Is America Ready for a Minority President?
 

America's not ready for a BLACK president. Not just a "minority" president. While men have male privilege under the patriarchy, the black male combination can buffer the effects of that in many contexts.

And America's not ready for a female president. If Hillary Clinton gets elected, it is only because of three reasons: 1) she was married to Bill so she's been in the White House and people have seen her politics, 2) she's the lesser of the two (female candidate vs. black male candidate) "Democrat evils" and 3) all of the Dem and Repub candidates suck so it was either Clinton or Donald Duck.

As an Independent, I'm voting for Donald Duck.

Is American ready for a Minority President???














Hayle to tha naw!!!!!!

LOL....but, seriously, I do not feel that America is ready for reasons that I just feel to exhausted to get into right now. Maybe later...

America is not ready but it needs to be.

Somebody's gotta' do it and I would rather it be Obama.

I'm in agreement on that.

No, America is not ready for a minority president. We live segregated lives even without legal segregation so there is no way in hell that America is ready to truly embrace its diversity by putting a person of color and/or a woman into the White House.

I totally agree with SisterGreek DSTCHAOS, Hilary is simply the lesser of two "evils" - woman versus black. As far as most people are concerned, anyone who can still put WHITE in front of their gender, has a significant advantage over a black person whether male or female.

Given this country's long history of racism and sexism, America may not be ready for a minority president but that doesn't mean that we don't need one. If we can't show diversity in leadership, things will never change and don't have a chance of changing overall...just my opinion. We weren't ready for Bush either obviously and I don't think we can get any worse than him.

Having a black or woman president doesn't really show diversity in leadership. And it also doesn't mean that our society will change.

Either case, people should be elected based on their political platforms. Not based on their party affiliation, religion, race, sex and gender, sexual orientation, etc. So I don't think we "need" a minority president unless that person has something to offer besides being a minority.

I think you know full well what I meant and it has nothing to do with choosing a minority who isn't qualified. So let me rephrase...we need a minority president who IS qualified. And yes we do "need" one since we all know that years upon years of White male leadership can't possibly be good for a diverse and progressive country, as we like to think we are. In my opinion both Hillary and Obama are qualified.

There are tons of people who don't vote based on qualifications or platform. They vote based on status group memberships. I have no reason to assume that you are or are not one of those people.

I don't think that the U.S. is truly diverse and progressive beyond the surface. So white male presidents are what I expect from us. Having nonwhite and nonmale presidents won't make me change what I believe about this country's diversity and progression and its future.

I'm not a fan of their platforms. But I took this thread topic to not have to be specifically about Clinton and Obama. I answered it generally and just used those two candidates as the context.

Why Not! The Old White Guys have held the Power for 43 times. It's time for a radical change.:cool:


Serioussigma22

well this is going to get really circular, but just because you have a woman or a black candidate up for office doesnt mean were going to see "radical change." and they damn sure aren't gonna get in the White House and start spitting 100% gender/race equality. it would be nice, but they're running for presidency, to represent ALL, not just who/where they come from.

Is America ready for a minority president? No. But we weren't ready for any president that screwed up. Hell, our country wasn't even ready for Easy Mac, but it's here and we're dealing with it one day at a time.

Extremely. :p

Not necessarily radical change in terms of policies and processes but radical change in terms of Blacks/Minorities (especially the youth) seeing that they could actually one day become president. Because of the current climate, this is something that most Blacks/Minorities (even among the qualified) do not seriously even consider.

Exactly! I still don't know who I'm voting for because I'm choosing the lesser of more than two evils in both parties to narrow my November vote down to the lesser of two evils. America's not even radical enough to get away from a two-party system. So how radical can our country be to get ready for a minority president? It's definitely time for a change, but I don't think the real change will begin until the elections of 2012.

So simply put, no, we're not ready. It would be great to see it happen, but I don't see it happening in '08. :(

After reading these posts and black peolpe saying America is not ready for a minority President appears to be self hatred at best. Low self esteem at worst. Dont be ashamed or hate your pwn culture. Black people are intelligent, successful and can handle themselves inthe White House as anyone esle can

well WE, the 12% of the American population, know this, but do THEY?

I tend to believe that most of them do. Dont assume that because youare black,that white people automatically thnk youare inferior. I grew up in amulti cultural environment and I have seen good people and bad people of all races.

yeah yeah multiculturalism... if we're asking ourselves if America is ready for a black/woman president when the first 43 have been white/male, then how multicultural is that? If we were ready for one, don't you think that he/she wouldve already been elected?

yes theres good and bad in everyone, regardless of race, but i dont know any white ppl whove had nooses or burned crosses on their lawns. anyone who would do such would do it to those they felt superior over.

