November 12, 2008

Hasta la vista

This Slate article "So When Will a Muslim Be President: A guide to which minority group has the best chance to win the White House" by Mark Oppenheimer is a classic example of how a certain minority group that numbers almost 50,000,000 residents of America barely features in the mental universe of the NYC-DC punditry. It begins:

At long last, my people have an answer to the question "When will we have a Jewish president?" The answer, it turns out, is "Not before we have a black president." I imagine that all ethnic groups play this game of "when will one of ours get there?" (The question is especially common among Jews, since we're sort of white and used to success at other jobs—law, medicine, swimming.) But now that a half-African man with Muslim ancestors has defeated, for the presidency, an Episcopalian with a Roman numeral after his name, the bookmakers have to move the odds for all of us.

Which historically oppressed group will see one of its own take the oath of the presidency on a Bible/Quran/Analects/etc. next? We must admit that some groups are too small to have much of a chance—met any Zoroastrians lately?—and others seem too exotic. But plenty of others are in the running. Here, then, is a guide to which minority group will next see one of its own in the White House, in descending order of probability, and with possible candidates included:

The Slate article goes on to consider the chances of the following groups from which Presidents have never been elected:

Women
Latter-day Saints
Jews
Muslims
Hindus
Gays and lesbians
Atheists

Do you notice a rather large minority group who is missing?

Last week, we heard everywhere that the Hispanic tidal wave of votes means that the GOP has to publicly expel every single immigration skeptic if it ever wants to win again. (But, of course, Hispanics couldn't possible have anything to do with the mortgage meltdown because there are so few of them.) This week, Hispanics have dropped off the mental radar screen so far that nobody at Slate bothered to ask the writer to drop in a paragraph about them.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

45 comments:

Jim O'Sullivan said...

We've had at least one gay President. Closeted, of course,this batchelor lived with the sitting Speaker of the House during his term of office. And as the song says, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.
Some say that his immediate successor in office swung from both sides of the plate. Though that is nowhere near as certain, there is some circumstancial evidence in support of the proposition.

David Davenport said...

Are all of Slate's staffers Jewish, or only 9/10?

Ronduck said...

Oppenheimer is a classic example of how a certain minority group that numbers almost 50,000,000 residents of America barely features in the mental universe of the NYC-DC punditry.

No, NY-DC-Boston

Steve, Massachusetts is the center of the US education complex, thus making it the center of our nations PC indoctrination system. Many of our nation's journalists, policy wonks, editors, and investment bankers went to a college in that state. Mark Oppenheimer is somewhat of an exception since he is associated with the piece of the New England education complex that sticks across the Mass./Conn. state line.

If America was an animal, NY would be the mouth, Boston would be the brain and DC would be the brain stem, since no actual thought occurs there. Boston has been the center of reality-denial since at least before the Civil War.

Anonymous said...

Jim O'Sullivan: when we get a *proper* conservative back in the White House finding gay subtext in EVERYTHING is gonna be sooooooooooo banned.

Why stop at two gay presidents when most of them belonged to frats? And why do gay people feel threatened by a man and a woman in a loving relationship?

Anonymous said...

I noticed that the list did not include any Italian-Americans. We may have a couple of members in the Supreme Court, but whenever an Italian tries to run to higher office, he or she is subject to suspicions of mob connections. Even Guiliani was not totally free of these types of allegations.

Anonymous said...

What about Asians?

Anonymous said...

Esta lista no falta nadie. De quien piensas, Steve?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Last week, we heard everywhere that the Hispanic tidal wave of votes means that the GOP has to publicly expel every single immigration skeptic if it ever wants to win again. (But, of course, Hispanics couldn't possible have anything to do with the mortgage meltdown because there are so few of them.)

You've always been good at catching the non-sequiturs.

Perhaps the more interesting question is when will we get a president without a significant amount of British (incl. Irish) ancestry? Even Obama is about half British. John Forbes Kerry was half Jewish - and half WASP.

It appears we'll elect members of any race, religion or ethnicity - so long as they're half-British.

