Not In My Lifetime

[sleigh]

Until recently, I really didn't think that there was a chance in hell that I would see a black man as president of our country. I'm looking forward to seeing that historic moment today.

And hopefully, if I live long enough, I might see a few other firsts:

-- A woman elected president (as long as it's not Sarah Palin, please...). That, I think, is conceivable. Hillary Clinton's run for the nomination, and (I must admit) the choice of Palin as McCain's running mate have hopefully been enough to break down the barriers that Geraldine Ferraro first assaulted back in '84.

-- An openly gay person elected president. I suspect that one may have to wait a long, long time...

-- An openly non-Christian elected president. My preference would be for an openly agnostic or atheist, which I think is the one with the least chance. I suspect that a Jewish president is most conceivable. A Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. is nearly on a par with an agnostic or atheist.

What barrier(s) would you like to see broken in the future? What do you think the chances are?

Comments

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Look at those three. What order do you think they will happen in? I believe they will happen in the order listed: woman first, gay second, non-Christian third. And I don't think the third will happen in my lifetime.

B

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

I think a Jew getting elected is entirely plausible. Lieberman was essentially elected VP. Romney (who is a non-Christian in most meaningful ways) is electable. I think a woman or a Jewish/Mormon non-Christian could happen in any election when the right candidate emerges.

But not openly gay or Muslim/buddhist/hindu/professed agnostic or atheist in the forseeable term.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I think a Jew is more plausible, but still not likely in the current political and religious climate.

But I agree with you; a Jew will be well before a non-believer.

B

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

If the Middle East were quieter and less prominent in the news, then a Jewish president is more likely, IMO. In 2008, that would have been a problem. Maybe it won't be in future elections.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

If I had to pick an order, I'd agree that a woman is most likely -- we could conceivably have had that this time if Hillary had edged out Obama in the primary.But I think "non-christian" would be second, since someone who's Jewish qualifies there, and I can see that as being within the realm of genuine possibility. If the parameter is "non-believer" (agnostic or atheist) then I think you're right -- we'd see a (Christian) gay person before an atheist.

No more crooks

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

I'd just be happy if we stopped electing crooks and idiots who only want to plunder the treasury. I'm thinking we're pretty late Roman Empire here -- as long as they don't want their horse declared ghod...

Re: No more crooks

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

No more crooks and idiots would be good, indeed!

[cathshaffer.livejournal.com]

I think it is incredibly encouraging that a person of African American descent was elected to the office of President, and I think it should be taken as a sign that any person can be elected, if they have the right qualifications. If we look at the Presidency as a series of "firsts:" first black president, first woman, first gay, first buddhist, whatever--we lose sight of the fact that what we are really looking for is the best and brightest. The presidency is not the incoming freshman class at Harvard, which can be balanced according to race/socioeconomic status. The group of US Presidents is too small to submit to a statistical breakdown, and thus it may be a long time, or never, before a particular racial or ethnic group is represented in the presidency, without any implication that such a thing is impossible. It may be that descriptions such as "gay" or "muslim" will lose their meaning before an individual member of that group rises to the presidency, as these are a small percentage of the population. The message we should take home is that our democracy is strong enough that a good candidate can get elected, even if he/she comes from a minority group. We can't predict when there will be a woman president, because the making of a president is a combination of the right person and the right time, but there's no question that it is definitely possible. I think the group of presidents is large enough to expect to see women in the office, as this is fifty percent of the population, so if we flip the coin four or five more times, female should come up at least once, even with statistical error. For a group that is ten percent or less, it could take a lot longer than ten elections to see that group represented, from a pure statistical standpoint.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that first the person must be qualified. As much as I would like to see a woman elected president, I'm not voting for Palin, for instance. I'd vote for a well-qualified Old White Male over any random other person.

But let's assume that for the sake of speculation that the person is qualified to hold the office. I would contend that even with incredible qualifications, an atheist or an openly-gay person is not currently electable. I'm happy we've reached the point where we can look past skin color, and I think we're also at the point where we can also look past gender. I don't yet believe the electorate is willing to look past sexual orientation or a lack of belief in a diety (and particularly a Judeo-Christian deity).

[cathshaffer.livejournal.com]

I agree that homosexuality might be an issue that enough people can't see past that it would prevent a person from getting elected. But I don't see any reason why an atheist would not get elected. What evidence of this kind of discrimination have you seen? I have never seen nor heard of any case where a person was discriminated against in any job situation for not believing in God. Not to say that it has never happened, especially in heavily religious areas. But I think if there were enough discrimination to keep atheists from being elected, I would minimally see some "no atheists served here" signs, or maybe some atheist-bashing action on the weekends or a believers-only drinking fountain or something. We still do see examples of people being discriminated against severely on the basis of skin color. I know people who have lost jobs, or been denied them because they are black. People still do get attacked or even killed on the basis of skin color. And yet Obama was able to overcome those very real prejudices to get elected. Atheist-prejudice is not in that league.

