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.

[Ali]

President should be chosen only for his qualifications as a leader and politician

I would say a major qualification for being a leader is not believing something PATENTLY MORONIC. Like creationism, or that women can't be leaders.

[InCreator]

Like creationism, or that women can't be leaders.

I'm not saying they cannot just that in my opinion sucks to have one (based on how much I know history).
Okay, Tarja Halonen succeeded and she's a smart woman but <erased>

In everyday life, based on past experience, female bosses are the worst.
Name a successful, highly loved female leader who didn't sell out/oppress her peers or ended on a burning stake/prison/whatever?

Spoiler

Edit: I've been warned! Edited for clarity as much as I found actually 'over the line'. Looks like mysterious mod asks me to remove like half of the post. What has happened to our gen-gen...! :'(
Wholly deleting those parts is pointless, since they're 1) quoted and 2) totally okay in General Discussion since 2003 at least and 3) Forum nazi

[close]

[Snarky]

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.

But, like WHAM earlier in the thread, you are assuming that just because that's all people should worry about, that's all people do worry about. In fact, many groups face prejudice and distrust from large sections of the voting population, which means they have no realistic chance of being elected even if they are well qualified. (If it's news to you that not too long ago, racism meant that a black man had no chance of becoming president, for example, you might want to educate yourself.) The thread is about the various "identity" factors that would make an American presidential candidate more or less unelectable, how strong the bias is and whether it is likely to disappear any time soon.

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.

...aaand you contradict yourself within a few paragraphs. Now instead of looking at the individual strengths and qualifications of the candidate who happens to be a woman, you're focusing on the stereotype of "all women are like this".

BTW, all participants should tread carefully if they want to argue that "members of group X are not fit for office/to lead" in order to avoid breaking the forum rules, which will bring down appropriate moderator action. Derogatory language about particular groups will not be tolerated.

[Ali]

In everyday life, female bosses are the worst.
Name a successful, highly loved female leader who didn't sell out/oppress her peers or ended on a burning stake/prison/whatever?

Bollocks.

Firstly, if there had been an equal number of female leaders in history, then your challenge might make sense. As it is, history has only allowed a handful of women to wield power, so those women are likely to have been more ambitious, ruthless and manipulative than their male and female contemporaries. That says tells us nothing about women's ability to lead in general. If you apply the same logic to race, then black people definitely can't be leaders.

Secondly, I can't think of many male leaders who didn't sell out or oppress people, and most of the ones I like did end up getting lynched.

[AGA]

The UK has been ruled by countless women (prime minister and queens). Some were good, some were bad, just like their male equivalents.

Of course the issue here isn't whether 'minorities' (aren't there almost as many non WASP people in the US as white these days?) deserve to be elected leader, it's whether the current political system will actually allow them to.  Doesn't the US Congress at least have a small number of black, female, Latino (non old white man) members these days?

[Snarky]

The UK has been ruled by countless women (prime minister and queens)

Countless? There have been about six ruling queens of England and Great Britain (perhaps a few more who acted as regents for their underage sons): Mary, Elizabeth, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II, and exactly one female prime minister: Margaret Thatcher.

[ThreeOhFour]

You win this round.

[Victor6]

In everyday life, female bosses are the worst.
Name a successful, highly loved female leader who didn't sell out/oppress her peers or ended on a burning stake/prison/whatever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England

[Ali]

She did oppress a few Catholics...

[InCreator]

Firstly, if there had been an equal number of female leaders in history, then your challenge might make sense.

This I agree. Those women could aswell say -- we didn't create the country we rule -- It got handed over like this from previous male leader. And since countries generally improve, they can even show progress during their rule compared to last.

Well, I don't base my opinion from stereotype, but on what occured to me from history (on which I actually make my own stereotype ).  Not read The Book of Absolute Truth yet, therefore not entirely sure if I'm right. But from few female leaders in history, from Cleopatra to British Queens, I feel like they can rule alright, but not a single rainbow and pot of gold more than from men, and wars have been likely even more bloody.

[Ryan Timothy B]

In everyday life, based on past experience, female bosses are the worst.
Name a successful, highly loved female leader who didn't sell out/oppress her peers or ended on a burning stake/prison/whatever?

