During a discussion with Senator John McCain on immigration, FOX News talking head Bill O'Reilly made this interesting remark:

O'REILLY: Now on the left. The objection is there's not enough illegal aliens in here. The New York Times wants open borders. They want all the 12 million legal people who will be legalized to bring in their extended families. Not just wives and children, but moms and dads, brothers and sisters.

This would lead to in my calculation 40 and 50 foreign nationals being absorbed into the United States in the next 12, 13 years. That would sink the Republican Party, I believe, because we'd have a one-party system. And change, pardon the pun, the whole complexion of America. Am I wrong?

MCCAIN: No, you're right. The second thing that are on the left they're against is the temporary worker, as you know. We say two years go back for a year, two years, go back for a year. They don't want that. They don't want them to have to go back.

A bit more blah, blah, blah and the O'Reilly followed up the "change the complexion of America" crack with this:

O'REILLY: …what The New York Times wants and the far-left want? They want to breakdown the white Christian male power structure of which you are a part, and so am I. And they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically breakdown the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say that you've got to cap it with a number. link

For those of us whom are not White, Christian or male, (I got one out of three), I'm guessing we're not part of the power structure Bill O'Reilly fears will crumble if a immigrant tsunami washes over the shores.

1. Does a "White Christian male power structure" exist in America?

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" who benefits from it?

3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?

BONUS QUESTION: Should the power structure of America remain exclusively in the hands of "White Christian males?"

Everything that was said in this conversation strikes me as so bizarre (liberals want more illegal aliens?) that it is difficult for me to take much of it seriously. Add to this the constant tirades against the New York Times (I mean, come on; it's just a newspaper, for crying out loud), and this reads more like satire.

When O'Reilly describes American society as a "White Christian male power structure" he sounds like some far-out pinko college professor; until I realize that he's saying that he likes power being in the hands of White Christian males.

1. Is America controlled by a "White Christian male power structure?"

If by "controlled" you mean, are all others excluded, well, certainly not. If you mean, do white Christian males hold most of the power, well, that's obvious.

Christians just because of their overwhelming majority. Although out-and-out atheists have far less political power than even their small number would give them the "right" to have, and even though the Religious Right has political power far out of proportion to their numbers within American Christianity, Christians in general are represented in the power structure in ways reflecting their numbers. Luckily, we have that "separation of church and state" thing which keeps them, or anybody else, from abusing this power. (That wall needs constant repair, though.)

Whites have political power out of proportion to their numbers for historical reasons which are slow to change. Economic differences among differing ethnicities is also a major factor. There is a long way to go.

Males have political power far out of proportion to their numbers (hint: it's about 50%) for reasons which are even more ancient. The USA has a much better record in this field than many other nations, but it's also not the best in the world. Progress continues.

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" does it follow that only "White Christian males" benefit from it?

No, as long as the structure of the political system is such that unfairness is limited. Obviously, if people have direct political (and economic) power, they have more control over their lives. However, it is possible for an imperfectly balanced system to be reasonably fair.

3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?

We are ruled by it, but we also have a voice in it. Perhaps we should work to have more of a voice.

BONUS QUESTION: Should the power structure of America remain exclusively in the hands of "White Christian males?"

I deny that it is exclusively in their hands. However, the more fairly power is divided up, the better. This does not mean quotas, but education and opportunity.

Does anyone have an actual sound bite or video clip of this? Though I hate to defend O'reilly, I get the feeling this quote was taken out of context.

If my reading is correct, Bill isn't claiming that there is a "white Christian male power structure," rather he claims this is how the NYT views it, and that this false view is ultimately their motivation for supporting illegal immigration.

It's definitely confusing, especially in text, which is why a sound bite would help establish much needed tone.

I'm not sure how the quote can be taken "out of context" as it was referenced from the transcript of the interview from the Fox News website.

Here is a link (courtesy of Lesly) of O'Reilly's remark about "the White, Christian, Male Power Structure." Hope it clarifies matters.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/31/preser...ower-structure/

Whoops. Sorry, Victoria for any confusion. You replied to the original questions before I edited and changed them. My bad. :'(

The tone of voice would be critical to the context. If he said it in such a way as to make "White Christian male power structure" seem ridiculous, I would have taken it a different way.

But from your link, it seems pretty clear he means it.

Here is YouTube's video. It has a better sound quality and I think it may be a few seconds longer than ThinkProgress' video, but the gist is the same to me. Although... the honesty is refreshing.

