![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
(*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: 23/6/14 06:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 19:37 (UTC)Your turn now. Should there be a pressing need for something to happen? And how does the lack of a pressing need negate the point that's being made here?
(no subject)
Date: 23/6/14 21:39 (UTC)We have fewer non-white politicians because we have fewer non-whites in general, especially those in office. It's sorta hard to take the stats as a whole however, especially given that we've only had like... 7? 8? Presidents since the lion's share of minority/women's rights went through. Hell, I'm not even sure sexism/racism was looked down upon until the 1980s.
I mean it's great that you Euros are electing women and everything... and America is long overdue for a female President, but I don't see you guys electing any Africans, Arabs, and the like. The US seems to have a leg up in that department, no?
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 04:11 (UTC)I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Oh wait. :)
Again, not necessarily, but it helps bring the point home.
I'm not a Euro. That you haven't even bothered to check my profile, or pay attention through the years about who I am, is not my problem. I have nothing to do with Europe, except my grandparents at one side were Portuguese. Or do "all these other countries" look all the same to you? Please don't play into the convenient cliche of the ignorant American, so far you've demonstrated that it wouldn't suit you well.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 04:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 04:17 (UTC)You've had exactly 1 out of 43 presidents who isn't white. 0 who haven't been women, 0 who haven't been Christian, etc. That doesn't sit well with your theory of mere statistical representation, does it.
And I've directly answered your questions, but you've so far omitted keeping your promise to answer mine. So. For the first time. Should there be a pressing need for something to happen? And how does the lack of a pressing need negate the point that's being made here?
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 17:02 (UTC)Eh, 1 beats zero. By a lot. And in a country that's had a pretty tortured relationship with racism and slavery. And that's still not satisfactory, there's plenty of work to do. You can never stop the process, it's constant work. But that needed work is certainly not unique to the United States.
Compared to other 'developed' countries the United States ( as you phrased it "presumably the most developed") the situation isn't unique, I'm saddened to say. And since you brought up other countries in by way comparison in the OP, how do other "developed countries" look by way of comparison? There have been about 71 U.K. Prime Ministers since 1721, one who was a woman, all white, no minority PM and I'm pretty sure they've all been nominal baptized Christians. France has had 170 (!!) Prime Ministers. Not one woman, not one minority (France and the UK as a percentage has twice as many Muslims than the US), again I assume all of them are nominal baptized Christians. Germany has had 8 chancellors since 1949, all white, one woman, and not a single minority. Italy has a bazillion prime ministers, none were woman, all white, all Christian. Other EU countries have done better clearly with women prime ministers or leaders of state (whatever term you want to use), but not so much in the other parameters you've mentioned (religious minority, people of color, minorities, etc).
Women were granted the right to vote in the United States in 1920. That was years ahead of several other developed countries. The UK didn't give universal suffrage until 1928. France not until 1945. Since women were given the right to vote and serve in Parliament in the UK. only 8 percent of all MPS have been women. (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-65/women-in-parliament-making-a-difference-since-1918) And currently its only 26 percent. For the EU parliament, it's body is about 31 percent women. What about Presidents of the European Parliament, depending on the way you define the parameters (I'm using elected Parliament since 1979), there have been 7 such presidents and only one was a woman and not a Christian (and that was the remarkable and fascinating Simone Veil, a Auschwitz survivor).
So for whatever reasons other developed or "advanced" countries have had in not electing significant numbers of women, minorities, non-Christians, and gay folks into top leadership roles: I suppose those reasons could possibly explain the situation here in the United States.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 20:09 (UTC)Exactly.
Has the UK or France made bold claims about being the paragon of the melting pot model? I thought those were a bunch of racist Euros anyway? At least that's the impression one would get while reading some opinions coming from across the Big Water.
And yet, the UK has already had its first female prime minister, and quite a prominent one, at that. What does that say about women empowerment and representation in the US as compared to UK? Aren't you making my point with this example?
Btw, out of curiosity, I made some calculations, and turns out 1 non-white-male-Christian European Parliament president out of 7 for 35 years makes an average of 1 / 7 * 35 = 1 non-white-male-Christian per 5.00 years. Meanwhile, 1 non-white-male-Christian president out of 16 presidents in the US since universal suffrage (94 years) makes 1 / 16 * 94 = 1 non-white-male-Christian president per 5.87 years.
