Friday, January 04, 2008

How prejudice can destroy prejudice

There are so many political cliches and truisms it's quite difficult not to use them. Sometimes they help us understand the world, or more importantly offer us a starting point for analysing events and potential outcomes. A common one is that it's not Oppositions that win elections, but Governments that lose them. Take 1979, did Britain actively vote for a woman to be Prime Minister? Was she that far forward on matters of gender equality that she was ready for it and wanted it? Or was it just that Labour had become an absolute shambles and even the most ardent mysoginist ignored the handbag, dress and boobs and just thought 'that's it, I've had enough with these bloody socialists'?

I ask this question because as I look at the papers this morning and see who, at least for now, the momentum is with after the Iowa caucus I find myself asking a question that I've not seen asked readily (that's not to say it hasn't been asked, just that I have not seen it). That question is quite simple, is America ready for a black President? I realise that some people may find such a question insulting in itself. After all, the civil rights movement in the US was a cornerstone moment in that nations' immediate and conscious history.

To even ask the question assumes that the answer is unknown and crucially ponders upon whether that answer might still be in the negative. Personally I hope that it's not, but at the same time I am not foolish enough to think that prejudice does not exist. After all prejudice stems from the sum of human experience and if human experience has negative interaction with absolutely anything then inductive empicism kicks in. That is just human nature. I for example have never driven or owned a Ford that I like, so I'd never buy one. No manner of legislation to criminalise anti-Ford views would change that prejudice. in fact this is the case with all forms of prejudice.

To really tackle prejudices they need to be challenged with their opposites. That is why, when it comes to something as dangerous as racism the solution is not to criminalise the thoughts or words but to challenge the preconceptions of those that think in such a way by providing evidence that runs contrary to their sum of experience. In a sense Obama, whatever happens, is doing that already and that is a positive thing. But I still cannot help wondering if that alone will be enough should he go on to secure the Democrat nomination.

As I said earlier about Thatcher. Was Britain ready for a female Prime Minister or did the male part of the country just balance the options and supress it's prejudices in the face of Labour being a potentially worse route because of their previous failures? Was the prejudice stronger against Labour than it was against a woman? I think it may very well have been. The result being that the idea of a female Prime Minister is not even something anyone would bat an eyelid at today. in a way it is quite ironic that one temporally short prejudice, Labour, helped destroy a greater prejudice that was temporally long.

The question therefore - if we assume that electorally Obama will find it tough to win over certain parts of the electorate whose experience means they still harbour racial prejudice - is have the Republicans reached a point where the prejudice against them outweighs any simmering racial prejudice below the surface of American society? America was at least a nation split down the middle in 2000, is she still at the point after eight years and two (unpopular) foreign wars? Or has she reached an impasse where the desire for change overpowers everything else?

If she is, and if Obama wins the nomination, then it may just be that she will do the most significant positive act for race relations in the history of the Western World. She has never been shy about coming forward and astounding us all, in fact it is what makes what is such a young nation so endearing in a way. The election of Obama would, whatever his politics might be, do more than any hate crime legislation could ever hope to muster because it would challenge the preconception of racists and non-racists alike. The only drawback would be if Obama didn't win, because then the question of racism would rear it's head during the presidency of a Republican winner. Hanging chads would be replaced with allusions of other things hanging in the Deep South, in a way that could represent a bitterly divided step backwards.

Of course, all these questions remain hypothetical for now. But should Obama win the nomination the answers will have a massive impact on not just the next four years of America's political future but the wider Western world too. An Obama nomination win but presidential loss would provide fuel for sneering anti-Americanism abroad after all, and ironically we're back at that little thing called prejudice again aren't we (in two ways, with accusations of racism and sneering anti-americanism)? So is America ready for a Black President? I honestly don't know. I do think though that if anti-GOP prejudice is more resonant it won't matter anyway and the most powerful nation in the history of the world will change the world for the better yet again through the law of unintended consequence.

UPDATE: Having spoken with a long-standing American friend he thinks that there is an undertone to this piece that suggests I am saying that America is inherently racist. That is not my intention. More that should America still have racist undertones by virtue of social history, human nature and natural prejudice then it won't matter anyway if dissatisfaction with the status quo is strong enough, and the resulting unintended consequences of that will be a very positive thing indeed.

46 comments:

Matthew said...

