Watching the Sunday morning political shows is always entertaining, if not informative. Sometimes, the talking heads are so full of themselves that I just laugh. Of course, the hottest national political topic these days seems to be Barack Obama. This post isn’t about him, but expect one (or more) from me on him soon.
Clarence Page, the Chicago Tribune columnist (no, we are not related – notice the missing i 🙂 ), brought up the issue of race versus gender in discussing Obama and Hillary Clinton. Page argued that we will have a white female president before we have a black male president. He bolstered his claim based on the fact that we currently have just one black US senator while there are fourteen white women.
Take a look at this chart, which I devised a number of years ago. I think it’s safe to say that in the pecking order of things, white males are at the top and black females are at the bottom. Male is preferred over female and white over black. The only question is which is next preferable, gender or race? In order to buy Page’s argument, you must believe that race (white) trumps gender (male). That makes white women #2 and black males #3. But is that accurate?
Who got the right to vote first, black males or white women? Why, that would be black males. (Of course, with Jim Crow laws, they weren’t allowed to vote.)
Who served on the Supreme Court first, black males or white women? Thurgood Marshal, in 1967. Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female, joined the court in 1981.
The first black man was elected to the Senate in 1870. The first white woman to serve in the Senate was appointed in 1922, but she only served one day. The first white woman elected to the Senate was also appointed but won the seat in an election in 1932.
So the argument can be made that black men are #2 while white women are #3. Gender (male) trumps race (white).
Have the gains made by white women, the largest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action, skewed the numbers so that it appears that they have moved up to #2?
I don’t know. I’m a 4. There are none of us in the Senate or on the Supreme Court.
Technorati Tags: Clarence Page, Race, Gender
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Very interesting questions, number 4 (ha ha). What about the idea of a Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket? Would that just be too overwhelmingly progressive for middle America to swallow? This is shaping up to be a very interesting primary season for the Democrats, but one has to wonder…how thick are those glass ceilings.
Actually, to buy his argument, one has to believe that race and sex matter more than character, experience, and policy.
How ’bout we really screw things up and elect Condoleeza Rice?
Now this is an article I loved to read. It presents all sides of the argument and leaves the rest up to us. Excellent Vivian. Excellent. But I think one “factor” was left out. And one that you can not quantify. The “changing values of the voting public” can not be placed on a chart or in a graphic. Both sides of the argument as you have stated are valid. But I believe, as time has moved forward, the voters ideas of what is important has changed and will affect the overall placement on the chart.
I may be a minority, but I pay less attention to race than I do gender.
Please don’t ask me to explain, because I haven’t really thought about it till now. I will get back to you.
Thanks for the great read (as always).
Oh… neither race nor gender (in a perfect world) should be a factor at all. This I know.
If white male is 1 and black women 4, where does an Asian male go?
I mean, you all knew I was going to ask.
Great post, Vivian! Have you ever read any work by Malcolm Gladwell? In his books Blink and The Tipping Point, he explores similar themes, you might be interested in them.
There are none of us in the Senate or on the Supreme Court.
I’d vote for you. 😀
After 230 years we finally have a woman Speaker of the House…we can’t expect the earthly personification of democracy and tolerance to change too quickly…let’s see how the Mormon does. Hey, Virgil, is it ok to take the oath on the Book of Mormon?
Vivian,
I agree that gender trumps race when it comes to presidential politics. I think we’ll see a Black male president before we see a female president of any ethnicity. I think that gender barrier is pretty formidable. People still tend to think of men as leaders more easily than they do women. It’s a lot easier for people to imagine a Black man as president, and to feel comfortable with it, than it is for people to imagine a woman in that office. Of course, one day that hurdle will be jumped too…but I think it will come after the racial one.
Kenton – when I devised this chart all those years ago, I didn’t consider other minorities. My sense would be Asian males would be 1.5 – a half a step below white males.
Jack – Rice ain’t running. We all know why – she’s a 3.9 🙂
Scott – the changing values is part of the reason why the #2 and #3 positions seem to flip flop.
I wrote this piece a few days ago, updating it as I though about it more and looked for links. I have an inkling as to how black males and white females will think the #2 and #3 positions are held.
Throw into the mix: we’ve never had a black male speaker of the House but we just got a white female.
Excellent Vivian. I’m surprised (since you are an accountant) that you left out that MAJOR evidence of discrimination….income…Follow the money and find the truth.
