America: The Land Of Inequality? Liberia and Chile Pass Us Up Too

America has had (if I count right) 55 Presidential elections.

Take a wild guess at how many times the winner was A. white and B. male. While you're at it, guess about the Vice Presidents too.

And today we learn that on the continents of Africa and South America, apparently electing a woman as President is acceptable. But not in America.

America's inability to elect anything but white males as President is an embarrassment. Over 50% of Americans are women. I don't know how many are non-white, but I think it's a whole lot. White males, as a group are really the minority, but only they can be President, it seems.

Just how disingenuous am I when I tell my ten year old daughter that she can be President some day? How much more silly would it be if she were black, or destined to be a lesbian? I know, I know, it's possible, but when? I'm 44. Will I ever see it? I honestly don't know. I have no reason to assume it'll happen.

Well, I'm just commenting on this sad state of affairs. And really, it does make me sad for our country that we insist on only having white men be our leaders.

Why is this?

I give my unscientific reasons below, which are likely not news to anyone, but maybe a basis for discussion. I'll focus on why we can't seem to get a woman in the White House, but much of this applies to minorities as well.

1. Pointless Bigotry. A certain percentage will never ever vote for a woman. Period. They don't even think or care about why they won't, but they won't. A certain number will outright admit that a woman isn't acceptable, but probably even more say they would vote for a woman, but come crunch time, they secretly would not - they would invent a reason she is unacceptable or they would just lie about who they voted for. I think this is an underestimated factor. Many many just will not vote for anyone but a white male. This is true even of some Democrats, I bet.

A white male has the chance of getting nearly 100% of the vote, theoretically.

A female, or a minority, starts off with the chance to only get x% of the vote (where x < 100), no matter how great they are. They are burdened with a distinct disadvantage. Thus they essentially have to win over more to their side than the white guy does.

2. Christianity/Fundamentalism. Face it, it the church isn't particularly cheerleading the female gender to do much more than "stand by her husband" and "raise children". Yes this will piss some of you off, but there is truth to this. Some people feel God intended men to lead. And we have a lot of religious people in this country.

C. The War President. The Presidency is (increasingly?) seen as someone who must be able to fight wars and be tough, and of course y'all know women can't do that kinda stuff, or so many think.

4. Opportunities. OK...admittedly, I suppose the number of "qualified" women and minorities has always been lower than the number of qualified men, simply because white men have had the luxury of growing up in a society that favors them and provides them with more tools to succeed. Still, this is a rather lame excuse. There are millions of smart, capable, and tough women and minorities in this country. And I'm not suggesting every President should be a woman or minority - just sometimes!

Numbers 2 and 3 are the ones to focus on here in America. They separate us from some other countries, in many cases. I'm sure there are exceptions where highly Christian countries have elected women leaders, but I still think it is a factor. Numbers 1 and 4 probably are true everwhere.

Ironically, what this may come down to is that the first female or minority President may have to be a Republican, the party that is more scornful of women and minorities in the first place. The reason here is a subtle phenomenon we might call the "Clarence Thomas Effect". Republicans especially love Clarence Thomas because he basically stands against much that black people would stand for. We could call this the "Dr. Laura Effect" as well. You get the idea.

Republican women and minorities that adopt exaggerated white-male hawkish fundamentalist views could be hard to beat, since they would give Republicans cover (over their sexist and racist views) and bragging rights. "See? We're the party of opportunity for women and minorities. Not you Democrats." Meanwhile Democrats would instantly feel a desire, a longing, to help them into the White House even though we may dislike their views. It's in the nature of the liberal to lift up and to encourage those that have been denied their fundamental rights over the years.

Whereas, any Democrat who is female is instantly going to be labeled a "weak feminist" or and will get no Republican votes. Any black candidate has to overcome Republicans who figure he'll spend all his time just trying to do things for black people at the expense of whites.

We see this behavior with veterans. Republican vets are all macho heroes and strongly patriotic. Democratic vets are somehow pansy-ass traitors; witness the treatment of Kerry and now Murtha. (If Bob Dole were a Democrat, Republicans would be saying he inflicted that wound on himself.) Likewise, black Republicans are true got-out-of-poverty-by-pulling-their-bootstraps Americans whereas black Democrats are just lazy bums who want to bring down the white man. Female Republicans are strong and family friendly but female Democrats are lesbian man-haters.

So this is a reason to worry about Condoleezza Rice (or someone like her): she is "perfect" in that a fair amount Republicans would accept her - although even a number of them will not vote for her simply because she is female and black. And some Democrats will vote for her too even though her views are repulsive - because we like the idea that she has succeeded so well. It's an internal conflict. It warms our heart to see women and minorities excel. She's inspiring, even if we simultaneously find it sad that she's a lying pawn of Bush.