bless each and every American". There is a religious left and religious center and religious right who would not support an atheist president. Period. Non-starter.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:12 (UTC)THEY'RE ALREADY AMONG US!
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 19:14 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 20:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 20:12 (UTC)It seems he did all his best to appear like he wasn't a disabled man at the time he ran for president, and during his term. Wonder why? How would the public perceive a disabled presidential candidate, and subsequently, a disabled president?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 20:28 (UTC)Not great to start off with a giant strawman.
(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 21:03 (UTC)Much happier? Anything remotely substantial to contribute?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 21:30 (UTC)And no, most of these minorities will never have a president in the US. Not within the next century, anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 05:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/6/14 21:35 (UTC)A woman president is a matter of time, though.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 04:09 (UTC)The right woman would be cool.
(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 00:07 (UTC)Given the advances in technology you won't likely see a president confined to a wheelchair anyway; but I think its pretty likely we will see a candidate with who can't walk on their own without the assistance of prosthetic legs or will require the use of a powered exoskeleton to walk (which is a very new technology)
(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 00:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 00:58 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 01:00 (UTC)1) Hillary is a likely candidate.
2) There are a lot of women who are getting elected governor these days, which is really the larval stage for someone with presidential ambitions. This is also pretty recent, about half of the women who were elected governor did so since 2000, so I'd expect we're going to be seeing more and more female governors which will translate into more and more female presidential candidates.
Also, about half of the women elected governor since 2000 are republican, including four of the five women who are currently governors, so I'm going to predict that, unless Hillary gets elected, the first women elected president will be a republican. They've got the candidates right now.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 04:20 (UTC)Perhaps one that completes their term this time?
(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 03:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 05:19 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 06:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 21:28 (UTC)We're not rational, not by a long shot.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 03:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 03:38 (UTC)http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 05:12 (UTC)The Washington Post had an interesting feature on that to (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/01/03/7d1aaf30-55e5-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html)o, noting: