Is America ready for a (fill in the blank) President?
Expect the above question frequently over the next year or so. It's time for America to look inward and see to what limits have tolerance, understanding, and rationality have spread throughout the nation.
As part of the changing demographics this day kind of had to come, although I don't think people expected it all to come down in one year.
Here's the situation:
Take a look at the most likely forerunners of the next election and you'll see something quite surprising. Of the five people most likely to be our next president, only one is a white male protestant.
There are the obvious deviations from the presidential norm: Hillary Clinton (a woman) and Barack Obama (african american). But if you look at the Republican candidates, with the exception of McCain, you find some very non-traditional options.
Rudolph Giuliani (my choice of Republican candidates) is both Italian and Roman Catholic. Depending on what part of the country you are from you may shrug at this, but trust me when I say that there was a time (may still be a time) when either of those would disqualify you from being a likely presidential candidate as much as being black would. I did not encounter virtually any anti-Italian racism back in Michigan, but here on the east coast I lived with an Irish guy when I first moved in that told me, in all seriousness "I'm not racist. I love everybody...except for those f***ing w*ps."
I was really confused by this until someone laid out the old Irish/Italian social dynamics here on the east coast. And apparently such feelings are not restricted to the Irish. It always amazes me to what lengths we'll go to find something to dislike about our fellow man.
Next we have Mitt Romney. On the surface, he looks like your typical politician. But he's Mormon. That makes a LOT of my fellow Christians queasy. Mormons get (often unfairly) grouped together with Mormon fundamentalists that marry multiple wives, some of whom may or may not be underage or their cousins, as well as believing in a book that is in addition to the Holy Bible which claims there were incidents of holy importance here in America. Most Christians believe Jesus had the last word on things (and Paul through him) and get worried about anyone who came along after that and claimed they were bringing god's word, be it the Mormon's book or the Koran. For many, voting for a mormon isn't that far off from voting for a muslim. If we were grown ups, neither would be an issue, but we're not all grown up here. Just look at the fuss made over Keith Ellison. And he was just being sworn into Congress. Can you imagine the hysteria if Romney wanted to be sworn in as president on the Book of Mormon?
Then again, Mormon is a religion populated by, for the most part, whites which at one point claimed being black was a curse, so many in America are liable to give it a pass, particularly in the South. We'll see.
Then, of course, we have Hillary Clinton. Despite the fact she'd be fine as president, she has a lot of checks against her. First is the fact that she's a woman. We have all types of silly ideas as to what would happen with a woman president. I've heard statements, from women no less, that they would worry about decisions she made during her menstral cycle for heaven's sake.
And, people consider her cold and bitchy. Of course, when you look at her actual statements, she's no different AT ALL from the attitude of her male senate compatriots. The problem is that most americans aren't willing to judge a woman in power on their job performance alone, like they do a man, but instead judge her on whether she can be a senator AND still someone bake cookies after floor votes. It's a silly standard, but the next time someone tells you Hillary (whom I've met and is as nice a person as you'll meet) is a "cold fish" just pretend what she said was said by a male senator and ask yourself whether we'd make a point of noting how cold he was for saying what she said.
Finally, we get the the most obvious one, Barack Obama. Interestingly, I think, of the group, he and Giuliani are the two most likely not to be hindered as much by biological and religious factors.
Say what you want about the evangelical movement, but they are dead set against being defined as racist. Evangelicals have problems with Obama's more liberal stances, but they've split as a group over him due to his obvious christian influences and statements. It's very much not a matter with race for them, which could exert a power influence over southern voters who would usually never vote for an african american en masse.
Obama has other factors going for him: He's mixed, which can be a sin or a curse depending on what part of the country you are in. He's religious, but liberal, which means that he can draw votes, or lose them, from both extremes of the political spectrum, and he has a good message and charisma, both things Hillary and everyone but Giuliani struggle with.
Is America ready, and will America vote, for any of the four people above? I think it is, and I think they will. The question is this: whose message will rise above the inherent gunshy attitude of the typical white anglo-saxon protestant american voter toward people who are not like themselves?
Then again, maybe that does not matter. If the WASP voter stays divided, as it has during the last elections, into its little various camps, the next president, and future ones as well, may be decided by something else: who speaks the best spanish.
