Why does it matter if we have a black/female/young president?

[Merc]

I've been thinking about this and it confuses me. Why are we so concerned about breaking trends? I have nothing against any US citizen aiming to be president regardless of anything (Okay, except Evangelicals, if one of them hit the White House I'd be out of this country in a flash and waiting for the news of an assassination) but why are we concerned with electing officials because it will break historical trends? It's a dangerous precedent, electing a leading for something other than their abilities to lead or making them out to be better because they're something different. It's like this "well we had a republican/democrat for 8 years" bullshit "so let's get a different guy!" It's an ass backwards action. You pick the person best suited for the job, not because they have ovaries or because they're black, brown, white, green, mauve or polka dotted.

Thoughts?

 

[Wade8813]

I've been thinking about this and it confuses me. Why are we so concerned about breaking trends? I have nothing against any US citizen aiming to be president regardless of anything (Okay, except Evangelicals, if one of them hit the White House I'd be out of this country in a flash and waiting for the news of an assassination) but why are we concerned with electing officials because it will break historical trends? It's a dangerous precedent, electing a leading for something other than their abilities to lead or making them out to be better because they're something different. It's like this "well we had a republican/democrat for 8 years" bullshit "so let's get a different guy!" It's an ass backwards action. You pick the person best suited for the job, not because they have ovaries or because they're black, brown, white, green, mauve or polka dotted.

Thoughts?

Dang - if I'd been elected president a few years ago (ignoring the fact that I'm too young), you would have fled the country and hoped for me to be assassinated? Do I really come across as being that bad?

I agree that presidents should only be elected for their qualifications - but once elected, I see no problem in discussing their being the first black/woman/etc, and the potential ramifications/cultural shifts that it might entail. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

 

[CaptainObvious]

It matters because as soon as they recieve criticism the race/gender card is played. I can't help but think of what Rush Limbaugh said once, which is we need to elect old white guys because we can criticize them all we want and no one gets offended.

Unfortunately much of that is true. We can't critique minorities or women without being called racist or sexist. Hell, we can't even pass legislation to help cut down on illegal activity without being called racists.

 

[micfranklin]

Reading the thread title alone, I've come to the conclusion that race, gender or whatever is not a determining factor in whether you'd make a good political leader. You don't need to be a minority in order to be a corrupt, selfish politician.

 

[Merc]

Dang - if I'd been elected president a few years ago (ignoring the fact that I'm too young), you would have fled the country and hoped for me to be assassinated? Do I really come across as being that bad? /quote]

Yes, actually I would do my best to leave if an evangelical was in the White House and how am I supposed to know anything about you? You're just an avatar on the net. Posted words mean nothing about the real person, they represent at best what that person wants you to think of them.

 

[Hiei]

Dang - if I'd been elected president a few years ago (ignoring the fact that I'm too young), you would have fled the country and hoped for me to be assassinated? Do I really come across as being that bad? /quote]

Yes, actually I would do my best to leave if an evangelical was in the White House and how am I supposed to know anything about you? You're just an avatar on the net. Posted words mean nothing about the real person, they represent at best what that person wants you to think of them.

I think that's paranoia, straight up. What's the difference between posted words on the internet versus said words face to face? The person that's face to face with you could just as easily be telling you what the want you to know.


Anyway, to answer the OP, it really shouldn't matter. This isn't really anything new, either. People have been saying that race/sex/whatever shouldn't matter at all, and what the person stands for should matter more. But the key word in there is should. In todays day and age, people are so focused on being so politically correct that, like CaptainObvious said, we're willing to look past anything to not be called racist/sexist. Everything up to and including illegal activity done by the white house itself. Hell, we can't even pass a bill to keep illegal immigration at bay because people think it's racist that we're trying to keep people out of the country that aren't coming in through the proper routs, even when the president of the illegals country does the exact same thing that we're trying to pass, only worse.

 

[Wade8813]

Yes, actually I would do my best to leave if an evangelical was in the White House and how am I supposed to know anything about you? You're just an avatar on the net. Posted words mean nothing about the real person, they represent at best what that person wants you to think of them.

Hiei brought up a good point, but setting that aside for now... let's say you don't know this hypothetical me from a couple years ago who's an evangelical, and who may be presenting a front on a forum you frequent.

That still seems like a poor reason to leave the country - as you just admitted, YOU DON'T KNOW ME. It's possible that my online persona is just a facade, but it's also possible (and probably more likely) that it's a reasonable representation of what I'm like.

And then there's the fact that no matter what I'm really like, it's almost guaranteed (just by sheer weight of numbers) that there are other evangelicals who you would like as president even more than me. Maybe they're the minority, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. OTOH, maybe evangelicals as a whole aren't as bad as you think... :dunno:

 

[CaptainObvious]

Just to throw my two cents in, I have to say I agree with Wade and Hiei here. Saying you'd leave the country just because an evangelical person is elected president is like saying you'd leave if a Muslim is ever elected president. It's making a judgment without even knowing the person, what he/she stands for and what they want to accomplish.

People used to say that about Catholics when John Kennedy was considering running for POTUS.

 

[Raos]

It matters in the fact that it is an indication of what the public is thinking/feeling/accepting. I agree 100% that it does not matter what color, gender, race, religion, etc. a person is in order to be President. All that matters is the person themselves. However the fact that the USA has elected its first black President tells me that the country is a lot less bigoted then it was 60 years ago. For that reason, it is important. There are countless young black children who see President Obama as a role model now. They see him and no longer think they can't do XYZ because they are black. Now they see him and think the color of my skin does not have to be a factor in holding me back. I can accomplish things based on who I am, not what I look like. That is why it is important from my perspective.

 

[stevenfermi]

Yes, it doesn't matter nearly as much as some people want to believe. People still hold racist or sexist stereotypes, no matter how liberal. It matters if they are qualified and are fit to be president, which isn't an easy job. Also, who would want to be prez in the first place? xD