[gryphart.livejournal.com]

...you did hear about Kay Hagan being publicly attacked for being a scary atheist (even though she's actually not), right?

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/19/national-republican-senatorial-committee-puts-out-anti-atheist-political-ad/

The RNC clearly thought that was worth airing - that it was socially acceptable to attack someone solely on the basis of their religion, and that enough people would respond for it to be worthwhile.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Well, there was the Elizabeth Dole campaign ad against Hagan, as a recent example. But I think the prejudice against those of no or different religions is more subtle. First, the person has to admit their beliefs -- there's no skin color or sexual and very few behavioral cues that that the person isn't a Christian, after all. If you admit that you're an atheist and all the sudden you don't get that promotion, well, how can you prove prejudice?

Actually, I think the general population considers atheists mostly to be 'kooks' -- they don't form a large enough segment of the population to be worthy of open discrimination. I don't think you'll see an atheist elected because one would never be considered a 'serious' candidate by either of the major parties.

But -- there are plenty of examples of religious prejudice out there. There were demonstrations and incidents against Muslims in the wake of 9/11. Or look at the extreme right-wing fear-mongering about Obama actually being a Muslim. Religion incites strong emotions in people...

I think we would have seen a lot of 'sub-rosa' prejudice (and maybe even some overt examples) had Mitt Romney either received the Republican nomination or been on the ticket with McCain. And it's possible (but unprovable) that the reason Romney wasn't on the ticket was fear of backlash from the more fundamentalist base.

[cathshaffer.livejournal.com]

That backfired on Elizabeth Dole bigtime, and I think not only because she was wrong, but because the whole premise was offensive.

Of course there's religious discrimination. I'm just not convinced that it exists in much of a substantial way in the case of atheism. I have to admit I've forgotten what Mitt Romney's religion was supposed to be. Oh yeah, isn't he a Mormon? That's a tough one, but actually it's kind of impressive that a Mormon got as far as he did, and I don't think the reason he didn't get the nomination was his religion.

I agree about the kooks thing, but I tend to disagree about whether an atheist could be a serious candidate. I absolutely think that an atheist could be a serious candidate, if the atheism was incidental to his candidacy. However, I don't see an atheist being successful on a sort of "pro-atheist" candidacy. This gets into the realm where it's hard to separate religious beliefs from political beliefs. I've heard many times, maybe even in this journal, people saying they could not vote for a conservative christian for such and such an office. I generally take that as shorthand that they just disagree with too many of the political positions of the Christian right. Likewise, there are no politics associated with being a small 'a' atheist--it's really of no consequence to your politics. HOwever, there is a movement of capital 'A' Atheists who have been extremely critical of and insulting towards believers of all faiths. That latter group has little chance at the presidency, and I don't see this as unfair discrimination, but just an exercise of the freedom of choice and freedom of association of the electorate, just as it is also a choice not to vote for a conservative christian because of presumed philosophical conflicts. For a private (not "secret") atheist, I think a very successful political career is absolutely possible. I could see one even being nominated by the Republican Party, although with a great deal of nose-holding from some camps.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

In the current situation, an open atheist has zero chance of getting elected to higher office. The religious right has spent the last couple of decades convincing people that god matters in politics. It would be very difficult to put forth an atheist candidate who didn't immediately draw attacks on that basis alone.

Even moderate people are suspicious of open atheists in many quarters of this country. The common though seems to be Those atheists must be a bunch of amoral folks, because they don't have the guidance of a religious structure to help them make moral evaluations!

If we ever see a day when muckraking is considered Very Bad Indeed, then perhaps it would be possible for a private atheist to sneak past the gates. An, as you say, small-a atheist would quickly be colored a capital-A Atheist by any candidate who wasn't too proud to sling mud.

[cathshaffer.livejournal.com]

The religious right doesn't like atheists, it's true. And of course the religious right has absolute control of the white house. That's why Barack Obama is there right now, darling of the Christian Coalition that he is...

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I'd like to believe that you're right, but...

Maybe one day we'll find out. :-)

Not in my lifetime

[(Anonymous)]

I do not expect it to happen in my lifetime but one of the barriers I want to see broken is the requirement that someone be BORN American (either on American soil or to American parents). IMHO, our founding fathers intended to prevent some of the German soldiers and others who stayed behind from becoming President. I do not believe they intended that someone who came to America as a child and lived her all his/her life in American and became a naturalized citizen should be barred from office while someone who was born in another country to American citizens and never set foot on American soil should be eligible.

It's going to take a constitutional amendment to achieve that and I don't think anyone is going to push for one for Arnold... which is why it won't happen in my lifetime.

