Is America Ready for Another White Male President?

During the Democratic Primaries, when discussing the chances of Obama and Clinton, with some frequency, the person with whom I was talking would lean in towards me and say "Do you really think America is ready for a black/woman president?" Like many people, I found the former question racist and the latter one sexist. As a white man, I also resented the implication that I somehow understood that America wasn't ready, whatever that meant.

Initially, I responded to these questions with anger, but then began to preempt them. Whenever the presidential election came up in discussion, which was about ten times a day, I began the conversation by leaning forward conspiratorially and say "The Republicans have a problem. America is not ready for another white male president." The responses I received were always similar. First a nod of agreement, than a look of confusion that a sputtering response like "you mean Obama I mean black president Clinton woman..."

When I first started doing this, I thought I was just making up a clever response, but as the election approaches, increasingly I believe that I am right in this assessment. During the recently completed primary season, roughly 35 million people voted for somebody who was not a white man. Clinton and Obama's overall vote total far exceeded that of all the white men in the race, for both parties, combined. In the Democratic Party, none of the three highly qualified white men, made it as far as Super Tuesday. Even in the early states when the Republican primary was still competitive and Republican voters could choose from a broad range of conservative white men, the majority of voters eschewed the white male options in both parties and voted for either Clinton or Obama.

I have never been accused of being an optimist, and would never assert that sexism or racism is somehow finished in American politics. Both were evident in full force, overtly and subtly, in the recently completed primary season. The latter will undoubtedly continue to lurk around the edges of the general election between now and November.

Nonetheless, there is increasing reason to believe that these tactics, although sure to be present, will be less effective in 2008. This is partially due to the deep and broad dissatisfaction with the Bush administration as it winds down, and the corresponding profound desire to see change which many Americans feel. It may, however, be due to something beyond that. During the primary season, Obama was able to appeal to an extremely broad swath of the electorate, while maintaining a strong base in several demographic groups as well. His strength in, for example, western states is very unusual for any Democrat, let alone an African American one. His early, and somewhat persistent, support among some Republicans is even more striking. Clinton's strength, in some states, among blue collar white men, was equally impressive.

Attempts to attack Obama through his former pastor, or his church, made far less of an impact than one might have expected, given the racial component to these approaches. Racially tinged criticisms of Michelle Obama have been similarly unsuccessful as have other efforts to portray Obama as the black candidate. Interestingly, the most successful attack on Obama in the primary was probably the attempt to portray him as an elitist. The inaccuracy of that attack notwithstanding, it should be noted that there was no racial component to the one critique that may have hurt him.

The broader political context -- that 2008 is shaping up to be a strongly Democratic year, is not the only factor driving this. Something is changing in American politics. Perhaps all those young people chanting "race doesn't matter" at Obama rallies in the early primary states were telling the truth, at least for many of their generation. While there are certainly still reservoirs of nasty and extreme racism among all age groups, it may be that among young people these views have been relegated to the fringes of political life, and that for many people of that generation race is not an important part of their vote decision.

Another possible explanation is that after a generation of the Democratic Party nominating presidential candidates who are liberal on social issues and who have been consistently attacked by the right as being out of touch with American values and captive of gays, African Americans etc, all of the voters who can be moved by appeals to intolerance have abandoned the Democratic Party years ago. The question of whether or not America is ready for an African American or female president, in addition to being offensive, is also irrelevant. Of course, there are probably many Americans who would not vote for either for president, but that is not how elections are decided. The real question should be are Americans who either voted for, or considered voting for a liberal like John Kerry in 2008 or Al Gore in 2004, ready to vote for an African American or woman candidate. To this question, the answer is an unambiguous yes. Racism is still alive and well in America, it is just effecting fewer vote decisions.

America is not, however, ready to elect another white male president who builds a message of intolerance into his campaign, because there are almost no voters left to pull away from the Democratic Party through appeals of this sort and, more importantly, a substantial number of voters who no longer have the stomach for this kind of campaign. This is particularly true this year. For Senator McCain, this means that he must resist the temptation to go to the well of intolerance, and more importantly, must control the wild cards around his campaign and the myriad independent and semi-independent efforts who might otherwise do this. McCain's campaign is fighting an uphill battle, but they can make it easier for themselves by recognizing just what it is for which America is not ready.

Comments

[mivogo]

Despite the projections of those on both the left and right who see only color, gender, religion or age, most Americans are past that, take people one at a time, and want the best person for the job.
The real question is:
"Is America Ready for Another Idiot President?"

[rboylern]

How about we stop all thie black/white crap and get on with dealing with the issues. It's sad that we get stuck in this kind of thing. It's as though there's something wrong with white men that can only be fixed by a black man. Gimme a break, people. Are we never to be color-blind in this country?

[jeffp26]

One thing america is not ready for is another stupid president.

