The Wrong Way To Elect The First Minority US President

In my opinion, there's a right way, and a wrong way, to elect minorities to the office of President of the United States. I believe Americans went about electing the nation's first black, or mixed-race candidate last week in the wrong way.


The right way, to my way of thinking, was expressed in this post almost exactly one year ago. I wrote, in part,


"What is surprising is how the media continues to behave as if gender or race is the only reason people wouldn't vote for Hillary or Obama.


I won't vote for Hillary because she's a largely inexperienced, power-hungry socialist.

It has nothing to do with her gender. To not vote for Hillary is not to reject women candidates for President. Merely that woman candidate.


The same is true for Obama. Again, the Journal article made it seem as if a vote against, or not for, Obama, is a racist vote. But that's not true. It totally overlooks Obama's nearly-total absence of any legitimate experience which would prepare him to lead this country.

As with Hillary, I'm not against Obama because he's black. I don't think he's a qualified person to be President. To reject Obama is not to reject minority candidates. Only that minority candidate.


What really bothers me is how easily the media turns these two candidates' campaigns into litmus tests on gender and race, thus obscuring their relative inexperience and lack of qualifications for the high office they seek.


This is the sort of coverage that results in false impressions that America isn't ready for a woman or minority President.


Of course we are. We just need to see some women or minorities who are actually capable of executing the office of the President effectively."

I expressed this line of thought to a naturalized citizen/friend recently, and was horrified to discover that this was a new concept for him. He felt that my rejection of the President-elect constituted racism, as did Geraldine Ferraro's fair observation last year that if the Illinois rookie Senator wasn't black, none of this would have happened to/for him.

Of course, Ferraro is correct. My friend's view notwithstanding.

When I asked my friend what the Democratic candidate had done to merit being elected, much less running for President, he murmured something about the Senator having 'done something in Illinois.'

No such luck. Well, no matter.

My friend proudly stated that it was a wonderful thing that America had its first black President. Period. Nevermind, he implied, the winner's (lack of) qualifications. Now, my friend would he unashamed to travel the globe and identify with his adopted country.

To me, this is truly awful. Suffice to say, he and I disagree on the importance of whether foreigners like the American President, or what we do globally.

I remain mystified that so many Americans are gushing so shamelessly about this wonderful thing of electing a non-Caucasian President.

Who cares? The Office of President of the United States is not some equal opportunity program reward. It's hopefully where we send a qualified, competent American to lead our Federal government for the next four years, while also faithfully executing his oath of office.

Thomas Sowell wrote some years ago that any job or position which is seen as having been filled due to racial or other quotas or preferences immediately becomes viewed as a lesser position. No longer a job earned by merit.

Let's hope we haven't just done that to our office of President of the US.