1. Does a "White Christian male power structure" exist in America?

It would appear that it does in the minds of some on the left and I think that was the context of O'Reilly's comment. But then again, what would I know? I'm a white Christian male so I couldn't possibly understand. I'll ask Oprah about it the next time she comes over to clean my house.

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" who benefits from it?

Gee, this is a tough one. Let me guess and say, "White Christian Males"? I guess that's why I did better in my tenure at Disney than Michael Eisner did.

3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?

Well, if we "and" that criteria as opposed to "or'ing" it, I don't know. Probably a good thing Condi Rice isn't Jewish or she'd be sweeping the floors in the West Wing.


BONUS QUESTION: Should the power structure of America remain exclusively in the hands of "White Christian males?"


This is a question? Or, perhaps a presumption? I guess that if I answered yes to this one I should probably head on down to City Hall in Los Angeles and tell Antonio Villaraigosa to get out of my office for the good of the city. <- Everyone wears shades in LA, even white Christian males.


Aquilla

It's obvious what O'Reilley said, and what he meant.
Lately, say post-Katrina, phony-conservatives (as opposed to actual conservatives, what few are left) have gotten a lot more blatant about this kind of crap. Just one more example of pandering to the bigoted morons who make up the "base", and who will destroy the Republican party by driving everyone else away.

1. Does a "White Christian male power structure" exist in America?
Not really, though people like O'Reilley lament the "good old days" when they believe there was one.

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" who benefits from it?
N/A

3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?
If people like O'Reilley had their way they wouldn't.

1. Does a "White Christian male power structure" exist in America?

The individuals at the top of society in America are largely White Christians. I think there is a lot of evidence that American society is controlled by families and not individuals. The males might be the official breadwinners and business execs, but the women largely control the charities and social structures that limit (potentially) the mobility of outsiders into the "elite".

Does it follow then that the power structure is exclusively "White" and "Christian"? I don't think so.

The reason I say that is that there are non-White, non-male, non-Christians that are not only successful, but near to the top of the food chain. Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama come to mind. Do I even have to list powerful Jewish families? Has Adolph Ochs' legacy shaped American society over the past century?

So while the elite of society is largely white and Christian, it is not exclusively so.

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" who benefits from it?

Success favors the well prepared, and the lucky, and those that have connections--not necessarily in that order. While coming from a powerful family is a boon, it is certainly no guarantee of success and I see no evidence that the powerful in this country favor the down-on-their luck poor white Christian (males) over non-white, non-male, non-Christians. If anything there is rampant classism.

The implication of this question is that the system is set up to keep females, minorities, and non-Christians down. I think there is a much better case to be made that the system is set up to help the wealthy (the old saying "It takes money to make money"). Of course, this does not prevent the wealthy from busting or the non-wealthy from making it big.


3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?

They fit in the same place that unempowered white male Christians fit in: they are trying to get ahead. They may be trying to get ahead as individuals (as those currently in power largely did) or they may do it as a group, which has more dubious chances of success.

BONUS QUESTION: Should the power structure of America remain exclusively in the hands of "White Christian males?"

As I refuse to admit that the power structure is currently the exclusive domain of white Christian males, the question cannot be answered.

If the question is read more broadly and interpreted to mean "should the group of people in power in America be changed?" I'd answer that it does change on a regular basis. The Clintons (and the Rodhams in Hilary's case) were certainly not at the top of society a few short decades ago. Now they are at the very pinnacle of America's power structure.

The successful, the innovative and the lucky succeed in America.

1. Does a "White Christian male power structure" exist in America?

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" who benefits from it?

3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?

BONUS QUESTION: Should the power structure of America remain exclusively in the hands of "White Christian males?"

1) There is a power structure; persons of European descent have a big hand in it.

2) Everyone has benefited from it, for, oh, about 300 years now. Ethnic minorities live better here than they do in their indigenous lands, by far, and this nation has seen huge changes over the years, but without having to destroy the Constitution

3) See 2, above.

Bonus--White European males did lay the foundations--linguistically, culturally, economically, religiously, philosophically--for this nation. This nation has had unprecedented success and has been the greatest engine to support the saying, "A rising tide raises all boats", that the world has ever seen. Why mess with what works?

I knew we'd get at least one...


Well religiously may be a stretch, Jesus never set foot in Europe to my knowledge... but the point is made.

White males may have laid the foundations but they also caused many of the biggest problems this nation ever saw.