That made a lot of sense. But I'd take issue with the Ford analogy. The point is that Fords, because they are made by the same company, might well all have particular behavioural characteristics - so one bad experience with a Ford could legitimately lead you to dislike all Fords. Races of people aren't imprinted with the same characteristics - so the impressions formed of one person of a particular race shouldn't be held to extend to the rest of the race. I know this is simplistic, but it demonstrates the need for public policy designed to discourage racism - and remember, whatever legislation we have is in this area not designed to criminalise the thought as such, but rather the incitement to that thought in others, or violence based upon that thought.

Also, not all of America needs to be 'ready' - only enough to win the election; and (don't jump on me for this, it's proven - see Sniderman & Carmines' "Reaching Beyond Race) most of the people for whom racism is a major factor will be voting Republican anyway.

Refreshing to see a non-white person making a caucus victory speech, even if it was a little grandiose.

dizzy said...

the impressions formed of one person of a particular race shouldn't be held to extend to the rest of the race.

Whether it should or should not is irrelevant. Human nature doesn't work like that, and thinking that human nature is perfectable shows a naivity about nature of man. We make prejudgement daily and we do so based on our experience. Whether it is morally right or morally wrong is irrelevant to whether a prejudice is held. If someone's only interaction and experience with a blue skinned person has been being mugged by them, then they will avoid blue skinned peoeple and be wary of their motive as part of the fight or flight mechanism in our innate nature as animals. That is why tackling, for example racism, is never going to be 100% successful via legislation that effectively criminalise core aspect and reation of people's experience and how that maps to human nature.

"whatever legislation we have is in this area not designed to criminalise the thought as such, but rather the incitement to that thought in others"

So it's a crime to think out loud something in front of someone else. Sorry but that is a thought crime and it expresses perfectly the paradox that is the intolerance of intolerance.

dizzy said...

"it's proven - see Sniderman & Carmines' "Reaching Beyond Race"

Dangerous term "proven" when referring to social [pseudo]science.

Dave B said...

One of the posters on Political Betting made the point that Mr Obama is 'culturally white', which reminded me of a radio doccy (routes of english?) where a (canadian?) academic described racism as class prejudice, rather than colour prejudice.

Changing the topic, I think Mark Warner would have been a much more interesting candidate in the Democratic race.

Matthew said...

Point taken re social science in general, but S&C's methods are pretty foolproof and have been very well tested, so it's as near to a proof as anything else we might like to argue in politics. My intention was to ward off in advance the response that I was being unfair to right-wingers.

Benedict White said...

Dizzy, interesting article however I will take issue with one statement "I do think though that if anti-GOP prejudice is more resonant it won't matter anyway and the most powerful nation in the history of the world"

Most powerful in history? You jest surely?

dizzy said...

"but S&C's methods are pretty foolproof and have been very well tested"

The problem is though that they are inductive conclusion. Social science does not seek to disprve it theories through experimentation. It designs expe4riment that are designed to prove the theory. That is sound scientific method. That does not mean the theory is wrong per se, but again it is dangerous to allude to the test because the tests are not designed for falsification.

Most powerful in history? You jest surely?

I'm not aware of any nation that has had the sheer hard power that America today has it's disposal. The statement all comes down to whether one takes the view that "most powerful" is to be defined as most wide spanning in colonial terms, or most double hard bastard when their back is against the wall.

Bob Piper said...

Prejudice doesn't always stem from the sum of human experience though. Often it can stem from the complete opposite. You can get extreme racist views from almost exclusively white areas in the North East of England or Scotland where they rarely come across anyone from a different racial background. If by negative interaction however, you mean regular contact with the Daily Mail, you might have a point.

I would also take issue with the suggestion that Obama's election would necessarily do anything positive for race relations in the US, let alone the rest of the 'Western World'. Did Thatcher's election do anything to help women in the UK? Probably not, I would suggest. In fact it is possible to argue the opposite. Thatcher got where she did by being more male than the men, not by possessing a handbag, dress or boobs (particularly as the latter would be hardly likely to interest anyone). If Obama sets out on the same course, trying to prove he is as white as the rest of them beneath the skin, I suspect it will hardly tear up trees in the struggle for harmonious race relations.

Still, nice piece, well written dizzy.

Benedict White said...

Dizzy "I'm not aware of any nation that has had the sheer hard power that America today has it's disposal."

Ah, I see you misconception. By that test many "powers" today are greater than any of say 100 years ago. The fact is that hardware is relative. America's peers are far stronger than say the peers of either the British or Romans were.