As part of the changing demographics this day kind of had to come, although I don't think people expected it all to come down in one year.
Here's the situation:
Take a look at the most likely forerunners of the next election and you'll see something quite surprising. Of the five people most likely to be our next president, only one is a white male protestant.
There are the obvious deviations from the presidential norm: Hillary Clinton (a woman) and Barack Obama (african american). But if you look at the Republican candidates, with the exception of McCain, you find some very non-traditional options.
Rudolph Giuliani (my choice of Republican candidates) is both Italian and Roman Catholic. Depending on what part of the country you are from you may shrug at this, but trust me when I say that there was a time (may still be a time) when either of those would disqualify you from being a likely presidential candidate as much as being black would. I did not encounter virtually any anti-Italian racism back in Michigan, but here on the east coast I lived with an Irish guy when I first moved in that told me, in all seriousness "I'm not racist. I love everybody...except for those f***ing w*ps."
I was really confused by this until someone laid out the old Irish/Italian social dynamics here on the east coast. And apparently such feelings are not restricted to the Irish. It always amazes me to what lengths we'll go to find something to dislike about our fellow man.
Next we have Mitt Romney. On the surface, he looks like your typical politician. But he's Mormon. That makes a LOT of my fellow Christians queasy. Mormons get (often unfairly) grouped together with Mormon fundamentalists that marry multiple wives, some of whom may or may not be underage or their cousins, as well as believing in a book that is in addition to the Holy Bible which claims there were incidents of holy importance here in America. Most Christians believe Jesus had the last word on things (and Paul through him) and get worried about anyone who came along after that and claimed they were bringing god's word, be it the Mormon's book or the Koran. For many, voting for a mormon isn't that far off from voting for a muslim. If we were grown ups, neither would be an issue, but we're not all grown up here. Just look at the fuss made over Keith Ellison. And he was just being sworn into Congress. Can you imagine the hysteria if Romney wanted to be sworn in as president on the Book of Mormon?
Then again, Mormon is a religion populated by, for the most part, whites which at one point claimed being black was a curse, so many in America are liable to give it a pass, particularly in the South. We'll see.
Then, of course, we have Hillary Clinton. Despite the fact she'd be fine as president, she has a lot of checks against her. First is the fact that she's a woman. We have all types of silly ideas as to what would happen with a woman president. I've heard statements, from women no less, that they would worry about decisions she made during her menstral cycle for heaven's sake.
And, people consider her cold and bitchy. Of course, when you look at her actual statements, she's no different AT ALL from the attitude of her male senate compatriots. The problem is that most americans aren't willing to judge a woman in power on their job performance alone, like they do a man, but instead judge her on whether she can be a senator AND still someone bake cookies after floor votes. It's a silly standard, but the next time someone tells you Hillary (whom I've met and is as nice a person as you'll meet) is a "cold fish" just pretend what she said was said by a male senator and ask yourself whether we'd make a point of noting how cold he was for saying what she said.
Finally, we get the the most obvious one, Barack Obama. Interestingly, I think, of the group, he and Giuliani are the two most likely not to be hindered as much by biological and religious factors.
Say what you want about the evangelical movement, but they are dead set against being defined as racist. Evangelicals have problems with Obama's more liberal stances, but they've split as a group over him due to his obvious christian influences and statements. It's very much not a matter with race for them, which could exert a power influence over southern voters who would usually never vote for an african american en masse.
Obama has other factors going for him: He's mixed, which can be a sin or a curse depending on what part of the country you are in. He's religious, but liberal, which means that he can draw votes, or lose them, from both extremes of the political spectrum, and he has a good message and charisma, both things Hillary and everyone but Giuliani struggle with.
Is America ready, and will America vote, for any of the four people above? I think it is, and I think they will. The question is this: whose message will rise above the inherent gunshy attitude of the typical white anglo-saxon protestant american voter toward people who are not like themselves?
Then again, maybe that does not matter. If the WASP voter stays divided, as it has during the last elections, into its little various camps, the next president, and future ones as well, may be decided by something else: who speaks the best spanish.
posted by Dark Lord at 10:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home