I'd put Jewish presidents pretty far down. They're a group with too much power as it is, and while I'm no believer in "Protocols" rubbish, I'm naturally suspicious of any tiny ethnic/racial group with too much power - as anyone should be.

Mormons? If it isn't Mitt, there won't be one for quite a while. I'm ex-Mo and I can't think of a single Mormon pol who'd light up the electorate - certainly not the current governor of Utah, an effete fop only elected due to his daddy's wealth. (And McCain, by nominating Palin, has done his best to ensure that Mitt won't happen.) The Mormons have a serious problem with evangelicals, though they may have helped it (a tiny bit) with their vigorous defense of Prop 8 in California.

Hindus? The only name on the horizon is Bobby Jindal, and he's actually Catholic. You can safely forget about that "Harold and Kumar" guy.

Hispanics? So long as illegal immigration remains boiling just below the surface we won't have one anytime soon. It doesn't help that the Hispanic speaking voice always sounds lazy. And if it doesn't sound lazy it sounds like "Viva Castro! Si se puede!"

In the case of all these people, we are assuming religion is what you profess to believe, rather than what you actually believe, right? Otherwise we've already had atheists.

In order of most to least likely:

1) Woman
2) Mormon
3) Hispanic
3) Hindu
4) Jew
5) Open Atheist
6) Gay
7) Muslim

Of course as Barack Obama has proven it only takes one in the right year. Experience is not a prerequisite.

Two factors affecting the future:

1) Obama's performance. If he fails miserably, or swerves way to the left, or proves himself a race radical, America might return safely to the WASP bosom for a good, long time.

2) If Obama does well, given the general movement of the Democratic Party toward a non/anti-white party, we may soon be seeing a long, unnterrupted string of non-white Democrats vs. white Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Which historically oppressed group will see one of its own take the oath of the presidency on a Bible/Quran/Analects/etc. next?

...The Slate article goes on to consider the chances of the following groups from which Presidents have never been elected:Women
Latter-day Saints
Jews
Muslims
Hindus
Gays and lesbians
Atheists


Even by the extremely loose Slate standards of "oppression", I'm having a really hard time seeing how some of these groups were "historically oppressed".

Women? Absurd.

Muslims? "Oppressed"? In the United States? Unfortunately, no.

Jews? Hardly. Ivy League quotas don't constitute "oppression".

Hindus? No.

Atheists are "oppressed"? Only in their own paranoiac imaginations.

I guess though in Oppenheimer's mind anyone who is not a christian male of European descent is de facto "oppressed". Says a lot about what Oppenheimer thinks about those European-American christian males.

Felix said...

a bit odd to describe women as a minority group (there may be marginally more males, but the numbers are pretty equal).

James Kabala said...

Mr. O'Sullivan: Actually, Buchanan lived not with the Speaker of the House but with William Rufus DeVane King, Senator from Alabama and briefly Vice President under Franklin Pierce. (He died in office.) All this was before Buchanan's own term of office.

It was common for members of Congress to board together in those days, and I would be loath to embrace the absurd idea that "bachelor = gay," but there is some evidence that both men, especially King, were regarded by contemporaries as effeminate, so the possibility of a homosexual relationship is certainly there. The evidence with Lincoln is much weaker.

Catain Jack Aubrey said...

Even by the extremely loose Slate standards of "oppression", I'm having a really hard time seeing how some of these groups were "historically oppressed".

I must confess I didn't even notice the use of the word "oppression."

Repeated often enough a lie becomes truth.

Anonymous said...

better chance we'll have a muslim president then a non jewish head of abc/disney, viacom, the NYT, washignton post..and so on..when is there going to be an article about the lack 'diversity' there?

anony-mouse said...

"... a non-Jewish head of abc/disney, viacom, the nyt, the washington post..."

There was a non-Jewish head of the Disney part at one time. His name was Walt something or other.

Viacom was created by the 80 soemething year old Jew who runs it and is estranged from his kids. Can't you wait?

The head of the NYT is half-Jewish, but what does it matter since the NYT (and the BoGlobe) is disappearing as we speak?

