Presidential Handicaps

[Snarky]

The US has a black president, and might have a Mormon one by next year (though hopefully not). JFK became the first Catholic president more than sixty years ago. But how far does the country have to go before it's ready for a President who is...

-Latino?
-Jewish?
-a woman?
-openly gay?
-atheist?
-Muslim?
-transgendered?
-really fat?

What do you think?

[WHAM]

Finland had a female presiden (Tarja Halonen), and she was pretty fat, so you can strike those two off your list.
We've also had fat president before (see Martti Ahtisaari).

I'm too lazy to search for links, just google the names if you're curious.

[Snarky]

Well obviously I'm talking about the US. I mean, most of those classes are electable somewhere in the world.

[WHAM]

Oh, I misread that as "what does A country..." whereas it seems you typed "what does THE country".
Curse my imperfect english grammar!

[Stupot]

I guess the fact that there are more white, straight, Christian men in the American political system than any others has as much to do with it as anything else.  Barack Obama has proved that American voters can deviate from this trend, but if people want more Latino's, women, Jews, transsexuals etc to be voted president then more Latino's, women, Jews, transsexuals etc need to get themselves into the political system, because currently the odds are agaisnt them.  It won't happen overnight, but from my [admittedly restricted] viewpoint it seems America is heading slowly in the right direction.

[Ali]

I bet a lot of the founding father types were quietly atheists.

[WHAM]

...it seems America is heading slowly in the right direction.

Wait, what? When did the world agree on the idea that "yeah, it would be better if all the minorities were represented in government and took office"? Also, do any of the above listed traits really MATTER in political decision making? Shouldn't experience, education, analytical capabilities, charisma and sensibility be more important than sexual preference or skin colour?

[Ali]

Wait, what? When did the world agree on the idea that "yeah, it would be better if all the minorities were represented in government and took office"?

Shortly after it stopped being wrong.

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that women aren't really a minority.

[WHAM]

I think representation should correspond to population. If the majority of the population in a country are white, christian, straight and educated, I would expect to see the majority of the government representing those parameters. Seems to make sense. Works both ways, if a nation consists primarily of, let's say, black, transgender, psychich pastafarians, then the leadership should represent THOSE parameters.

[Ryan Timothy B]

I'd be shocked if they had an atheist president in the next decade or two. Although he (or she) would be one of the presidents I'd most look up to because he's being honest. I actually look up to Obama because the man seems brilliant - but all that press about his minister saying something stupid during his election was bull. I don't follow much of what he's done over here in Canada, nor have I heard anything bad about him like you would about Bush Jr.

Although I went to Florida in March and I was shocked to see how many bumper stickers were insulting him. Like: "You can keep your 'change' [and a bunch of stuff about money and guns?]" or "Anyone but Obama". Which I felt was quite odd. Is he a bad president or are people there just stubborn or ignorant?

The one reason I would respect someone who's openly atheist is that, as an atheist myself, I almost look at this whole religion belief kinda odd. Like it's the equivalent of believing in fairies. (I know I'll regret that comment) At the same time I respect that people actually have faith in something, but when you think of what it does to some people it's not cool. One random moment with my mother; I once got grounded for a week by saying there wasn't a god to her. How is it that she felt it was appropriate to ground me for something she had believed in when it wasn't what I had believed in.

I doubt there would ever be an openly gay president in my lifetime. But who knows, it could happen.

Shouldn't experience, education, analytical capabilities, charisma and sensibility be more important than sexual preference or skin colour?

Who cares how intelligent and capable they are. As long as they have a purdy smile and a strong handshake.... right? 

[Ali]

I think representation should correspond to population. If the majority of the population in a country are white, christian, straight and educated, I would expect to see the majority of the government representing those parameters. Seems to make sense. Works both ways, if a nation consists primarily of, let's say, black, transgender, psychich pastafarians, then the leadership should represent THOSE parameters.

If you thought the American government reflected the American people, you'd expect to find a lot more millionaires in the USA. The same goes for public school educated millionaires in the UK.

There is a difference between saying minorities ought to be represented in government, and saying that governments should be made up entirely of minorities. I've never heard anyone seriously advocate that.

[Snarky]

...it seems America is heading slowly in the right direction.