[MHainds]

"The real question should be are Americans who either voted for, or considered voting for a liberal like John Kerry in 2008 or Al Gore in 2004, ready to vote for an African American or woman candidate"

I believe that was Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000.

[cyberfarer]

Obama isn't white? Does he know that?

[jemiltd]

Your question makes me curious: what is "white" in your opinion? Race, behavior, being articulate? Educated? Smart? Color of skin? Particularly peculiar is the follow up question: "Does he know that?" Does he know what? Does he know who his is or his racial make up? The larger question is why would this be more important than is he capable, competent and going in the right direction concerning key issues?

[ListenAndLearn]

Actually, what he undoubtedly knows is that he is half African-American and half white. So what's your point?

[yhgtup]

Barack Obama is very well aware of who and/or what he is. Do you ###### know who YOU are????

[tom ellison]

When people speak of intolerance, it is an excuse not to have a debate. We are all intolerant of some views. The author is intolerant of those who are against gay marriage.

[garypba]

A few short years ago,a presidential candidate and eventual president asked, "...........are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?" I fear that only a few of my fellow americans can say yes to that question! Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are intelligent politicians and probably very nice people, as is Senator McCain. My question simply stated is.......are these the Best that America has to offer for presidential office? Neither have any experience as CEO for any major company (which the USA happens to be......ask Halliburton). Neither have truly displayed leadership that can draw us out of the mess we live in since 9/11. I fear for the future of my grandchildren as we continue down this path of inadequate executive branch of government. Wake up America.....Obama can't lose!........if the red states secede from the union!
We are in trouble!

[Johnjlws]

I'm sorry, but America is people. That we're constantly asked to look for a "CEO" because America is a "corporation" is inaccurate. America's business should be her people. That we've been trying to run her as a business is a significant part of the problem. I know this post will bring about criticism and you'll undoubtedly point to all the government bureaucracies a president's advisors and appointees oversee, but just because this is the way our republic has morphed does not mean this is the way it should have morphed. And, the CEOs I've worked with are not generally in charge of the day-to-day operations. He or she is in charge of assisting in the formulation of, and the execution of the company's direction.

And I disagree as well regarding your statement that "are these the Best America has to offer" as there were numerous candidates on the democratic slate at the outset who were up to the task; the republicans I couldn't really tell because everyone seemed to want to be Ronald Reagan. I support Obama, but I believe Clinton was very well, as is he, qualified to lead this nation. I hesitate to say that about McCain only because the current administration has demonstrated a number of times that it cannot lead itself out of a paper bag and McCain is right there with them.

[tom ellison]

"Obama can't lose!"

Yeah, they said the same thing about Clinton not so long ago.

[gage]

"Senator McCain, this means that he must resist the temptation to go to the well of intolerance, and more importantly, must control the wild cards around his campaign and the myriad independent and semi-independent efforts who might otherwise do this."

Can we then expect Obama to control wild cards like this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/the-coming-storm-or-why-m_b_107148.html

[changeocracy]

This could have been the shortest article ever on HuffPost:

"No."

[applehead]

obama likes to call mcain's bid for the presidency bush''s third term

but i think of it as nixon's eighth term.

is america capable of surviving another republican president?

[UnbiasView]

You sure are an apple head.

[realtalk]

Some of you posters below, obviously do not get the sarcasm of the title which the writer was trying to convey. What he stated in the opening paragraph is WHY was the new media asking this question when it pertained to an African American, and a female president? The press never seemed to ask the question is America ready for a white man to be president. It seems to be pure hypocristy doesn't it? Maybe next time the mainstream press will be less focused on gender, and race, and will simple report the news, and stop trying to actively to create problems, and cause controversy.

[aHorsewithNoname]

And what color's his blood?. a..Aha..

[HBeachbum]

What I don't understand is why most Liberals are going to vote for a man who has virtually no experience in Federal Government. Apparently talking pretty with a script means a lot.

[Sneakerface]

Because experience in federal gov't is just not as important as the other qualities Obama brings to the table. At least you are honest enough, HBeachbum, to specify that we experience in Federal Government; most Obama opponents generalize and say he has no experience at all. Outside of federal experience, Obama has plenty of general experience as a lawyer and professor (lower case 'p') of constitutional law, and as a legislator on the state level. We've certainly seen Presidents who were able to govern successfully with no more Federal Government experience than Obama. He will surround himself with plenty of people in his administration who have other experience that he might not have. I'm much more interest in the kind of decisions he plans to make - such as ending the occupation of Iraq and providing REAL national security that actually makes us safer, turning this economy around, fixing our broken health care system, and protecting Roe v Wade. What I don't understand is why most conservatives obsess about fake symbols of patriotism while they cheer as our freedom is being taken away in the name of "national security." Why do conservatives hate America ??

