[news] Only White Male Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates Need Apply

Tue Jan 8 11:17:08 PST 2008

Only White Male Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidates Need Apply  
By Kirsten Anderberg ([www.kirstenanderberg.com][1])  
Written January 8, 2008

It is very predictable that the Democratic Party will have to run a white, upper class, male for vice-president due to them broaching the isolated issues of race and gender via its two front-running presidential candidates. In the same way America is not ready to embrace both race and gender issues within *one* candidate, as in running a woman of color as a mainstream presidential candidate, I believe America is also not collectively willing to embrace a double race/gender ticket, of a woman and a male of color together in some combination, on the same vice-presidential and presidential ticket. Amidst all the celebratory pats on the back for us running a black male and white female as front-runners for the Democratic Party presidential nominees, I cannot help but see the glass ceiling, the walls and limitations, that such actions divert attention from.

Shirley Chisholm is a woman who sticks out in my mind when I think of American presidential history within my lifetime. In 1972, Shirley Chisholm was not only the first woman, but also the first African American to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. president. She stands out in my memory, after all these years, not only because she was a woman and black, but also because she was discounted as not being a viable and realistic U.S. presidential contender from the day she announced she was running. I was not so much amazed that black women were running for president, as I was growing up in the era of active civil rights and feminist movements, after all. But at age 11, I did not know that we had a history of never electing anyone but white men *until* Shirley Chisholm ran. The ruckus her candidacy caused, showed me, as a little girl, the obstacles present, that I had not seen when only white men ran against one another. So a black woman running for president was not what was most memorable to me; what was memorable, and what took a long time to comprehend as a child, was *why* she was dismissed. All of the children in America’s elementary schools at that time learned about Shirley Chisholm’s presidential campaign. She had a wide-spread, well-recognized campaign, with a lot of support. But what I came away with from her campaign was that only white men can be taken seriously and properly funded and supported in the run for the U.S. presidency. I knew eventually this would have to change, but I was not sure I see it in my lifetime. 

When I see a black man and a white woman both vying for new opportunities previously withheld for only white men, I am reminded of several other major intersects in U.S. history where black men and white women have hit the gates demanding to be let in at the same time. I am reminded of the historical struggle for anyone other than white men to be allowed to vote in this great democracy of ours. Frederick Douglass was a leader in the fight for black male voting rights, while Alice Paul and Susan B. Anthony simultaneously fought for the woman’s vote. “Douglass’ also advocated the rights of women. He participated in the first Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls in 1848...[he] advocated the emancipation of women from all the artificial disabilities, imposed by false customs, creeds, and codes...During the years before the Civil War, Douglass was a close friend of Susan B. Anthony and her family, and often visited the Anthony home...However, during the years from 1865 to 1870, Douglass split from many women’s rights activists over the issue of passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Anthony and Stanton refused to support the Fifteenth Amendment because it excluded women. Douglass, on the other hand, believed with many abolitionists that it was important to secure the rights of African-American males before working to achieve the rights of women. Their argument was both public and private, and there was resentment and hurt on both sides.” ([http://winningthevote.org/FDouglass.html][2]) 

Yet even though black men got the vote before white women on paper, I was alive in the 1960’s when there were still violent obstacles and resultant protests in the South, and elsewhere in the U.S., over blacks having proper access to cast their votes. (And god only knows what went on in the 2000 Bush-Gore elections, where many blacks in Florida claimed they were blocked from voting.) So, even though black men may have gotten the vote before women, they were constructively blocked from casting those ballots for many more years to come. And even though women and racial minorities are currently “allowed” to run for president, it must be done with monitored amounts of diversity and it is still not clear if anyone but a white upper class male *can* win the presidency in the U.S., even though women and racial minorities can finally run for the office with some legitimacy.

I believe the reason that women of color are somehow not given equal press and support when attempting to run for president thus far is when a woman of color tries to do what Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are doing right now, she has to endure both racism and sexism, combined, and it barely seems plausible for one of those issues to break through in a U.S. presidential campaign. The likelihood of someone battling through both the sexism and the racism within one candidate seems insurmountable, and would present an unbelievable funding obstacle unless she was someone like Oprah Winfrey, who is in a very unique position.