Oddly enough all my female bosses/supervisors weren't overly qualified for the job. They were all overly social - which is a terrible example to lead. Cried when things got stressful when there was no need to be stressed out (I've done the job myself and was completely relaxed the whole time). Or got unbelievably upset and angry when you didn't do something they wanted, when it was clear their way was wrong or less lucrative.

It doesn't mean all female leaders would fall into this category. I also haven't had a female boss I liked more than the male bosses I've had. But it's likely to do with male bonding and our genetics to feel that males are alpha - or our self taught prejudice.

I don't disagree with women in power. I'm only saying from my past experience I haven't had a female boss who seemed appropriate for the job. But yes, 3 female bosses over the 15 or more male bosses I've had isn't a fair example.

[Eric]

Of course the issue here isn't whether 'minorities' (aren't there almost as many non WASP people in the US as white these days?) deserve to be elected leader, it's whether the current political system will actually allow them to.

This is the issue. Even after having elected a black president, we still wind up with $#!% like this:

[Ryan Timothy B]

Yep. That's some of the stickers I saw while I was visiting the states. A part of me wished I had bought a spray paint can and decorated their bumpers in a new color.

[Andail]

Come on, are we seriously debating whether women can be good leaders/bosses?
Good gravy.

[AGA]

The UK has been ruled by countless women (prime minister and queens)

Countless? There have been about six ruling queens of England and Great Britain (perhaps a few more who acted as regents for their underage sons): Mary, Elizabeth, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II, and exactly one female prime minister: Margaret Thatcher.

Matilda and Jane Grey count, damnit!  You men, always trying to keep the ladies down.

[WHAM]

Well now we are sort of coming to one of the key points and major faults of why democracy has issues: the majority of people, and thus voters, are stupid and let unimportant details such as sexual preference, skin colour and amount of nose hair affect their decision of whether or not someone qualifies as a leader!

A different method of election is required, or we'll all see leaders worht our voters, and that will not look pretty. Look at the finnish parliament for example. We have had TV personalities, ex-boxing champions and ex-drug-addled ex-musicians and artists up there, doing precisely jack-shit, but hell, the majority voted for them so they get to wield power!

[Victor6]

Sounds like fair representation to me;- if 90% of people are morons, 90% of politicians should be also.
Back when I was a student, I tried to get myself a peerage (this was back when Smilin' Tony was banging on about having 'peoples peers' in the house of lords). I figured I'd represent the 'do nothing all day and smoke weed' demographic.

As Churchill said; democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

[veryweirdguy]

Matilda and Jane Grey count, damnit!  You men, always trying to keep the ladies down.

I thought that said Jean Grey. Who would not be a good leader (see: attempting to kill everyone.)

[Snarky]

The UK has been ruled by countless women (prime minister and queens)

Countless? There have been about six ruling queens of England and Great Britain (perhaps a few more who acted as regents for their underage sons): Mary, Elizabeth, Mary II, Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II, and exactly one female prime minister: Margaret Thatcher.

Matilda and Jane Grey count, damnit!  You men, always trying to keep the ladies down.

Maybe I was making a distinction between women who actually ruled and women who briefly held the title of Queen without having any real authority? (Of course, by that logic you could question whether Elizabeth II is in any meaningful sense ruler of the UK and Commonwealth.)

[LimpingFish]

Ireland almost had it's first openly-gay president last year. I voted for him.

We've also had two female presidents, but never had a female prime minister.

[Calin Leafshade]

Name a successful, highly loved female leader who didn't sell out/oppress her peers or ended on a burning stake/prison/whatever?

This is pretty lol.

Firstly, name a *male* leader which fulfils your criteria. It's very difficult to be a leader and not sell out or oppress someone (at least from their perspective)

Also, many great women leaders were burnt at the stake or imprisoned precisely because of your kind of bigotry.

When Joan of Arc was captured, the british gave her a choice of being hanged if she wore women's clothing or being burnt at the stake for wearing men's clothing and they charged her with "witch craft".
This was a successful, independent woman who had achieved great things.. and men burnt her for witchcraft. *that shit* is why there arent as many women leaders. It's because men like you burn them.

As for great female leaders:

Hatshepsut
Cleopatra
Isabella I of Castile
Elizabeth I (who is arguably the greatest monarch Britain has ever had)
Victoria I (who presided over the largest empire ever seen)
Catherine the Great
Margaret Thatcher
Queen of Sheba
Olympias, Queen in Epirus
Boadicea
Empress Wu Zetian