.
[1]
Thank you, Zimbel [2]!
There are certain facts that are so obvious about America that a court would take "judicial notice" of them (recognize them as common knowledge on which no proof was necessary). For example, "There has never been a Black or woman president or vice president of the United States." Adam Nagourney's NYT Article [3]
And yet pointing these facts out remains politically controversial, probably because, in a country that is only 35% white and male, the white male monopoly can only exist in a democracy if we all continue to pretend that it does NOT exist. (I was banned from participating at one site just days after posing the question with a diary entitled, "Will the White Male Monopoly End in 2008? [4]")
If we do mention the white male monopoly of the presidency and vice presidency, we are supposed to pretend that it occurs by happenstance or as a result of unknowable "pipeline" style factors.
Lisa said at my blog [5] yesterday:
"You are racist with your descriptions of the general white public never voting for a black man for President."
And to that Zimbel responded, very convincingly with a statistical argument:
A string of 43 white male presidents isn't enough to support his conclusion?
Okay- how about the string of roughly 200 national executive candidates of major parties that were white male (save one exception, Ferraro). If we completely omit race from the question, is it fair that roughly half of the population (females) are represented by roughly 0.5% of executive candidates? Isn't a 1:100 ratio of candidates versus population good evidence of sexism? And, yes, I know that this number skyrockets to an amazing roughly 2% (and about 1:35) if you discount all the time prior to the 19th amendment's ratification. Still seems like sexism to me. Zimbel [6]
[7]
All the king's white men.
The fact is that the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency is indefensible in a "democracy" from a statistical standpoint, and so defenders of the monopoly argue that I and others are "racist" to even mention the statistics. If no one forcefully says otherwise than defenders of the white male monopoly (who can be of any gender and skin color) will continue to insist that the monopoly is simply the product of statistical happenstance.
Newt Gingrich is considering running for president of the United States and is being taken seriously. There are at least half a dozen Black congressmen and congresswomen with more elective experience than Newt and with better poll number nationally, so why don't they announce that they're considering running for president?
Why do so few Black people and women raise these trial baloons, making the presidential trial baloon mostly a white man's sport?
The answer is simple: Any white man in the public eye can announce that he is considering running for president, even if he has never held elective office (e.g. Wesley Clark) and immediately be taken more seriously even than 90% of the Black people and women who have held elective office for decades.
Do people who insist on supporting presidential and vice presidential candidates who are white men effectively collude to perpetuate the white male monopoly of the presidency and vice presidency? Should we all just ignore the fact that supporting white male candidates in 2008 perpetuates the 200-year monopoly, and must we ignore the fact that supporting Blacks, women and Latinos tends to end the monopoly? Is the 200-year white male monopoly of the presidency and vice presidency even relevant to the question of who we should elect in 2008. I think that it goes beyond mere relevance to being essential to the question of who we are as a nation and who we want to be.
I encourage more women and Blacks to announce that they are considering running for president, senator and governor in the future, if only to better accustom the public to considering all of the possibilities.
For too long we have been dominated and monopolized by the excess credibility of white men and the excess credulity that the American public gives to white men. And that's why George W. Bush is president of the United States today.
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12] | 
[13]