I do. They are called Jews

And what is wrong with multiculturism? Isnt that what Jesus preacehs? isnt that what Martin L. King talked about? If its wrong to follow them, then I am wrong

Since you're jumping to conclusions, I'm going to jump to the conclusion that you don't read too well. To assume self-hatred, low self esteem and all the rest is an insult. The question was is America ready. Not "are there black people capable of being President."

There are some self-hating and low self-esteem black people whose opinions on this topic may be indicative of that. But I didn't see that in anyone's posts in this thread.

Many of "them" do. But having a minority president goes above and beyond that acknowledgement.

I think that the thread question is an unfair one and it insults the intelligence of the average modern American by thinking that a person's physical attributes implicitly makes him/her less qualified to be an effective leader. We already know that given Clinton's and Obama's current tenures as senators, as well as their frontrunner statuses in the Democratic primaries and high campaign funds raised that their "minority" status is of minimal, if any, importance.

My question to all of you would be: Given these factors, why do you REALLY want a minority as POTUS? Personally I think the real reason why so many want a minority as President is more for ego-driven and special interest treatment reasons than if the minority candidates are really and truly qualified for the position.

Let's be fair. Perhaps by addressing this, in all fairness would risk taking the thread off topic, but I have not read one post in this thread that really addressed any of the major issues that the POTUS would have to deal with should they become elected.

What about their stance on Iraq, the economy (which in now in imminent danger of a major depression), the NAU/SPP, the need to overhaul or abolish the Federal Reserve, the Patriot Act/Real ID Act/the stripping of our civil liberties? What about those issues? How have they addressed those and more importantly, do you agree with their stances?

I ask these because I think the average American has grossly underestimated the danger America is in, and by the time it has been fully realized, it will be too late to recoup the losses. This is not the time to pontificate whether America is ready for a minority president, the present state of our country makes it grossly irrelevant.

On a lighter note, I do applaud Hillary and Barack for their acheivements despite their minority status.

Race and gender aren't just "physical attributes." They are status groups whose memberships denote power and privilege or the lack thereof in many instances. The average modern American may or may not be all that intelligent (based on what intellect entails) but they are observant of their social world enough to know that.

As for Obama and Clinton's stances on the relevant issues, their stances may not matter if the consensus is that a voting majority does not want a woman or a black person in office yet for whatever reasons. Plus, discussing their stances on issues is a political discussion but I don't think this type of a discussion is really one of politics.

I believe that Clinton may be voted in office but America has at least 1 more election before it is ready to receive a racial and ethnic (or even religious and sexual orientation) minority president. And that will be based on overall social progression. This is the first racial and ethnic minority candidate that many Americans even see as a viable option so there is room for improvement.

Then the discussion is by default trivial, because:

1. Race and gender does bring with it cultural aspects which can make for various inherent political issues because of the variance of cultures and their different standards of living and coexisting.

2. It begs my original question: What would having a minority as POTUS accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished by a non-minority if we ignore their individual stances on issues?

I don't think the real issue is whether America is ready for a minority POTUS; it obviously is to see two minority candidates come this far. I think we need to be honest with ourselves and just say the real reason we want a minority as POTUS is because we think our minority group will get special favors (pandering), or to snub our nose at the white man and say "We've arrived." (ego-driven).

Well don't include me in that thinking. Considering how our government works between the three branches, unless the majority of all of those members are women or people of color (I hate the word minority) then special favors and snubbing won't happen.

IMO the president really doesn't run the country, those who surround him or her do. The key is electing a president who will have good judgement in selecting those people.

I don't know what you're talking about for much of this, to be honest with you.

And I personally don't "want" a minority as president so much as I want for minority candidates to be the norm from which we choose who we vote for. But you would know that I wouldn't vote just because someone is a minority if you had read the other page. ;) Just like I don't vote based on political party, since I'm neither a Dem or Repub--although I like the Repubs much more than I like the Dems. So if there is a minority candidate whose stances I agreed with, I would vote for her/him.

I interpreted this thread to be about status group membership ideology that has always surpassed "politics." While I think both of the race and gender minority candidates this election are wishy washy, those who wouldn't vote for a woman or a black person anyway are much less forgiving of that than someone who is open to the idea of voting for a nonwhite and nonmale candidate. That's not a trivial discussion if we ground it in a social critique. But if you crave a discussion of politics, there are threads that discuss their stances.

Since you know what he was talking about there, can you please enlighten me?

Simply put, why is the thread topic such an issue? It appears that we are making an issue where if we really think about it, there isn't one.

There can be a multitude of reasons for that, but I don't think it is because America isn't ready for a minority president. One of the WORLD'S most powerful women is a Black American. Again, why is whether or not America is "ready" (wtfreak does "ready" mean--that phrase is a pet peeve of mine; but I digress) for a minority president such a concern?

That is exactly how anyone should vote, regardless of their minority status or lack thereof. Again, why is this status even a matter of consideration?