Re: Not in my lifetime

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Given that yes, that takes changing the constitution, I don't see that happening either.

BTW, this journal screen anonymous comments -- please identify yourself or you risk having the comment deleted in the future!

Oops -- I'm anonymous

[lindajdunn.livejournal.com]

Oops

I'm having a little problem on a borrowed computer. That anonymous comment posted a few moments ago was from me.

Re: Oops -- I'm anonymous

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Thanks -- I'd already unscreened the comment since there wasn't anything rude or impolite in it, but...

[spaceoperadiva.livejournal.com]

No insult meant to Ms. Ferraro, who is a very admirable woman, but what about Victoria Woodhull the suffragist who ran for president in 1872? Are we discounting her because she didn't run on one of the big parties but on the "Equal Rights" party?

I'd like to see a "third" party candidate win, and a breakdown of the dichotomy of Dem/Rep conservative/liberal that helps make our politics the circus it is. Might as well wish for gravity to alter in its functioning throughout the universe.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

You make a good point -- I'd completely forgotten that Woodhull ran.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a viable third (or even fourth) party at some point. That's one to add to the list:

-- a person who is not a Democrat or Republican elected president. Probably not in my lifetime, I suspect.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

We could easily see a third party rise in our lifetime. It kind of depends on whether the Republican party remains hijacked by the religious right in four years.

I mean, it's not as if the Tories or Whigs are big political players anymore, right?

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I'd agree that we could see another party arise -- we've already seen that with the Green Party and with Nader and Perot. It's not inconceivable to me that the far right-wing conservative/religious portion of the Republicans could split off in the future.

But a really viable third party, one that has a genuine chance of their candidate being elected, rather than being a party that pulls down one Democrat or Republican candidate's chances and causes the other to be elected.... I dunno...

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

How about an American of Asian or Latino background elected president or vice-president.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I think a Latino's a possibility even now. Richardson ran for president and was evidently on Obama's short list for VP (though given that he had to resign from being considered for Commerce, I suppose we should be glad that he wasn't Obama's pick...) We have a large enough Latino influence in our culture to perhaps get someone of that background elected.

An Asian? I find I'm less optimistic about that.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

I'm reasonably optimistic about an Asian possibility. There's little long-standing history of hatred toward Asians in this country (some, yes, but not on a scale with African- Americans), and there's a growing population of Asian immigrants.

There don't seem to be many Asian politicians overall, but is that a function of "Asians are unelectable" or "Asians don't generally have a culture of running for office"? Or perhaps simply "Asians don't make up a sufficient portion of the population to be noticeable in office"?

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I wish I felt you were right. But in my small experience, I sense an unspoken prejudice toward Asians -- one I think might surface is one were to run for president. I look at the attitude toward the Japanese from those of my parents' generation, or the prejudice that came to the surface in the Vietnam era, or the general attitude of people toward China.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong though!

[davidschroth.livejournal.com]

minnehaha K is probably a better person to speak to it, but an Asian-American was running for office (U. S. Representative) locally, and lost.

I don't think he lost because he was Asian - I think there were other smears utilized by his opponent that probably had more of an impact.

[richrichmond.livejournal.com]

an openly honest one? one who successfully enacts and enforces real reform in government?

All I want is someone to legislate fairly and stay out of my way. I really hope Obama can do this.

Also, am I the only one that thinks this inauguration is a bit much? Do the oath and get to work. Especially in a time of war and economic collapse. Clinton's second one was the only one I thought, yeah this is OK. We seem to be doing OK. But now, it seems a little much. I'd have loved for Obama to have said "you know what folks. thanks for your support. But stay home or go to work or go spend some cash. Lets get started." Skip the pomp and circumstance and get to work.

I think I heard $150 million figure bantered around for the inauguration? come on...While all this is going on the Dow is down 200 plus points and one of my buddys (a former apple co-worker of ours) got the "furlough" news today from his design firm.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I suspect that we don't want the same thing of government (which is fine) -- one person's "fair" legislation and someone else's can be two entirely different things...

I think, though, that this inauguration was needed to allow people to come together and celebrate, and to give a sense of unity and hope to people. Yeah, saying "we're in deep and we gotta get to work now" would have been a good message as well, but I've no real objection to this. $150M (if that's indeed what it cost) sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the proverbial bucket of the federal budget.

[ontology101.livejournal.com]

What makes you think we haven't elected an agnostic in the past? I believe we have had a few presidents who were willing to say anything if it got them elected.

Just sayin...

(and your point would be that if they acknowledged their true beliefs...)

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

We might have elected an agnostic or two in the past -- I suspect Jefferson, for one, wouldn't pass the current litmus test for Christianity. But the past doesn't matter; it's what the current cultural climate will allow.

"I believe we have had a few presidents who were willing to say anything if it got them elected." Yah think? :-)