A racist patriarchal society laid the foundation for America, but it was women and minorities that made it a place to be proud of by demanding and getting their own place at the table.

It was the downtrodden that propelled this nation forward by labor and by political action.

The greatest philosphical achievement of western civilization is the concept of universal human rights and that has the name of women, blacks, native Americans, and other all over it.

The old guard started it, but it will take the new to perfect it.

Nothing works perfectly well with no mistakes or regrets; America is no different. I daresay native Americans may diasgree with you as to what advantages White European males have had on their culture. Certainly blacks and women have had a hard path to get to the equality they enjoy today. If people had just said, 'well it's better than other places so why mess with it,' where we they be now?

1. Does a "White Christian male power structure" exist in America?
Yes. The Consitution was written by a bunch of dead (albeit not at the time), white, Christian males. That Constitution defines the governental power structure. Of course there are other power structures as well. There's the "People of Color" power structures, with such luminaries as Jesse Jackson, Condoleeza Rice, Bill Cosby.

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" who benefits from it?
Well, "White Christian males", of course.
And Black animist females, Asian transgendered Hindus, Native American lesbian atheists, etc, etc. We all benefit.

3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?
Well, there's a white, ???, female who's the second most powerful individual in our government, there's a Jewish female on the Supreme Court, there are NWNCNM millionaires and even billionaires who fit quite nicely into our power structure.


BONUS QUESTION: Should the power structure of America remain exclusively in the hands of "White Christian males?"
"Should"? That makes the unfounded assumption that it is exclusively in the hands of WCMs.

1. Does a "White Christian male power structure" exist in America?

Sure, but only because they were the first to rise to power and that's not just on the national level. You could say the same thing about ANY country: Does an oriental male Taoist power structure exist in China? Does an Arab male Muslim power structure exist in Iran? Does a black male Muslim power structure exist in Chad? Absolutely, and for the same reason.

2. IF America is controlled by a "White Christian male power structure" who benefits from it?

When compared to the other countries I mentioned above, it would appear that the average citizen benefits more. Domestically, it’s obvious the group that benefits most would be white males, but again, the reasons are simple: they’ve been in that position longer than any other demographic and their peer network is larger.

3. Where do all the non-White, non-Christian, non-males fit in the "White Christian male power structure?

The non-white-Christian-males in American have possibly the greatest opportunity to “grab that brass ring” than any other place in the world. But just because I’m a WCM doesn’t mean at birth I was handed my Power Structure membership card. As Amlord points out, this country is run more by power families than power individuals.

Should the power structure of America remain exclusively in the hands of "White Christian males?"

Since you never really defined “power structure” I’ll assume you’re talking about politics. If that’s the case and since this is a democracy let the people decide.

But what exactly should the power structure look like? Again I’ll stick with politics. And in this politically correct era we’ve evolved into should the demographic of congress match the demographic of it’s constituents? X% Hispanic male Christian, X% white female Christian, X% black male Christian, X% while male agnostic, etc…

Now, which legislative district gets to elect the Japanese female agnostic?

1) Certainly, there's no question about it. Each of the three branches of government and most industries are run by christian white males. If you relaxed the christian criteria, then you could include academia, entertainment, and pretty much every other major industry in the country.

2) Well, rich people more than anybody benefit from our the country's power structure. Beyond that, I'd say that christian white males tend to benefit more than any other demographic. Now I'm not saying that all christian white males have it easy, or that their typical day looks like that old Eddie Murphy Saturday Night Live skit (a classic by the way). I think the benefits are more subtle than that.

People tend to have expectations for characteristics of who they imagine playing certain roles in society. For example, I think most folks' idea of a doctor, a lawyer, a businessman, a politician, an actor, etc. all include that person being a christian white male. These types of favorable expectations, pre-judgements, or prejudices (whatever you call them) provide a clear advantage for whoever is in that favorably expected group. Furthermore, I think you'll find that christian white males will be represented more than any other group for most of society's positive roles. Similar to the way that people have favorable expectations for roles in society, they can also have unfavorable expectations. An example of that would be a black female as a physics professor or a woman as our president. I think that christian white males are the least represented in folks' unfavorable expectations for positive roles in society.

So to sum up what I've just said, you have positive and negative roles in society. Operating within that idea, you have favorable and unfavorable expectations for characteristics of people in those roles. Most favorable expectations and fewest unfavorable expectations for the positive roles in society include christian white males.