Which reminds me that a tiny country like Iceland has already had both its first female president, and its first lesbian prime minister. A hugely complicated democracy like India (and simultaneously a very patriarchical society) has had its female prime minister. Even countries in Africa and Latin America have had female heads of state. Of course more could be expected regarding homosexual heads of state across the world, or ethnic/racial minority heads of state, etc. One would've thought that a herald of liberty and democracy like America would've lead the way in that respect.
But that's exactly the point of this post. It's an attempt to figure out what those reasons are. Thankfully, so far I've received some feedback, while others have preferred to jump on the OP instead of providing any.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 20:50 (UTC)Maybe. Maybe not. As when it was pointed out when someone confused with you're being European, I'll take a cue from your reply on another thread: I'm not European. So I can't answer for what they've claimed or not claimed. But it doesn't matter really: other than women, the other "advanced" countries track record isn't that remarkable, and even in countries with larger immigrant religious minorities (e.g. the UK and France with Muslims). But as an American the 'exceptionalism' thing? I think a lot of that has to be politicians and newscasters running on auto-bot with the cliched sayings, since most polls show Americans think their "glory days" are behind them. Polls give conflicting results, but a recent Pew Poll seems to show some significant erosion in the notion. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-split-on-american-exceptionalism-poll-shows/) I know other polls show higher numbers.
And speaking of cliched phrases, Bill Maher mentioned on Jon Stewart this week, there's no doubt in his mind President Obama is an atheist, but drops still drops the religious lines for public relations for his 'audiences', and maybe to keep Fox News off his ass (well that hasn't been working out too well).
And yet, the UK has already had its first female prime minister, and quite a prominent one, at that. What does that say about women empowerment and representation in the US as compared to UK? Aren't you making my point with this example?
Yes, that's right; and I mentioned some other notables myself (e.g. Simon Weil). I made your point, and expressly mentioned that in terms of gender equality, there has been some much better results. I didn't mention it in my previous comment, but in some national legislative bodies, the rate of women in nearly 50 percent or even higher and that's fantastic) . But in other instances as I've outlined, there's not so much to brag about.
But that's exactly the point of this post. It's an attempt to figure out what those reasons are
My lazy answer: the common element in all the developed countries and a significant lack of minorities as you outlined, could be income inequality. And since societal change can move at glacial slowness, the reflection in political office holders can be as far away as a generation. I knew some African American friends who never believed they'd see a black elected to the Presidency within their lifetimes, because of their own personal experiences with institutional racism in the United States. But I think within the next five years, you're going to see a lot of openly gay candidates elected to national office in the United States (probably from more blue states versus than say, Alabama). FWIW: the change on notions of gay rights within my own lifetime has been remarkable.
But if you have any other ideas on the whyness of this phenomena of why so few minorities are in higher office in western governments, or suggestions how to fix that, I'd love to hear them.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 21:19 (UTC)Exactly. There's a reason atheist politicians have remained closet atheists so to speak, and it probably is that they must believe they'd significantly undermine their chances of being elected if they "come out" as openly atheist. So they prefer to lie that they're not. Which is kind of sad, isn't it?
There are institutions directly related to policies affecting women, and their upper governing bodies have been almost exclusively male (white male), which is not just sad, it's detrimental to the final outcome of those policies. I think women in national legislative bodies should be more assertive in that regard, now that they have the numbers that you speak of. I'm aware that breaking the male monopoly in those institutions will be no easy task, but that doesn't mean the pressure shouldn't be intensified in that regard.
I'm not as well-versed in US politics as to presume to have more ideas on the "whyness", beyond the ones that have already been expressed by actual Americans who've been able to experience the process first-hand. All I have is second-hand impressions, which may or may not have protruded through the general tone in which I've phrased this post, erroneous or not.
I'll take a cue from your reply and say maybe, maybe not. :)
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 21:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 22:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 22:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 21:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 21:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 22:30 (UTC)I don't think anyone in here believes in it... with regards to 'multicultural government'. Although, I feel like you're replying to people here under the assumption that they do.
(no subject)
Date: 25/6/14 22:14 (UTC)It still is a pretty non-fringe view. I see that adage being played over and over in various speeches, statements and conversations, whenever US politics comes into focus.
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 19:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 21:26 (UTC)...The western portion, anyway.
>.>
(no subject)
Date: 24/6/14 22:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/6/14 03:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/6/14 18:15 (UTC)