It didn't really occur to me, until after the Press finally got around to noting that the Biden/Harris ticket had succeeded (several days after that was obvious), that Harris is the first female Vice President.
That's because, although we're not supposed to mention it, that first isn't really interesting anymore.
That a woman can be President and can be elected to that office is abundantly clear. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump in 2016. D'uh.
So, what about her being the first VP "of color".
Well, I suppose that might matter, but President Obama was black so how that really matters in regard to the Vice President is questionable. And Vice President Elect Harris actually has a fairly thin claim to that title in that she shares no common heritage with most African Americans other than having African heritage. She does, of course, have African heritage, but unlikely the majority of African Americans, her ancestors didn't arrive prior to the 20th Century and weren't held in cruel bondage against their wills as slaves, nor did they endure the horrors that her race endured post slavery and for generations. Her parents, both of whom are immigrants, were economic migrants, something that the immigrant ancestors of most African Americans were not. Indeed, the fact that she's half Indian may be more significant, but for the fact that average Americans don't regard Indians from India as an ethnicity, in the weird way that Americans calculate such things.
So, firsts. . .yes, but do they matter?
Probably not very much.
Maybe somewhat, however. She's the first Vice President woman of color, which says something. It nearly says as much that, in the general community of the electorate, it was hardly noticed.
4 comments:
And there I was thinking Mike Pence was the Vice President.
I must have slept through January 20, 2021.
Well true, I probably should have used "Vice President Elect", or otherwise made it anticipatory in tone.
Well, legally there is no "Vice President Elect" yet. No matter how inevitable, we have a Constitution that lays that out. The news media doesn't get to declare who the president or vp-elect is. Until all but one candidate has conceded, or until the states' electoral colleges vote on December 12. And even still, the next president is not elected until the House and Senate meet to certify the electoral college votes on January 6.
Words have meanings. If we allow the rules to be changed for "feelings", then there is no point in rules.
Signed,
Moody
Well, don't be too discouraged about the results, assuming a conservative disposition.
Having a lawyer's view of things in terms of process, I think it clear that the Oval office has been determined and really should be so regarded. Most of the pending suits, if not all, will be disposed of in very short order and really stand no chance, which lawyers are always very comfortable with, but which from the outside mislead people into believing that the litigaton stands a strong chance of success, when its known that it's just dice rolling. There's a real question if they should be brought at all as it could do real damage to conservative gains in the electorate.
As noted elsewhere here, conservative candidates did very well in the House and regained a great deal of lost ground. They also gained in state races. In the Senate, while we won't know until January, the predicted flip isn't a fact as of yet, and is unlikely to be so. Demographically, long ignored trends are making for a more conservative electorate. All in all, conservatives had a very good election. And judicial appointments over the past four years will have a real positive influence in restoring the proper role of the court over time in many matters.
Post a Comment