But if you disagree with their stances, what difference does it make whether or not they are a minority? Perhaps I am missing something here, but I was taught to vote for the person I find to be the most qualified. So if I find someone to be unqualified and they happen to belong to a minority, does that mean that I am not ready to have their status group represented as leader of my country/state/county/city/school board, etc.?

The problem with this discussion is that it forces folk to read into certain sociological issues that may not exist, be a factor, or is even relevant to the candidate's electability.

Oh. Because status group memberships are still a big deal for many people in this country. "We" aren't making an issue. Most people in this society are, whether they articulate it or not. ;)

If this thread was about "is America ready for a homosexual president" would it be less trivial to you?

Oprah Winfrey or Condoleeza Rice? :)

Power is as power does. The status quo isn't challenged by having "some of them" in powerful positions throughout society. It is challenged by having "some of them" in powerful positions of the most influence. Even a president who gets her or his cues from the administration is still a "spokesperson" for this country.

Dude, focus. It matters because it does to many people, as previously stated. Take your "we are the world" speech to the streets for positive social change and stop bombarding this thread with it. ;)

Yes and you haven't read previous posts. :)

Well it's okay to have a problem with this discussion. Start a new thread where something else can be discussed. Or post in the existing threads on these candidates' political stances. :)

But quit acting like this is a nonissue if there are plenty of people who understand it and are willing to discuss it on and off the internet.

LOL. I was responding to his last sentence. OMG! did I really understand something he said? I'm scared.

:eek:

No it wouldn't. Because if his agenda for the country wasn't compatible with mine, I wouldn't vote for him. And vice versa.

Hence the problem: Emphasis of a candidate's status group membership over whether or not they are qualified is myopic at best and dangerous at worst.

I was thinking of Condoleeza Rice when I typed this, but Oprah could very well be applicable to this too.

[quote]Power is as power does. The status quo isn't challenged by having "some of them" in powerful positions throughout society. It is challenged by having "some of them" in powerful positions of the most influence. Even a president who gets her or his cues from the administration is still a "spokesperson" for this country.

(at bolded) Hence my original assertion that this whole notion of America being "ready" for a minority president is more for self-serving purposes than for the betterment of the country as a whole. OTOH, you make a strong point (albeit a qualified one) with the bolded:

The status quo is actually challenged by having a president in a powerful position that represents the will of the American people as a whole, not merely the corporate and individual elite, as we have now. If we get a president in office that can successfully do this, then believe it or not, we will, in some respects, have a minority president, not based on his/her status group characteristic(s), but based on the candidate's own mindset that s/he will not be bought and sold by the elite to do their bidding and to serve at their will over the will of the nation as a whole, as has been the case with an overwhelming majority of 20th century US Presidents (Taft being one of the notable exceptions).

Expanding the term "minority" to include this definition, I will answer the OP's question: Is America ready for a minority president? America will be ready when they are fully knowledgeable about what has been going on with this nation, especially over the past 100 years, and more importantly, when they are so sick and tired of the status quo, that they will spare no expense to put a candidate into office to do the will of the people, not the elite.

The 2008 election outcome will definately answer this question one way or the other, because we most likely won't get another chance in 2012.

Okay. :)


Again, take that sermon to the streets for positive social change. Stop preaching to the choir in this thread.

hmm, point taken.

aren't there many articles/commentary on the relationship between (perceived) candidate physical attributes and their likability/chance of winning the vote (i'm thinking of the JFK/Clinton candidacies)? and i dont think the notion necessarily INSULTS the intelligence of the "average American" (and honestly, i dont think any of us here commenting are "average Americans")

i dont know if, for example, if Obama won the presidency that black people would be walking around with Kool-Aid smiles like "one point for us!" Okay, probably that first 24 hours...

if that was the case, it A. wouldnt be a "lighter note" and B. the bolded wouldnt have been necesary in your statement. or is that me reading too much into your statement?

i feel like point #1 answers point #2, in other words, you answered your own question and therefore the discussion is not trivial. in that case, do we need to lay out exactly what cultural aspects each candidate can bring to the particular issues that we should be concerned with in choosing the best candidate regardless of race or gender?


again, i somewhat disagree. there is only so long that black folk/women can go around on the "hey we won" high horse. and history shows that we're never satisfied. how many folks will go around saying "oh, they LET us win it... this is part of the plan..."

and now i feel like YOU'RE insulting the average American by assuming that we'd get "special attention" because one of ours would be elected. anyone who thinks such is, for lack of better wording, buggin.

Ummm-hmmmm (read: what did I tell ya'?) :p ;)

Yes, in all seriousness, you are reading too much into my statement. I was just making an honest attempt to change the tone of the post because I thought it was getting too heavy and "negative".

YES, YES, A HUNDRED TIMES, YES!!!! (I'm glad someone here finally sees where I am coming from when I kept asking the same question ad infiniteum)

Again, it comes back to the bolded question you asked in the previous paragraph: Using concise examples, explain what difference(s) would having a minority POTUS make?