Kenton…I’m so glad you piped in….Being a southerner myself it’s easy for us to continue to wrestle with our black white heritage (and we should do this) but forget the larger picture of other minorities. I’m wondering if anyone has done any studies of how the Asian minority is faring in today’s United States.
I figure that currently the LGBT community and the Muslims/Arabs are the major scapegoats and public enemy #1 (according to the “powers that be.”)
In a perfect world, race, sex, age, etc would make no difference what so ever….I figure when that happens we won’t have such a division in gender identifiers (clothing, hairstyles) b/c there will no longer be a need to identify sex at 50 yards….
Buzz…Buzz…
I am still greatly doubtful that Hillary Clinton could put up a good run. First, she would need to get through the primaries; opponents could eat her up bringing up her stands concerning Iraq (even though she seems to be more party-line now). Then, you have the fact that she may be the most well known politician in this country after George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, which may be a bad thing. People have already formed an opinion of her, and there is a fairly large contingent who have already decided they do not like her, which lives little wiggle room. If she suffers any setbacks, it may be over for her.
Barrack Obama, however, is a fascinating possibility, though one that might be hurting after a recent find. On the one hand, he does not hold the same name recognition, and thus has a chance to make a good name for himself to those unaware of him. Race would be used, just as gender would in the case of Hillary Clinton, and though race should not be a qualifier for candidacy, it almost certainly will be in his case. However, his admission of drug use in a book he wrote will hurt him, and could cost him a real shot at the presidency. Even then, I am still of the opinion that he stands a better chance in ’12 or ’16, as he does have plenty of time to wait, and should consider instead to push for the vice presidency to gain some executive experience.
In the case of these two, you might argue that race trumps gender, but I think it has more to do with the (perhaps perceived) characters of these two politicians.
Right now, though, I’d say that the Democrat elected will likely be within the elders of that group (interestingly enough, probably a white male; imagine that), probably a senator, and the Republicans I believe will run a lesser known governor (I imagine most likely a white male as well, governor or not); in other words, we can probably expect two tickets that are not too unlike those that we have seen in the last two elections.
As for a winner, well, the next two years, the nature of the race, and the candidates selected will probably determine the outcome, and it is hard enough right now to predict any of these things.
And I apologize for the wordiness of this comment, but I felt that this is an interesting topic and that I should throw in my three cents; I’m pretty sure two wouldn’t cover this.
I think far too much focus is placed on gender, race, or sexual orientation.
I believe that Americans are wiser than that. The issue regarding any Presidental candidate that we are allowed to vote for is based on the two mayor political parties – and the second guessing of those that write checks – each cheack writer and political strategists thinking about what type of candidate would win,should they decide to “invest” their money and time in “supporting” said candidate.
If the ballot only had only a Republican Black Female and a Democrat Black Female to pick from, I am very certain that a Black Female would be elected President.
The reason we have not had a Black Female president is because neither the Democrat Party or the Republican Party have placed one on the ballot for us to vote for.
This has probably not happened because the money behind the two main political parties is afraid that perhaps Vivian is correct, males trump females and non-blacks trump blacks in national voting.
It is fear of losing that keeps the two major political parties from giving voters the opportunity to vote for a black female.
If both parties really cared, they could each agree to place a Black female on the Presidential ballot.
We, The People do not pick the candidates – not really.
Well, since you have no right to vote for President anyway, what’s the problem?
“Jack – Rice ain’t running. We all know why – she’s a 3.9”
I don’t get it.
Mosquito – I didn’t forget about the money. (Trust me, as a 4, I never forget about the money 😦 ) I wanted to leave some things for other folks to bring up 🙂
CR UVa – I understand what you’re saying but try to think in terms of the overall, not just the specifics of Hillary v Obama.
Reid – you’re very close to my thinking here. The issue, though, is much less about who the parties nominate for president but who is on the bench. Look at the weeding out that takes place at the bottom, where we as voters do have a (albeit small) chance to choose someone different. The pool of presidential candidates is very small. The pool of local candidates is much larger. The Ds and Rs (Condi Rice being the exception) really couldn’t put up a 4 because none exist in that pool. No 4 Senators, no 4 governors. All politics really is local. If we want choices at the top, we must insist on choices at the bottom.
Jack – Condi ain’t a real 4. She usually forgets that she’s black.