This might be more of an IMHO, but…it seems that in 2016, we will elect either the first woman President, the first Jewish President, or the first openly egomaniacal boorish crude quasi-Fascist blowhard President.
Since we also had significant (sort of) Hispanic campaigns, I assume that that will be the next First for the Presidency.
What is the next “first” beyond that? What sort of person might be least likely to be elected to the Presidency in the forseeable future?
Atheist will be last… after transgender black woman.
I’m not convinced we haven’t already had a few “openly egomaniacal boorish crude quasi-Fascist blowhard Presidents”. although I suppose “quasi-Fascist” would be the debatable point.
And I second the thought that “(openly) atheist president” is going to be way down the list.
We’ve likely had atheists by some definitions in the White House already. Jefferson was accused of being one (he was a Deist of the Enlightenment definition, which would be darn close to atheist by today’s definition). Lincoln had no religious affiliation. Taft (our most well rounded President) was a Unitarian without strong religious beliefs. Grant was a churchgoer to appease his wife.
How about an independent president? Or does Washington count since he didn’t believe in parties?
And if Hillary is elected, we get the first Presidential couple.
I agree with open atheism as perhaps the last barrier that will fall in America, specifically, but I’m more interested in what will be the next “important first” in Presidential politics. What might the stages be after that? Or are we moving out of the era in which such things count for much in the minds of a majority of voters (bearing in mind that “majority of voters” is a way smaller set than “majority of Americans”)? I note that London has elected its first Muslim mayor…and yes, I heard the “Kirk scream” in my head when I read it.
Here’s a fun look at some precedents which have already been broken. (Some are just electoral college wonkery.)
First President in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace
You’re not the only one.
Bush 43.
Since everyone is unique in some ways, every president is likely to be the first “something” president. Had Romney been elected, he would have been the first Mormon president. McCain would have been the first ex-POW president (I think). Etc.
I’m not sure what the big deal is about an atheist president. I’m an evangelical Christian, and I wouldn’t have a problem with an atheist being president if his politics were to my liking. Given that atheists, from what I can see, tend to lean left politically, that might be a stretch, but I wouldn’t refuse to vote for someone who otherwise struck me as a good candidate simply because he was an atheist. Honestly, I’d have had more concern about a Mormon like Romney, because there would have been a nagging doubt in the back of my mind as to whether the LDS authorities in Salt Lake City would wield undue influence over him. But, as the saying goes, we are electing a president, not a pastor-in-chief.
[QUOTE=NeonMadman]
I’m not sure what the big deal is about an atheist president. I’m an evangelical Christian, and I wouldn’t have a problem with an atheist being president if his politics were to my liking. Given that atheists, from what I can see, tend to lean left politically, that might be a stretch, but I wouldn’t refuse to vote for someone who otherwise struck me as a good candidate simply because he was an atheist.
[/QUOTE]
Feast your eyes. Across the country, big numbers say they wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate or a Muslim one – but they both pale in comparison to an atheist.
More Asians than Jews.
More Asians than Muslims.
More Asians that Jews and Mormons combined.
As many Asians as Mormons.
And Asians aren’t even considered.
Perhaps athiests aren’t the least likely “first” ___" President"
Neither were the disabled (more disabled than Asians), the poor (more poor people than Asians), or a hundred other groups. I get what you are saying, but there is not a constant need to beat this dead horse.
The fact that Asian-Americans have low relative political participation, and the fact that Asians have demonstrated an an ability to get elected without significant relative in-group voting to counter demonstrated bias tends to support the fact that they are generally not as significantly disadvantaged politically speaking as Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and atheists. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be including in a poll like this, or that there are no headwinds for Asian candidates, but there is no need to get particularly annoyed by the omission.
The 22nd and 24th presidents were much more intimate.
I think I see a streak on there that will break this year. “No white person mentioned on Twitter has been elected.”
Right, many early Presidents were Deists or just attended church as “it was the thing to do”.
What I found very interesting about that list is that a socialist rated even lower than an atheist, by a considerable margin. In fact, it was the only one of the categories that a majority failed to say “yes” to. But Bernie seems to making a pretty good showing, all things considered, even though he is unlikely to get the nomination.
Surely we’ve had an openly egomanical boorish crude quasi-Fascist blowhard in the White House before?