The test is how able a nation is too fight and win wars on multiple fronts. On that count both the British and Romans win because of their ability to project power in multiple places at one time, and the British also had the ability to do it over some considerable distance.

Anonymous said...

This poll published
Here suggests strongly that race (ie. or at least being black) isn't that important. 95% said that being black was not a barrier to voting for a candidate for president.

dizzy said...

Bob Piper said...
Prejudice doesn't always stem from the sum of human experience though. Often it can stem from the complete opposite. You can get extreme racist views from almost exclusively white areas in the North East of England or Scotland where they rarely come across anyone from a different racial background.


Hang on though Bob, that is human experience all the same isn't it? I know the point you're making, that being that lack of interaction and contact, or lack of "experience" with someone from another race (and that cuts both ways as Darcus howe once brilliantly pointed out) can create prejudice. But no experience of X remains the sum of ones experience doesn't it?

On Thatcher I think you have missed my point somewhat, which was that a woman leader of a party today becoming Prime Minister would no longer be an issue because Thatcher did it. Yes, I understand what you mean about her being a male type of woman, although again my point was that the womanly aspects that she did have simply didn't matter because the Labour Party had been the ones that were in power when a complete mess occured. Put aside for a moment the intricate argument about whether that mess was their fault or the previous Tory Government before them or whatever, the electorate just went "bugger that" and Labour were in the wrong place at the wrong time in 1979. It could have easily happened the other way round and I would be making the same point.

dizzy said...

Also Bob, its interesting you raise the "coconut" question (for want of a better term). I;m not sure whether that is necessarily salient or not, I think that if Obama wins the presidency it will have reverberation on the US and western society that are subtle ones - i.e. once the rubicon has been crossed then a black president becomes something that no one even asks the question I have asked anymore. If that makes sense.

dizzy said...

Re Anonymous and the poll. 95% is an awfully high number and yes it does on first galnce appear as you said. But if you go up to someone who hates fluffy puppies and say "Do you like fluffy puppies or are you a Nazi?" what are they going to say?

Don't get me wrong, I;m not saying that the poll is wrong, it might evry well be right. But race is quite a toxic issue, and if someone is racist but knows that society doesn;t like those opinion they may not answer honestly in such a poll. It would be interesting to see that sort of poll replicated in the UK though.

Bob Piper said...

dizzy, yes it does make sense, but on its own the fact that a black person can become president or not may not add much to race relations in Detroit.

Having said that, the US has made great strides in the last 50 years in dealing with issues of racism (in parts of the South black people still couldn't get the franchise - or even a cup of coffee in some places) and the number of black city Mayors may well have had something to do with providing positive role models, so I hope you are right.

Still, I hope we don't have to elect some plonker like Trevor Phillips to establish the same principles here.

Troll Patrol said...

Dizzy, I was going to say that the problem with polls of this type are (1) they may not be representative (though it is a Gallup poll rather than an online survey on www.westwingfans.org, and (2) the respondents may not be answering honestly for the reasons you state. It at least demonstrates that 95% of respondents don't like to be thought of as racist when it comes to voting for the president.

ps. now that you have been linked to by IDD expect his ranters to flood in. Please keep them at bay -nuanced discussion is not their strong point. Not IDD himself of course who is scholarly in demeanour and possesses amirable gentlemenly qualities.

Praguetory said...

"The result being that the idea of a female Prime Minister is not even something anyone would bat an eyelid at today."

Really? I can't name a single female British politician who could be a worthy contender in the forseeable future so actually I think it would raise an eyebrow. Most prominent female politicians are indeed perceived to have been over-promoted.

Thatcher was exceptional in many ways.

dizzy said...

Bob Piper said...
Still, I hope we don't have to elect some plonker like Trevor Phillips to establish the same principles here.


Bob did a funny! :)

PragueTory said...
Really? I can't name a single female British politician who could be a worthy contender in the forseeable future so actually I think it would raise an eyebrow.


Afraid you;re missing the point also. I was being fair more general in saying that the notion of a fermale Prime Minister is not something that people say "Oh my God a woman can;t do that!" anymore.

canvas said...

Dizzy, you ask 'Is America ready for a black president'? You say 'I honestly don't know'. My response is 'Why not?'

Obama had a record number of young voters out last night - they all want change... Obama also won in a state that is mainly rural and 95% white. In a way, doesn't that answer your question? In my opinion, people have moved on from the days of race being an issue.