The head of Wapo is one-quarter Jewish. It'll be interesting if his one-eight Jewish offspring take over or if the Wapo and Newsweek will go the way of the NYT.

Which will leave the Wapo company basically Kaplan (reinforcing the strategic Jewish control over gaming the SATs) and the aforementioned Slate.

RobertHume said...

"It was common for members of Congress to board together in those days,"

I'm old enough to know (>70) that before gays came out of the closet it was common for men of the same company traveling together to room together in hotels to save money.

Afterwords it was not done because it was feared that (1) people would suspect you were gay or (2) it would give a gay person the opportunity for a solicitation or (3) the mutual tension was not worth the saving.

So I don't suspect those old guys of anything.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

Capt. Jack - A little surprised by your comment about a Hispanic president. We've already had one: the Mexichurian Candidate himself, George W. Bush. You know, Clinton was the first "black" president...

Ron Guhname said...

"Do you notice a rather large minority group who is missing?"

Midgets? I'd like to see one in the White house. They'd save money on Secret Service since they're hard to hit.

Glaivester said...

an Episcopalian with a Roman numeral after his name,

Actually, there is no reason why Barack Hussein Obama Junior could not be called Barack Hussein Obama II, so both (former) candidates are in the same general situation.

Anonymous said...

This mental exercise by Slate is just one more example of culture cracking and the Gramscian march through the institutions. It's a Jewish version of the black "sack dance" (football analogy) as described by Lawrence Auster. It's an expression of triumphalism.

Steve Sailer seems to be "above" any discussions of Marxism. And too many blog commenters here don't recognize and/or conceptualize these attacks as part of a greater coordinated assault on our civilization.

This is a war. This is all about "Who? Whom?" How long before we will wake up to the reality facing our children...not to mention our grandchildren? The mainstream media is now largely an overt propaganda machine that gratuitously mocks, critiques and demonizes whites.

Why do you think Jews and Muslims so aggressively defend their image in the media? BECAUSE MEDIA IMAGE MATTERS.

There is always a scapegoat, a butt of jokes, a fool, a second class citizen in human societies. Always. And now we are allowing our competitors to place us in that role. This will have severe consequences for our children.

We are close to another Bolshevik revolution with all of the bells and whistles. But the regular folks, the conservatives, the establishment never recognizes the true danger.

While we have been going about our lives and daily business...the opposition has been relentlessly scheming and carefully planting the seeds of revolution which is fundamentally based upon our dispossession.

Reader said...

Jews don't actually want a Jewish president - just compare Jewish enthusiasm for Joe Lieberman when he ran as a *vice*-presidential candidate in 2000 to the support he got during his primary bid in 2004, where the talk was about how a Jewish president "might stir up anti-Semitism" (i.e. might draw unwanted attention to the enormous level of Jewish power in every facet of American life).

Kevin MacDonald has written about how Jews like to have highly visible non-Jews as the spokesmen for their movements so that they can conceal any significant Jewish involvement. You can see it pretty much anywhere - political power ("Bush isn't a Jew!"), media control ("Rupert Murdoch isn't a Jew!"), the Iraq war ("Donald Rumsfeld isn't a Jew!"), support for Israel ("John Hagee and all the Christian Zionists aren't Jews!"), etc.

Anonymous said...

Steve, the Slate article has now been edited to include Hispanics and Asians. And after reading the article one thought comes to mind -- this is an amazing repeat of the Fall of Rome.

Now the coalition of outsiders is picking over the bones of a broken empire, but with no awareness that it was the same hated "evil empire" that provided the stabilizing foundation for the civilization that they so coveted.

And so the coalition of outsiders is oblivious to the ramifications of subversion of the empire. It does not, in fact, portend the outsiders own ascendance and glory, but instead it portends a sweeping away of everything, a conflagration.

c23 said...

Note that he did add Hispanics (and Asians) in an update:
http://www.slate.com/id/2204472/pagenum/3

chris said...