[JackW]

True. Experience hasn't meant much over the last 8 years, plus the last 40 years in the Senate and Congress as a lot of those doh! heads have been there since dirt. Get rid of all of the old timers, and introduce term limits to match presidential limits. Then you will get fresh ideas constantly, as people who are on their second term would not have to worry about pandering in order to survive!
I'm talking about old timers like Kennedy, Kerry, McCain, Pelosi etc etc etc. 8 years max is what they should be able to serve, that's it!
Then have all primaries conducted in one day to save money. If it can be done for President, then why make it any different for the candidates themselves.
The process can be shortened and they can then get on with what they're paid to do...govern!!!!!!!!

[Lanark]

Conservatives don't hate America. But they do not like totally unknown people being a major party's presidential candidate. There remains too much to be learned about Obama at this late date. He is the product of the media; and the extreme socialist wing of the Democratic party. They have pumped things up about him so far that you would think he was the Messiah. He actually is just a Marxist politician who came out of the notorious Chicago political system. The Democratic party, in it hatred for the Clintons is making a major error by making Obama the candidate. I think the Democratic s are acting hateful towards America by making Obama the nominee. They need to realize that their hatred of Bush is making them blind.

[HepsibahStarbuck]

Because those with the most "experience" are corrupt.

If it takes someone "less experienced" who shares a little of my outrage at what kinds of things these "experienced" politicians have done to America, then I'm for them.

[HepsibahStarbuck]

Please, I hope you're not someone still bitter about Clinton...

Reagan had less:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/a-history-lesson-for-tuck_n_106636.html

"It seems odd (puzzling even...this is not the Tucker Carlson we knew!) that Carlson is not aware of the career of Ronald Reagan, who served as the President of the United States from 1981-1989, despite having only eight years of government experience - three fewer than Obama - on his "resume." Similarly, 20th century Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had a "shot at winning," and did, indeed, win the Presidency, despite having thinner resumes than Obama (Wilson, for example, served a single two-year term as the Governor of New Jersey prior to becoming President).

Of course, for a fitting argument against thin resumes one need only make a visit to the White House, whose current resident has compounded the inadequacies of his thin legislative record with a confounding tendency to accrue competence at a disproportionate rate to his gains in experience. Meanwhile, we have John McCain, whose own quarter-century of experience has somehow failed to inform him of the need to arrest or reverse the current downward trajectory of our national handbasket"

[amber09]

What you don't seem to comprehend is that experiece has not done us any favors! Its not about experiece,its about good judgement and Obama has the leadership qualitys we need. How refreshing to have a leader that will tell us the truth!

[biglover]

Tell me which one of the last 10 presidents had "experience" - certainly not Harry Truman, certainly not JFK, certainly not Nixon, certainly not Carter, certainly not, Reagan, certainly not GHWB and certainly not the moron? So what is your point. Unless you have been president before, than you don't have experience.

[crusty]

Ready for a white male President? Sure; just not the one that's running! For what it's worth, that was my response to the question as to whether we're ready for a female President: Yes, but not that one. Obama, on the other hand, seems to be the right one.

[Soothsayer08]

Good post and NO America isn't ready for another white male president, especially since the one we have had for the last 8 years is such a dismal failure. Are some people though so ready to vote for any white male that they will acrifice this country ? The answer to that remains to be seen, but it seems possible, when the mere idea of voting for a black person is unthinkable to them. Sad and pathetic, that some cannot rise above the old biased ways and truly see a person as a human being.

[axt113]

The young are always the most accepting of change

[coba]

im young and i think we are only ready for a white male president if he doesn't embrace the bush policies. I go to college and have friends of all races and what the older generation seems to not understand is that we are all humans and have the same goals in life. race or gender doesn't make you any different from anyone else

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/mccains-clayton-williams-problems/

[Angelus2007]

Yes, for about 10-15 years in most cases, and the what they changed to becomes status quo. That is why when you see protests the majority are under 35. The people who made changes in the 60's still feel that way today, those who did in the 70's feel the same today also. Those who voted for Reagan in the 80's keep looking for another Reagan. And those who want change today and vote for Obama will be wanting the same thing 20 years from now.

[TankerRat]

Yep. A big reason for that is INEXPERIENCE. Or put another way: "You're young. You're expected to be stupid. Don't abuse the privilege."

BTW- I know PhD's who aren't qualified to tie their own shoes .

[Rendon76]

I love the title because I think its so obnoxious when people ask, "Is America ready for a black President?" as if being black has anything to do with the qualifications to become President. We're picking a leader here not a crayon. And why wouldn't America be "ready" for a black President? The question itself sounds condescending, kinda like saying "Is America ready to allow blacks into schools with whites?". Of course it is as it should have been since the beginning of time. I just feel like the world has been around log enough for us to have obliterated racism, apparently it hasn't and it looks like there's a ways to go, but we're getting there.