I was born and raised in the States although I haven't lived there in many years. I know from my friends and family in the USA that the people REALLY do want change. I honestly don't think race or gender is an issue any longer.

Go Oabama!

:)


PS> It's strange, but I never actually thought of Thatcher as 'a woman'! And Thatcher never exactly supported the sisterhood anyway... (my feminine point of view)

Anonymous said...

I am disappointed that there is no direct discussion of the prejudice against Hilary Clinton as a woman. I think that is operating at two levels -- "Oh no, not a woman" and "Of course I would vote for a woman, just not this one, she is too hard ... too soft ... too feminine ... too masculine ... too ..., the porridge is never quite right (nor is it ever likely to be)".

It seems to me that much of the criticism of Hilary Clinton in the media is low-level sniping in the gender wars with all sorts of petty denigrations which we just don't hear about the men who are treated to broad-brush personal descriptions.

Undoubtedly both Obama and Clinton suffer from "their own kind" saying "Yes, we want one of ours in the White House, but is this the right one to be our standard bearer?". We again hear much more of this about Clinton's not-sky-high ratings among women -- is this partly a factor of her having been in the public eye much longer, of the more circumspect attitude of the media towards discussing race issues, or of this corrosive drip of "she had a grim look on her face ... her hair wasn't looking good ... she isn't a perfect specimen of womanhood..."

dizzy said...

Obviously the above reply to PragueTory should hve read: "Afraid you're missing the point also. I was being far more general in saying that the notion of a fermale Prime Minister is not something that people say "Oh my God a woman can't do that!" to anymore.

dizzy said...

"I am disappointed that there is no direct discussion of the prejudice against Hilary Clinton as a woman."

You just did it! Seriously though, for me at least, the reason I didn;t raise it is because I think there is far more going on with Hilary than simple gender sniping. She is like Marmite. You either love her or hate her. There is no in between, and the hate derives from much more than her just being a woman.

Unsworth said...

Certainly my American friends are not surprised by Obama's success. There's a huge pool of anger in America which festers and grows constantly. I think many Americans are enraged by what has gone on in their name for the last four or five years. They see much of their values being held in contempt by the Administration and are no longer prepared to simply tolerate such abuse. They are seeking a genuine change to a more moral, just, honest and equitable society.

Americans have always delighted in their democratic process, and are now exercising their rights - with a vengeance.

For me the question is whether that will be mirrored in Britain.

anthonynorth said...

The question I would ask is, if Obama wins the nomination, would that make it more likely that the Democrats would lose the election?
That's the acid test. Until it happens, or not, we can only speculate.

JohnofScribbleSheet said...

You make a good argument Dizzy. The Ford analogy wasn't great but I follow your logic. Obama, may have won because he is the anti-thesis of the Republicanism. He is the best sign of change.

Bringing it back to the UK even the rest of the world, Obama's election would be great for race relations.

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

That question is quite simple, is America ready for a black President?

It's definitely the question of the moment. The Republicans arte toothless in this one and it's good to see that people don't want the Lizard Queen, at least in Iowa. The East Coast is another matter.

Hope he gets in actually although I'm more Republican leaning as a rule.

nullo said...

couple of things:

fair enough Obama won last night; but it's a bit funny that in such a post, and with all these references to Maggie, and the rethoric about everlasting change for the western world, you fail to mention what would mean, for the WHOLE WORLD, if a woman came to lead it

second, there is, according to polls, a very small but substantial percentage of voters who would not vote for a black for president. but those will probably be overwhelmingly GOP leaning, so it wont matter much. but i guess this doesnt matter for your question: it seems to me that the point of your post is, really, that whether or not america is ready for a black president doesnt matter to whether they will get one; but that if they will get one, then, and only then, they will be ready

ciao,
nullo

diogenes said...

Spent Christmas in Seattle where the general view was that US is not ready for a black President or a woman as President, not their views, of course! Iowa is not crammed with Afro-Americans so maybe the general view is wrong

dizzy said...

The reason I don't metnion women is because I think, actually, that we are past that one already. There have been world leaders who were women that have already broken that barrier down, Thatcher being the obvious candidate. The next barrier for the western (and when I say that I obviously mean white anglo-european in a descriptive rather than perjorative way) world for me at least, is for someone who isn't white to be leading those nations.