"Actually, there is no reason why Barack Hussein Obama Junior could not be called Barack Hussein Obama II, so both (former) candidates are in the same general situation."

No, Junior refers to a father/son relationship. II refers to being named after a family member other than your father - e.g. your grandfather (who had not named his son after himself). Got it?

Jun said...

"I imagine that all ethnic groups play this game of 'when will one of ours get there?'"

Some Chinese people -- in China -- are asking this. Happened to see this comment [10th one down] to a post about the U.S. election on chinasmack:

"Now there is hope for a Chinese to become president next time."

airtommy said...

whenever an Italian tries to run to higher office, he or she is subject to suspicions of mob connections. Even Guiliani was not totally free of these types of allegations

I didn't realize that Giuliani was alleged to have appointed Bernard Kerik as police commissioner and alleged to have nominated him as chief of Homeland Security. I thought those were established facts. I guess I'll have to stop trusting the media so much.

Takahata Joe said...

As for being suspicious of any group with too much power.....Jews are powerful because they are smart. There is always trouble between a majority population, and a minority population which is smarter and is more powerful relative to their population. You see it all the time. Look at the Chinese in Malaysia, or Indians in Kenya, Whites in South Africa. Add Jews in America to that list.

J said...

Most hispanos are new to the USA and have close connections to a neighboring country. When Mexico and the US merge, Presidency will be rotated. ¿No te parece, amigo Esteban?

c23 said...

I like the use of Kal Penn (Kumar from the Harold and Kumar movies) as an example of a post-racial Hindu.

Here's an interview of him - scroll to "a passion for politics" to see that he's anything but. Not that reality would ever intrude on a media narrative about a post-racial messiah.

Carl said...

In political campaign donations, Jews contribute 40 times more than Hispanics, and 7 times more than Gentile Whites (per capita). These kind of figures explain each groups political power.

John of London said...

Native Americans?

"Perhaps the more interesting question is when will we get a president without a significant amount of British (incl. Irish) ancestry? "

What was Pres Eisenhower's mother's ancestry? His father, according to the usual internet info, was not in fact of German descent, but Swiss or Alsatian, I forget which. What is ironical is that his pacifist ancestors emigrated to get away from Europe's wars. The president's father was born into that sect, so presumably there hadn't been any out-marriage in his ancestry.

Peter said...

Do you notice a rather large minority group who is missing?

Midgets? I'd like to see one in the White house. They'd save money on Secret Service since they're hard to hit.

There actually is a midget on Obama's team, Robert Reich.

For that matter, no one's going to mistake Rahm Emanuel for an NBA center anytime soon.

RobertHume said...

"Jews are powerful because they are smart."

Yes, that's one reason. But another reason, that applies to those other minorities also, is that they feel that they are outsiders and so need power and money to protect themselves.

The natives are more relaxed.

Danindc said...

Loved Capt jack Aubrey's post- kindred spirits.


Buchanan gay? Whoever suggested this can meet me outside in the parking lot. America will never have a queer president....at least not on my watch

I'm Irish catholic and always want a WASP President- they built this country for God's sake- let's not muddy the waters

in order to post this i have to write the word "reltic"....which is close to celtic...i knew Steve hated the Irish

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Now the coalition of outsiders is picking over the bones of a broken empire, but with no awareness that it was the same hated "evil empire" that provided the stabilizing foundation for the civilization that they so coveted."

No, it was the Republic which provided the basis and stabilizing foundation for our success. The Empire has been nothing but an engine for our ruin.

Anonymous said...

Buchanan? I heard Millard Filmore was a raging queen.

josh said...

1st,re james kabala:Wow,you have alot of info rattling around in that head of yours! First Jackson,now Buchanan. What fascinating insight into Millard Filmore can we anticipate? :) 2nd,I always thought of Bush as the 1st Jewish Prez,or,more accurately,the 1st Post-American President,president not of America ,but of the special interests. As for all these clowns blubbering about which minority will get to be President next,I must ask:"When will a White man be president of South Africa? Or Zimbabwe? Or Israel?"

Hugh Oxford said...

