Why has there never been an Italian-American President?

[pbrower2a]

There haven't been extremely many presidential elections.....so it's not statistically probable that every demographic group is represented. Why has there never been a Native American President.....or a German American President?

Who even cares?

Eisenhower was German-American

Hoover, FDR, and Truman were part German, too.

It is significant that as late as 1960 America had not even had a Catholic President even though Irish Catholics were a large part of the electorate and had shown much success in large-city and state politics. If Irish-Americans could not win the Presidency, then how could Italian-Americans or Polish-Americans?

Presidential campaigns succeed because nominees are able to consolidate support in several regions of the country and win a couple of swing states. Such well explains the absence of random-scatter Presidential elections in our history.

We do not have a random scatter of Americans by ethnic origin. Patterns of immigration concentrated Italian-Americans (and others of the late-19th/early 20th century wave of immigrants) in relatively-few areas. Italian-Americans settled heavily in a triangle from Boston in the northeast, Norfolk in the southeast, and Chicago in the west, and along the West Coast where there were opportunities.  The pattern also holds true among Polish-Americans, "Russian" Jews, and Greek-Americans.

Until 2008 political realities were such that politicians unable to win the very rural parts of America with white populations descended almost exclusively of Protestants with origins in Great Britain and Northern Ireland just could not win the Presidency. Barack Obama shattered that reality, so we may have just seen the end of WASP dominance in Presidential elections.   

 

[pbrower2a]

Has there ever been a French-Canadian president? Or even a French president?

Or Portuguese?

Or Dutch?

Or Scandinavian?

Or Eastern-European (like from Russia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Greece, etc.)?

Grant, both Roosevelts, and both Bushes at the least have Huguenot ancestors.

The surprise -- in view of their outstanding achievements in politics -- is Jews.

[pbrower2a]

The surprise -- in view of their outstanding achievements in politics -- is Jews.

Not when you consider that they tend to be too liberal to be palatable in a general election. Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, Jacob Javits, all would be DOA in a general election.

And the ones who aren't lefties are usually neocon HPs who'd be better running for Prime Minister of Israel.

...

2008. America would have elected a Jewish President had the Democratic nominee been Jewish. There were lots of rumors about FDR, but I am not sure that those weren't in circulation in 1932.

[pbrower2a]

It took 100+ years after Irish immigration began in force to elect an Irish-American President. Italian immigration peaked about 100 years ago and we've already had a few people who got into the outer circle: Geraldine Ferraro as VP nominee, Mario Cuomo as a likely frontrunner for the Dem nom who wouldn't commit, Rudy Giuliani as a flawed candidate. Michael Dukakis was not Italian but fits the same demographic box, which means that was one less opportunity for an Italian-American candidate. Given the limited opportunities, Italian-Americans have done well.

Mike Dukakis looked more like a Chicago gangster than like a stereotypical WASP politician. If I were in central casting and I saw a photo of Mike Dukakis as a possible cast member for a gangster film I would salivate at his image. Sure, he's not an Italian-American, but neither is Andy Garcia.

The real surprise when it comes to political talent is among Jewish Americans. Just look at the demographics.

We have yet to have a Polish-American or Scandinavian-American President. We barely got an Irish-American Catholic as President.