3) Everyone else is the basketball team in green that the globetrotters are always playing against (and whooping on). I'm exaggerating, but there is an element of truth in that exaggeration. I think that it's meaningless for a group to derive a benefit from the power structure if there isn't another group to have a comparative advantage over. The other demographics in society provide the ground level to have the advantage over. It's the "you don't have to outrun the bear" argument.

bonus answer
No, because a power structure in one group's exclusive control tips the playing field and stands in the way of a better meritocracy.




True, you have some non-christian white male power structures peppering the landscape. Detroit city government comes to mind. However most of the few non christian white male ones have limited range and are subordinated by white christian male power structures.

Well, well. I've been out of the country on a work/vacation trip, and love to come back to read things like these.

What would people think about a black female as a physics professor? That's interesting. Who would care? She knows her stuff or doesn't. That's out there sir.

While I admit that people often times have expectations, I believe that race doesn't play into the favorable portion of this argument. For instance, if a black man is caught selling drugs and goes to prison, often times society begins to blame the circumstances of living in the ghetto.

If a white kid goes to jail for doign the same, often time the resounding idea is "what a waste", how could he have gotten caught up in that?

The real question in this debate would be "WHY are white christian males least likely to be in 'unfavorable' roles in our society?

Is it because white men are less likely to be in prison? More likely to graduate from college? More likely to be charitable contributors? (I'm not preaching, but rather asking hypothetical questions).....

The power structure in the US IS arguably often times chock full of White Christian Males. However, one has to ask themselves, how does that really make any difference?

Is this an impediment to growth for another demographic? If so, truly HOW?

I believe that in our nation, we have an on-going (to paraphrase Larry Elder's sentiments) culture of condescension when it comes to minorities, specifically Black Americans.

Our culture automatically assumes that there shouldn't be the same growth and same accomplishment without help from society. Are black people less intelligent? Of course not. Are they less capable? No way.

Time and time again, our society and our world has proven that a hand out based society doesn't fix anything. This is 100% true when it comes to the power structure of the USA as well.

America probably does stand something to be gained from diversity in our leadership, of which there's some but obviously not the majority. However, infinite HARM would be done if it were to be handed out and not earned.

Uh... probably. The question I would ask is; why is that, not what conspiracy of events made it this way? How is it that White Christian males seem to do so well? What are they doing as a group and individually that keeps turing out successes?

Everyone who lives in the US. Especially those who can, in some way, emulate them.

It's not as if White Christian males are some sort of subversive enemy. In fact a lot of them just want to get by and largely want the rest of the country to do the same. When you're in the majority you do tend to have an annoying habit to expect everyone else to act like you. So if you're a White Christian male and you're successful wanting everyone to "act like you" isn't really a bad thing is it?

Well if it is the way you say it is, and I don't think it is, you might want to leave it alone as it seems to be working pretty well.

I think it does. I think it has lost a good amount of the control it used to have, and some of those who are members of it wish that were not the case. I think the United States is biased towards White Christian Males, but that power is lessening every day, and that is a good thing, for many reasons.

• America is supposed to be "the Land of the Free"
• No one should get a free ride, based on factors beyond their control, nor should anyone be held back for those reasons
• Any group that holds power also holds the ability to abuse that power
• All People Are Created Equal

Only White Christian males. Anyone who claims otherwise is making a spurious argument, and will need to take it much further than the erroneous "a rising tide lifts all boats" nonsense, which fails to account for the facts that the United States was built upon the backs of slaves and foreigners, many of whom were treated no better than slaves, while simultaneously exploiting a less technologically advanced indigeneous people, and a wealth of natural resources that few other nations had going for them. If anything, in the years since the era of Civil Rights, this has become even a better nation, which brings some credence to the notion that "a rising tide lifts all boats that don't have leaks, or other boats shooting them."



Originally, they were not meant to have a place, other than serfdom, or servitude. As we have evolved as a society, their place has advanced, first to a level of moderate ranking, and now to a level of potential equality, provided that all members of society work together to keep the progress from being impeded by those who either benefit from the original power structure, or those who are simply ignorant, and fearful of change.



Not just no. The other kind of "no." Whatever biggest way you can say no in no uncertain terms. A nation as great as the United States of America must be elevated to become the very greatest nation it can be. In order for that to happen, we need the input and efforts of all people, of all races, religions, genders and cultures. Any nation whose power structure is controlled by only one type of group is a nation in danger of stagnating, and becoming "formerly great."