Equal Time

Do you realize how many countries have had women prime ministers? It may be because prime ministers are selected by the party, and not directly by the people (to be fair, technically, the President of the US is also not selected directly by the people, instead going through an arcane electoral college--but it comes much closer than the parliamentary forms of democracy). Pakistan has. India has. England has. The US hasn't.

Indeed, the US has never elected an African American, nor someone Jewish, and until JFK, not even a Catholic. It's only ever had one bachelor president. Reagan was the first (and only) divorced President (he had divorced Jane Wyman).

This year, the Democrats two leading candidates are a woman (Clinton) and an African American (Obama) and they represent the most serious, credible candidates ever. Geraldine Ferraro was selected as vice president. I'm sure some woman has tried to run, but no one would take it seriously. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have run, but they were, for lack of a better word, too black to be taken seriously by enough whites.

Indeed, the irony of Barack Obama running (the son of a white woman and a Kenyan immigrant) is that many perceive him not black enough. And perhaps that irony is rich enough to say that maybe skin color doesn't matter (though one has to say, it does matter, that there is still some latent liberal guilt, but to be fair, that Obama is, at the very least, a pretty good writer).

The Republicans, as usual, are far from this, never having fielded a credible African American or woman (they could have had both with Condoleeza were her reputation any better than it is, or with Colin Powell, if he had tried running) for President.

Indeed, rabble rouster Mike Gravel, who sounded more like the rant from that 1976 film Network: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!". He might have been more effective if he didn't look like some old coot from the 70s. It goes to show you that appearance matters.

Ron Paul, at the very least, sounds like he thinks about foreign policy, rather than blow off at the stack like Gravel.

Some people would complain "shouldn't we vote for the best person for President", meaning that we shouldn't vote for a person's gender or their race (meaning, they want to vote for someone white). The fact of the matter is that the best person to run is probably not running. Do we seriously believe that only these 16 or so candidates are the best choice to run the country? We might do far better off with someone who isn't so photogenic, or someone who isn't a politician of the usual order (senator, congressman, governor), even if the unlikely ideal of an economics Nobel laureate a la West Wing seems like so much fantasy.

Where are the idealists? Probably unable to muster the support of the savvy pols that are running, who know how to glad-hand, craft their words, kiss babies, and negotiate in back rooms. Indeed, Ron Paul, perhaps as uncommon as his ideals are, comes as close to anyone who sticks to some principles, even as they may not always be so palatable to many, and is single-handedly trying to reverse the neocon stranglehold of the Republican party, eschewing big-government intervention new world order for liberterian, stay out of our lives ideals.

And the public, of course, can't really be bothered to spend a few minutes learning about each candidate, perfectly content for the media to winnow the field so we can concentrate on two people rather than 8 per party.

This administration pushes the view of democracy, often hoping the word has meaning and inspiration to the grand masses, even as it strips rights in the name of security, and doesn't believe that the wisdom of the masses is often not particularly wise.

Even so, the US makes progress a little at a time. Let's hope that this trend overcomes, that two steps forward and one step back is still a net of a step ahead.