Harvard Law School did not begin admitting women until 1950. When Sandra Day O’Connor graduated from law school, few women were given opportunities at most law firms. So once women finally broke down the barriers to law schools, they next had to beat down the doors to be allowed to then actually practice within the profession. Sandra Day O’Connor was a law clerk when no one would hire her as an attorney after graduating at the top of her class from Stanford Law School in the early 1950’s. Eventually, she was able to obtain jobs as a “woman attorney” and ended up being the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, which took over 200 years to accomplish in American history.

Even after penetrating the halls of law schools, then becoming licensed practicing attorneys within a nearly all-male law field, gender-based barriers continued to show up. Sarah Weddington, the female attorney who successfully argued for the historic Roe vs. Wade decision before the Supreme Court in 1973, had to use the public bathrooms downstairs, when all the male counselors involved in the case were using private bathrooms near the courtroom that were reserved for attorneys, judges, etc. but were made for males exclusively. I remember news stories a few years back about the Skull and Bones Society at Yale being in chaos because several female members had been initiated, and thus the elders padlocked the clubhouse’s doors until the situation could be properly resolved. An amazing number of U.S. presidents have been members of the Skull and Bones Society, and if we are talking about becoming a U.S. president, then Skull and Bones Society membership does seem to have relevance, as does the topic of Skull and Bones excluding women and people of color historically. Even after women are finally allowed into Yale, we are still kept out of male exclusive power clubs on campus. Hidden barriers such as these afford us things like all male Supreme Courts and exclusively white male presidents for the first 200 plus years of U.S. democracy.

I am very excited to see a black man and a white woman getting this far in the U.S. Democratic Party presidential primaries, don’t get me wrong. But I also recognize this pattern throughout history. I notice that a woman of color would be saddled with *both* issues that one by one, by themselves, seem insurmountable, and that shows me how far we really still have to come. The day a woman of color can finally be a front-runner candidate for the Democratic Party for president, and not have her hard work written off as symbolic or a token effort, as was done to Shirley Chisholm, then I will truly feel we have made significant leaps in our collective consciousness. 

For the very same reasons a woman of color is still not in the front-runner pool of presidential candidates in the U.S., there is little to no chance that either a black male or white female Democratic Party presidential candidate at this time would then add more obstacles by enlisting anything but a white upper class male vice-presidential candidate. It seems America can only take baby steps regarding its racism and sexism, so we *may* be able to elect a black male or white woman as president, which is amazing in and of itself, but I am not sure that America could handle any *combination* of race and gender barriers on one ticket, such as a black male with a white woman, or a double whammy of either, such as two women or two people of color running as vice-president and president together at this time. 

My prediction is whoever runs for vice-president under the Democratic Party, he’s got to be a white male with money, just to offset the “radical” concept of either a woman or racial minority running viably for president. I hope I am wrong, but these are the glass ceilings I see when everyone but white males with money hit that ceiling. When any combination of race, gender, and economic status candidates can run for political party nominations in America, we will have made great strides. (I have not had the time to address economic status in this analysis, but only an upper economic class man of color or white woman could have made it this far in the run for president in America at this point.) Right now, the patterns are still recognizable, and it seems we are still feeding mainstream America racial tolerance and gender equity with little baby spoons, always afraid of giving them too much too fast. So we may just get an upper economic class black male or white female for the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee this election, but I would be floored if either chose a woman of color as their vice-presidential running mate. And I predict their choice will be a white male first and foremost, just to offset the non-white or non-male presidential candidate. All of these limitations show how far we still have to go after over 200 years into this “democracy.” And lastly, remember how slowly our race and gender inclusion has progressed throughout the history of U.S. democracy the next time there is a call for the U.S. to champion democracy with race and gender inclusion in other countries with much younger “democracies.”  

    [1]: http://www.kirstenanderberg.com (www.kirstenanderberg.com)
    [2]: http://winningthevote.org/FDouglass.html (http://winningthevote.org/FDouglass.html)

URL: http://mostlywater.org/only_white_male_democratic_vicepresidential_candidates_need_apply