Britain had a Jewish PM - Benjamin Disraeli, so we got there first.

The great unspoken truth about Presidents, perhaps politics in general, is appearance based discrimination, particularly heightism.

I wonder, a short or ugly Obama? Any chance of that?

Liberals don't see the hypocrisy in praising Obama's angular good looks whilst claiming indifference to his race. But then, there's a lot liberals don't see.

David Davenport said...

Buchanan? I heard Millard Filmore was a raging queen.

Weren't Martin Van Buren's fancy, ruffled shirts a campaign issue?

Van Buren ... not British.

David Davenport said...

It was common and commonly accepted for American Civil War soldiers in winter weather to sleep pressed closely together, side by side, to keep warm in the cold.

I wouldn't accuse all of them of homosexuality.

Svigor said...

i knew Steve hated the Irish

I don't know about Steve, but I do - but you sound like the kind of mick I could have a pint with.

James Kabala said...

Jack Aubrey: It is remarkable not only that most Presidents have been of British descent, but every president except Kennedy has been at least partially of pre-1776 descent - the "real Americans" in many people's minds. Looking at surnames alone (I don't know about mother's sides), I see we have had post-1776ers as Vice Presidents (Agnew, Mondale, and now Biden), as failed presidential nominees (Smith, Goldwater, Mondale again, Dukakis), and, for that matter, as failed vice-presidential nominees (Muskie, Ferraro, Lieberman), but almost never in the top prize.

Obama is a true oddity, of course - son of a true foreigner, descended from pre-1776 white Americans on the maternal side, and yet identified with the West African American ethnicity to which he does not belong.

StrumminJoe said...

Dear Mr James Kabala,

Obama is an oddity up to the point. He is related to both Bush and Cheney. If in doubt, Mr Google is your best friend...

Please, let's not forget that in case The One was judged solely by his absent father's bloodline, he would be a virtual nobody, er..., zero.
His mother's heritage is The Factor that enabled Obama compete for the US President.

His Father is Kenyan citizen. Case closed.

patrick said...

I don't think Martin Van Buren had any British or Irish ancestry. He grew up in a Dutch-speaking household, which suggests he had Dutch ancestry on both sides of his family.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps the more interesting question is when will we get a president without a significant amount of British (incl. Irish) ancestry? Even Obama is about half British. John Forbes Kerry was half Jewish - and half WASP.

It appears we'll elect members of any race, religion or ethnicity - so long as they're half-British."

It helps to be descended from a King.

From wiki, but I've seen such lists before.

George Washington (descendant of Edward III of England)
Thomas Jefferson (descendant of Edward III of England)
James Madison (descendant of Edward I of England)
John Quincy Adams (descendant of Edward III of England)
William Henry Harrison and his grandson, Benjamin Harrison (descendants of Edward I of England)
Zachary Taylor (descendant of Edward I of England)
Franklin Pierce (descendant of Henry I of England)
Rutherford Hayes (descendant of David I of Scotland)
Grover Cleveland (descendant of Edward I of England)
Theodore Roosevelt (descendant of Edward III of England)
William Taft (descendant of Edward I of England)
Warren Harding (descendant of Ethelred II of England)
Calvin Coolidge (descendant of Henry II of England)
Herbert Hoover (descendant of John of England)
Franklin Roosevelt (descendant of Edward III of England)
Gerald Ford (descendant of Edward I of England)
George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush (descendants of Edward I of England)

Of course being a descendent of Edward I or his grandson Edward III isn't that impresive since they both had many offspring, unlike Edward II who was a bit... gay.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

No, it was the Republic which provided the basis and stabilizing foundation for our success. The Empire has been nothing but an engine for our ruin.

Perfect.

Republics serve their people. Empires serve their emperors. Or, in our case, our transcendent "creeds."

I'll venture some controversy by suggesting that Lincoln's war set America off on that course. The language he used to justify a war that led to 600,000 American dead and the federal power that war created set us off on this course.

All this from a guy who was morally opposed to the war with Mexico.

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address

And some people call George W Bush a religious extremist...