Wait, what? When did the world agree on the idea that "yeah, it would be better if all the minorities were represented in government and took office"? Also, do any of the above listed traits really MATTER in political decision making? Shouldn't experience, education, analytical capabilities, charisma and sensibility be more important than sexual preference or skin colour?

Well, that's exactly the point. Many of the groups of people listed above are de facto excluded from high political office because of prejudice, irrespective of their actual qualifications.

To have a go at answering my own question, I think the US is basically ready for a female president (and Hilary would have been elected had she won the nomination back in '08), and possibly a Jewish one (remember Lieberman was a VP candidate in 2000), though a Jewish candidate would probably face heightened scrutiny. A Latino president is plausible, if not straight away, then maybe ten-fifteen years in the future.

We're still quite far away from the US being ready for a gay president, I think, but the trend is pretty clear. Maybe in thirty years?

Muslims, scientologists, Hindus or atheists don't stand a chance for the foreseeable future, and while that might change for some of the religions, the country would have to change fundamentally before it was open to an atheist president. (And Ali may be right that some of the Founding Fathers were privately atheist, and both Washington and Jefferson were certainly equivocal about many aspects of Christianity, but even back then it was politically necessary to be publicly religious.)

The US has had fat presidents in the past, of course, but I think it would be a very hard sell in modern American politics, somewhat ironically given the increase in obesity. It was often cited against Governor Christie's possible run. (Similarly, there have been bachelor presidents, but today I don't think an unmarried candidate could reach the office.)

[Stupot]

Alls I meant was that, having a black president was seen as a sign of progress.  I personally agree.
But if you want to see a Latino, Jewish, Transexual president any time soon, you've got a long wait.  Purely on a mathematical basis, obviously having more Latinos higher up in the political system would increase the chances of having a Latino president in the near future.  I wasn't suggesting pumping a load of minorities into government just for the sake of it, my point was most people in US government are white male christians, so it's no surprise that most presidents follow that mould.

[veryweirdguy]

We're still quite far away from the US being ready for a gay president, I think,

Unless we count James Buchanan! A different political climate, perhaps, but chances are there's already been a gay US president. Although try telling that to half of middle-America.

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that women aren't really a minority.

True! But still woefully underrepresented in politics (this may have been your point here, if so I apologise.)

[Snarky]

... that's why my first post said "openly gay" 

[veryweirdguy]

You win this round.

[ThreeOhFour]

What about a nerd for a president?

Is the world ready?

[Snarky]

[InCreator]

Jumping into WHAM boat again... Minority-president is a dumb idea.  One shouldn't make an issue of it all.
People shouldn't base their vote on stupid shit at all I think.

For example, in every interview, someone asks Ron Paul if he believes in evolution or creationism. What kind of stupid question is this?

First, he's a politician and would never give straight answer because politician who dismisses half of his voters by taking a pointless stand on issue is a bad politician. Why do interviewers expect him to answer such question if big part of US is religious?

Second,
...say you have your own made-up religion and believe in say... TEAPOTS. Hey, and so does Ron Paul!
Should you vote for the man who's as stupid as you are because he believes in same stupid shit?

...say you're disabled and in wheelchair...
...you have a foot fetish
...you are an eskimo by descent
...etc


President should be chosen only for his qualifications as a leader and politician, not how twisted he is, what he kneels before, what his skin color is or who he sleeps with. So this whole thread is dumb. "Are people ready"... what do you mean ready? If his political views match the majority of people and he's good at being a leader, that's all one should worry about.

Democracy is based on majority, so it would be nicer if president looked and lived like that majority. That's why average US president is small-time businessman or careerist, white, in 50s and has a nice smile. 
BUT
I don't think life of americans would be much different if Michelle's name was Mitchell.

And I think cries of some rednecks get muted in big picture. Wasn't Obama opposed alot, being black and all?

Female leaders I oppose though, just for international history. Tarja Halonen was okay I guess, but nothing important. Angela Merkel is a traitor and corruptant. Catherine killed and more than male leaders before him her, etc
I think that women cannot grasp nature of violence so well, so most leaders in history have been either too kind of incredibly cruel. But leading a country has always portion of violence-based decisions in it.

[Victor6]

Female leaders I oppose though, just for international history. Tarja Halonen was okay I guess, but nothing important. Angela Merkel is a traitor and corruptant. Catherine killed and more than male leaders before him her, etc

We elected Thatcher. On that basis the UK population will elect anything.