Is America Ready for a Minority President?

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.

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).

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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).[/COLOR]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

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.

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

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

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

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

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

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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).

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.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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.

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?

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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.

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.

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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?

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.

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Perhaps I am missing something here

Yes and you haven't read previous posts.

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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.

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.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

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.

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.

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.

Oprah Winfrey or Condoleeza Rice?

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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.

Okay.

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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.

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

[tld221]

Originally Posted by 06pilot

I do. They are called Jews

hmm, point taken.

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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.

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")

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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.

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...

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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

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?

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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? [/COLOR]

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?

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

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).

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.