My point is not quite so tautological tho. For me I think that the some of the strongest prejudices are broken down by virtue of other even stronger prejudice, and, in effcet, subsconsciously barriers are brought down whether one wants them or not. The impact on racial politics as a whole of a black President would be far more signicinfanct than a female president on gender politics because Thatcher has already been there done that got the t-shirt.

Don;t get me wrong, I;m not saying that Britain was on a political par with America in terms of world influence and the like. more that she stodd on the world stage by America's side and that had a massive impact on gender politics to the point, where as I already said, few people today think that a woman being in a high office is something to be avoided because she has the value of being a woman. That's a good thing too.

Morus said...

About five years ago, I was drinking with a (black) friend from New York, who admired Bill Clinton, voted for Hillary for Senate, and was desperate for Colin Powell to run for President. However, he was fairly pessimistic about any chances of seeing his hero in the Oval Office. He was absolutely adamant that if America ever voted for a woman, an African-American, or a homosexual for President, that the person would be assassinated before inauguration. He joked that there would be a rush on sniper rifles if Condi Rice was being sworn in.

At the time, that seemed genuinely plausible, but watching Obama's victory speech, and Hillary's address, issues of race and gender never crossed my mind, whereas I would have been assessing them as impediments only a couple of years ago. Either these two are genuinely exceptional, or maybe America is just more becoming open-minded than we give it credit for. We don't have a great record of elevating ethnic minorities in this country, if you think about it.

Newmania said...

On doorstep opinions ( on race for example ) Brass Eye with Chris Morris , did a vox pop in which he asked people if they though ‘soul reversal’ was a good thing As many, merrily opined as usual at this utter gibberish. This shows that the outcome is exceedingly plastic and the slightest weighting in the question can be the main determinant .

On attitudes to race in this country at least Bob Piper ( though it pains me to say so) has a point and , in my humble opinion , Dizzy, your answer is a bit overly cunning .I took you to be describing the spectrum between what we might call prejudice and simply judgement . The Police in London wish to use their judgement and use profiling so as to direct their attentions at certain racial groups .They are supported in this by parts of the black community who are the chief sufferers .

Bob is talking about a rather different thing. The majority of Britains experience little in the way of multiculturalism. Outside cosmopolitan areas there is a association with place and community that is quite foreign to glittering metropolitans like Dizzy . The 35% of labour voters that say the BNP is the second choice, for example, have an communitarian outlook valuing what is owed and who has paid . This can be expressed as racism . These working class communities, however, are notably less “prejudiced that middleclass communities when it comes to who they are happy to marry into the families and are largely responsible for the explosion of mixed race families so it is a complex picture .( Both vastly less prejudiced than all large ethnic groups )
Bob glibly imagines the Daily Mail as the cause of the problem but it is deeper than that reflecting an overlap between racial and national identity.It would be far truer to say that, for example, in the Liberal heartlands of the West , over exposure to the Guardian and an absence of the mayhem of inner-city atomisation allows them to retain their prejudices about the possibility of Multiculturalism which they support from a safe distance.



Hmmm wandered of your topic a bit D but I read down the comments and the discsussion caught my eye

dizzy said...

"Outside cosmopolitan areas there is a association with place and community that is quite foreign to glittering metropolitans like Dizzy."

I never realsied that a country bumpkin from the sticks of heavily white middle class Buckinghamshire was a glittering metropolitan.

Newmania said...

You`ve buffed up nicely :)

Jeremy Jacobs said...

"that America is inherently racist"

They probably are in certain parts. Obama will do well but Mrs Clinton will be in the Oval Office this time next year. (Won't make the slightest bit of difference, the US will still support dictators like Musharref)

dearieme said...

We may be about to learn whether it is Negroes that many white Americans don't like, or specifically American ghetto blacks. In other words, is it racism or ghettoism? My money is on the latter. Their pathological slum culture is awful: BO isn't associated with it. (Nor, as far as I know, are Condi Rice nor Colin Powell. Jesse Jackson is, though. Which is pretty much what Joe Biden said months ago.)

verity said...

Matthew, you appear to think that 'racism' is a whites-only phenomenon. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of black Americans who will vote for Obama simply because he claims to be black (instead of 50% black, itself a form of racism). Racism in the US works two ways.

Dearie Me - Agreed.

verity said...

