When does the exclusion of women and blacks from the presidency represent institutionalized racism?

[Onlooker]

Also choose your age, either 18-45 or 46+. Thanks.

[Captain Hilts]

1. We won't be electing a fat or bald person in a while either. nt

[Onlooker]

2. But, we have had them, and not that long ago

Yes, we haven't for awhile, but we certainly have had fat and bald presidents. Nonetheless, that's another issue. Eisenhower was quite bald and Teddy Roosevelt was quite chubby.

[Captain Hilts]

4. That was then. This is now. And we won't elect a short person either.

We have so many pre-reflective prejudices. Smart folks know they have them and don't act on them. Stupid people do. People - men especially - are more comfortable with men as authority figures. This is why male Trek fans hate Capt. Janeway <"she's like a school teacher"> and why men's voices were used in ads for bras on television. For bras! of all things. Bras!

The taller candidate always wins - until 2000. Draw your own conclusions there.

Fat people are the most discriminated against in the workforce. People assume they're stupid and lazy.

Let's elect Michelle Obama and get the sex and race hurdles over with in one vote. I'd vote for her.

[shenmue]

3. Loaded question.

:eyes:

It's rigged, to make people look like bigots. Thanks. :puke:

[Captain Hilts]

5. Yes, it is. It's not all about race and sex. nt

[cloudbase]

6. Indeed.

It's not as though the electorate has had many chances of electing a Black or woman. The fact that Obama and Clinton are being seen as very serious candidates belies the institutional racism claim. I know of no thinking person who opposes either on the basis of their race or sex, but know many who differ with them on policy issues. There are many (even here on DU) who will equate that policy difference to racism, though.

[Onlooker]

7. It's institutionalized racism and sexism, I think

Until blacks and women achieve critical mass, they will have a hard time getting elected. Until they get elected, blacks and woman will have a hard time finding backers to bankroll and organize a major campaign. I think Edwards is a fine candidate, but I don't understand why people think he is so much better than Obama or Clinton that we should forgo a historic opportunity at achieving greater equality.

[Captain Hilts]

12. No, it's not "institutionalized." It's de facto more than de jure. nt

[H2O Man]

10. I respectfully disagree.

The fact that the electorate has not had many chances to elect a non-white and/or female citizen is rather solid evidence that there has been an institutionalized racism/sexism in politics. It would be hard to think of any other explaination. Indeed, one need only look to the history of voting rights in our nation to find proof of that.

Progress has been made, and I agree with MW that this election isn't "all about" sex and race. Yet it is true that both remain important factors -- if not with individuals in the democratic party, certainly with large segments of the American public.

We continue to hear some of the people from both parties, though particularly the republicans, talking about if "we" can win more of the "black vote" (one can safely substitute any "minority"), in a sense that reveals they view "blacks" (any substitution works equally well) as distinct from their "we." In other words, to pick one obvious example, white male republicans still too often view their party as an exclusive club, that allows a few "others" membership, but it is still their club.

In the past four decades, the democratic party has offered much more to non-white and/or females. Our party represents real progress. There are still times when liberal white men like Michael Dukakis have had a lot of trouble understanding that someone like Jesse Jackson is just as much a member of the democratic party as he is. Yet progress was made, and continues to be made.

I am not advocating that anyone vote based solely upon "race," ethnic identity, or sex. But I think that it is a factor, and that it involves both positive and negative potentials.

[robbedvoter]

8. What a dishonest poll! On many levels.

[Onlooker]

9. No it's not

I've yet to see a compelling enough reason to support John Edwards that overrides the historical considerations vis-a-vis race and gender. Edwards is a fine candidate, and he's easily my third choice, but we always find reasons to choose men like Edwards and that, in my opinion, is a manifestation of institutionalized prejudice. I don't know what makes Edwards so much better than especially Obama or even Clinton, who mostly have similar stands on the issues, though their campaign rhetoric is different.

Also, acknowledging institutionalized prejudice does not mean one can't support a white male, but hopefully puts that support in a broader context.

[Sparkly]

11. Wow - Interesting question!!

:thumbsup:

[Infinite Hope]

13. The first two options. Though the "something wrong" could be a lack of a viable candidate from...

...those two groups, if in 25 years time no such candidate arises, it'd be cause for self-inquiry as a nation.