Reply to comment

Am Not! =)

Nobody's against diversity - the Dems are getting set to field a woman and a black man this time around, so there's a solid chance your graphs will look different in 2008.

I do have statistical and political problems with the argument in the post, though - statistically, the office of president has one occupant at any given time. Historically, it has had just a half-dozen occupants during the more recent times when suggesting a non-white, non-christian man as a candidate wouldn't have gotten you laughed out of the room (a lot of people were shocked that Kennedy, a *Catholic*, held the office). This is not fertile ground for statistical analysis.

Politically, the focus on ethnicity and religion makes me wonder what's important here. The president's job is not to represent anyone, it's to execute laws defined by those who do. Congress happens to have an increasingly non-white, non-Christian, non-male population, so I think that progress in the form of wider diversity is proceeding well. We just had a guy with the last name "Ellison" sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Qu'ran, which is pretty cool.

Reply

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • E-Mail addresses are hidden with reCAPTCHA Mailhide.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.