Morus - Your black friend from NY was a jerk. There are black senators, women senators, black mayors - the mayor of NYC was black - Dinkum or something his name was - as corrupt and ineffectual as so many of his white predecessors - and the mayor of DC - arrested on cocaine charges, as it happens. The mayor of NO is black. Nagins, that great saviour during Hurricane Katrina. Women mayors. Women governors. Gov Anne Richards of Texas. Gov. Blanco, the co-saviour of New Orleans.

I think most Americans are concerned about the level of competence, not genetics or chromosomes.

Henry Crun said...

If Obama does get elected, Morgan Freeman's career could be in tatters.

Anonymous said...

"as Britain ready for a female Prime Minister or did the male part of the country just balance the options and supress it's prejudices"

It would be wrong to presume that the sexism Thatcher faced was confined to the male population - an element of the blue rinse brigade was notably sceptical for quite some time.

Anonymous said...

Obama Campaign Proves
Much Less White Prejudice
than Blacks Thought !
By: Greg Peace Song Jones

One of the most incredible things that has arisen through Barack Obamas campaign has been the vision of mass numbers of white people at each of the Obama rallys showing great love and support for this credible, intelligent, gifted, strong leader....who happens to also be black. It has been incredibly eye-opening and uplifting, and it, for the first time, shows us blacks that we have actually been wrong in our assumption that most whites are prejudiced toward us. Although you do have the exceptions to the rule, the fact is....most whites ARE NOT racist toward blacks. This is a very important revelation. VERY !!!


We, as blacks have held on to our injured history, which we rightfully feel was caused by whites, to such a degree that we have never had the opportunity to see or learn that the prejudiced attitudes of whites does not exist today like it had in the past.We knew that a lot of whites like black music. We knew that millions of white women love Oprah, but we thought that was just a 'woman thing'. But we had no idea, until now, that white people of all ages could be as supportive of a black candidate as they have shown in great mass. We, as blacks have been wrong !

Of course, we as blacks will have the specific cases of injustice and prejudice as displayed through examples like Jena 6, Genarlow Wilson, Katrina and the like....and specific cases like those should be dealt with accordingly. But we must not continue to allow certain negative occurances to misdirect our minds toward thinking that these negative examples speak for the entire white race. The majority of whites of today are actually on our side !


Obama's campaign has already won by proving that whites and blacks can not only get along....but can work TOGETHER...for us all. And guess what my black family....America IS ready !!!


Visit: http://www.Blacks4Barack.homestead.com/

Colin Campbell said...

Obama presents as a non threatening safe pair of hands to white America unlike some of his black fellow travellers, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He will get most of the minority vote and a good deal of the middle class white vote. The South will be more challenging, but more important will be to analyse which of the red neck states that Dubya won twice will swing over to the Democrats. If they do that then he can win. Still very early, but the signs are good for him.

allan said...

Verity - talking rubbish as ever. Obama polls well below Hillary amongst black commuinities - no evidence at all that he pulls in votes based on his colour.

canvas said...

When african-americans see that Obama is a WINNER then they will get behind him.

But you're all missing the point...race is not an issue.

age might be...there are more young voters than ever! record numbers.

get it?

obama connects.

that's all that matters.

Anonymous said...

As an American, I cannot honestly say if Obama is electable or not. There are certain groups who would never vote for him. For example, there are a lot of blacks who think he isn't "black enough", having a white mother (the street term is "zebra").
Then there are the southern white males, whose worst fear in life is black men "messing with our women". It's almost a primordial obsession with them. Can you see them voting for a guy with a black father and a white mother? I can't.

canvas said...

anon - there are bigots everywhere. Your views are misguided and also very 20th century. It seems clear that the USA IS voting for change - it's about competence not skin colour.

Jeremy said...

I voted for Margaret Thatcher - I would have voted for a little green man with the same policies. That she was female was irrelevant.
Thatcher Mk1 "broke the mould" and set the UK on a quite different (and better, course). Thatcher Mk2 was off the rails (for once I agree with Rupert Murdoch).
Maybe the US voters want a considerable change - not the same old identikit mob. Would do no harm to the US's tattered image overseas.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why we call the new president a "BLACK" president is he not mixed? Does that mean that the "WHITE" half of his family does not count? We have been labeling people by the color of their skin for a long time are we not all human beings? to stop prejudice it's time that all peoples acknowledge that we are all one people and that if we were to "SKIN" us we would all look the same. Does anyone know that we all originated from the same continent? I wont tell you which one you do the research if you want the answer. I DID!