The Pat-on-the-Back Factor

By Michael Kinsley

Things could change, of course, but right now the odds are looking pretty good that the next President of the United States will be either a woman or an African American. We would hardly be the first nation to put a woman or a minority member in charge--in fact, we're considerably behind in that category. Disraeli, a Jew, was British Prime Minister in the 19th century. But President of the United States is something else again. Other countries--let me see now--well, other countries don't invest their head of government with the power to push a button and destroy the world, do they? Only in America. What a country. So let's give ourselves a pat on the back.

The pat-on-the-back factor is huge this year. People see an opportunity not just to feel proud of their country but also to feel proud of themselves, personally. Two opportunities, in fact. Which is unfortunate for Hillary Clinton. Until Barack Obama came along, she was counting on the pat-myself-on-the-back vote, and even more on the pat-myself-on-the-back checkbooks. As a woman, she was, simply, the embodiment of an inspiring idea about our country and about ourselves. It's the old idea that anyone can grow up to be President. Not just that, but that even at age 230, we are still young enough and flexible enough to be expanding our notion of who we mean by "anyone."

Because of our special tortured history on the subject of race, electing a black President would demonstrate that idea even more powerfully than electing a woman. Hillary Clinton's very success in building a political machine and becoming the front runner makes her candidacy seem less remarkable. Unlike Clinton, who explicitly says on the stump that it's time for a woman President, Obama contents himself with code. "It's time to move forward," he says. But we all get the message.

Obama's phenomenal fund-raising success--not just the total he's collected but also the number of individual contributors--reflects, I think, a hunger in many citizens to be personally associated with something that speaks well about our country. Whoever becomes President in 2009 will have to repair all the damage that George W. Bush's Iraq war and the arrogant, contemptuous way it has been conducted have done to the world's view of our country. But a President with the middle name Hussein and a father born in Kenya will have a large head start. Not because of his talents or his ideas or his moral fiber but simply because of who he is.

Still, is that any reason to vote for someone to be President? Should the world's most important job be an affirmative-action hire? Shouldn't we be seeking--for this job above all others--the best person for the job, rather than choosing, even in part, on the basis of race or sex? Isn't that what America is really about? Even the familiar dodge about seeking "diversity" doesn't apply in this case: there's only one President.

The notion that a person's race or sex should be irrelevant when you decide whether to vote for him or her as President is a respectable, even inspiring one. It would be the view of the majority on the current Supreme Court. In its big ruling on school desegregation last month, Parents Involved v. Seattle, the Justices forbade school districts to use race to assign students to schools--even for the purpose of desegregation. Chief Justice John Roberts quoted many of the Court's golden oldies on this point, like this from a 2000 case: "It demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities."

But such pieties set up a false choice. Of course, "by his own merit," Obama is fully qualified to be President. Every time Obama opens his mouth, he makes a mockery of concerns about his basic competence or experience, especially if we take the incumbent as a minimal standard. Beyond that low threshold, "merit" is nearly irrelevant to our concerns. Should we just give them all a PAT (Presidential Aptitude Test)?

No one thinks that. So obviously factors other than merit deserve our consideration when we decide for whom to vote. Starting with "Does he or she share my vision of the country?" (For example, "Will he appoint Justices less likely to cite bromides about color blindness as if that settled everything?") But beyond this, the President is unavoidably a symbol, and a presidential candidate's "essential qualities" include his or her race or sex.

So race and gender matter. It's still an uphill battle for a woman or an African American who wants to be President. Only the fact that we have one of each running--and the metastasizing unpopularity of George W. Bush--makes a black or woman President so probable. These candidates still have to prove themselves in the conventional ways. And they are still going to lose more votes because of their gender or race than they gain.

The presidency is unique, of course, but many other jobs in our society have symbolic components. And race or gender can be a legitimate consideration in filling any of them. The day will come when voting for a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton won't be remarkable in any way. But in 2007 it still earns you your pat on the back.