During the campaign, Senator Obama told us that he represented a new way of doing politics. (Turns out, that mostly meant that surrogates, especially liberal blogs and liberal media, got to throw the mud harder than ever while the Chosen One feigned shock at their tactics.)
Senator Obama told us that he was the beginning of “post-racial” America. (Of course, he then dredged up the specter of horrid, right-wing bigots who would shreik, “You can’t elect him; he’s got a funny name like one of them dag-burned fureners!” Some of us suspected he wasn’t as post-racial as he wanted to pretend he was for the general election.)
And now this.
I opened my paper this morning (allegedly neutral in the election… yeah, right) to be treated to the headline of, “Obama delivers diversity, but minorities want more.”
Well, of course “they” want more; the whole purpose of a victim group is to wring power and money out of someone by playing the guilt card. There is never enough to satisfy a victim-based group, and there never will be.
The article goes on to explain that president-elect Obama’s Cabinet picks put him on track for the most diverse Cabinet ever. The Latinos are griping that Commerce Secretary isn’t an important enough reward for the support they gave Obama during the election (a Telemundo reporter even derided the post as a “consolation prize”). Asian-Americans are complaining that they haven’t gotten anybody in the Cabinet yet at all. (Chicago politics, at its finest; I got you this election, now you owe me.)
Don’t worry, though, the article assures us, “Obama is allaying early concerns that a black president wouldn’t need to put much emphasis on diversity among those working for him.”
Oh, yeah, I was terribly worried that “my” groups (wordy bloggers, Slovaks, Germans, stay-at-home-moms, adoptive parents, veterans) wouldn’t be represented in Obama’s Cabinet. I mean, hey, I’m a sub-group, too, don’t I get to complain that my interests aren’t being represented?
Going into the Naval Academy, I had this (apparently bizarre) idea that position was awarded by merit, not who you knew, who you schmoozed, or who you were. That a cute smile and minority status had nothing to do with getting ahead. My mistake. Strangely, I carried this odd preconception into the Fleet, where it was proved even more wrong on my first ship (along gender and schmoozing lines).
Now, here we are lauding its occurance at the highest levels of government.
I don’t really care if the entire Supreme Court or Presidential Cabinet (or any other governmental department or sub-group) is made up entirely of old white guys or entirely of double-jointed lepers of mixed Aztec/Aleut background.
I want the best people for the job. Period.
I do not want people picked to “properly” round out the diversity of the company, the committe, or the Cabinet. I want the best person.
I do not want people passed over because their ethnic/gender/whatever quota is “full”. I want the best person.
Why is this such a bizarre concept?
So far, of Obama’s seven Cabinet announcements, there have been two white men, two white women, one black man, one black woman, and one Latino man. Does this mean we’re due for a Latina for the next announcement?
The Navy has tried to get into this game lately with the selection of four-star admirals. “Well, they should represent the diversity of the Navy as a whole,” goes the reasoning. No, they should somewhat represent the diversity of the junior officers in the Navy from about fifteen to twenty years ago, or, more exactly, the diversity of people who stayed long enough to be eligible for promotion to flag rank. That’s the pool you’re drawing admirals from right now, not today’s Navy. This is supposed to be about qualifications and leadership, not whether or not you wear a skirt or where you fall on the color bar.
The Cabinet (even when lumped with other top-level appointments) is too small a statistical sample to try to make it look like the diversity of America, but, apparently, president-elect Obama is trying. I’m not even going to say that I hope president-elect Obama is picking people based primarily on their qualifications, because the fact that his transition team is even discussing this with the special interest groups (and the media) shows that race is a major factor.
The question, as it is with the admirals, is, “What pool are you drawing from?” Do the upper echelons of experienced politicians and policy experts reflect the diversity of America? I seriously doubt it.
You’re not going to have as many women, because motherhood is not particularly compatible with high-pressure political careers, although a few have managed it. So, I wouldn’t expect there to be as many women as men in the upper levels of government. To force the gender ratio to mimic that of the general population would mean more-qualified candidates would be passed over for being male, and those women who were truly qualified for their appointment would always leave people wondering (or openly snickering), “Did she get the post because she wears a skirt?”
You will probably have more Jews and Asians, because both of those groups tend to strongly favor education. Their college graduation and success rates are disproportionally high, compared to the general population. So, I would expect there to be more of them in upper levels of government. Are we going to restrict the selection of highly qualified candidates because their ethnic quota is “full”?
What’s next? Is every twenty person committee going to have to have three Latinos (15%), 2.4 blacks (12%), ten women, one Jew, etc.? How about every other minority? Do they all get at least one seat, too? Do we really prove we’re “beyond race” by checking off quota boxes?
Or, as it looks to be developing, is that not enough? Do we have to over-compensate for past discrimination by instituting new discrimination? By forcing over-representation to appease special interest groups?
It looks like the answer is, “Yes, we can!”
Post-racial America my foot.
(I was going to say something a bit stronger than “foot”, but I’m trying to lose my sailor mouth.)
Your right, an individual should not be passed over because of their ethnicity/gender/ect. It is not a bizarre concept that the best qualified people should be entrusted with leading this country.
That being said, do you think the individuals in Obama’s cabinet are unfit and are not qualified for their post. Do you believe the reasons they are in office is because of their race and a need to fill some sort of quota.
I am not stating creating a cabinet reflecting the best of America in all aspects was not considered. But I can certainly bet, none of those people are being given a job post because of their race or gender. I mean these people had to undergo rigorous investigating in to be placed on the short list. They are there based on their works.
Lastly, would you mind further explaining what you mean by “victim-based group.” I just want to be certain I understand exactly what you are trying to convey, without jumping to a unjustified conclusion.
Something to read to your children after putting the last piece of “government-issued” wood on the fire.
http://www.groundbreaking.com/Good_Sam/Rhyme003.htm
Victorieux,
I do not doubt that the individuals Obama has picked for his cabinet are at least reasonably well qualified for their posts. Generally, the talking heads on the news seem to think they’re pretty well qualified; I’m not trying to claim that Obama picked totally unfit people just for being the right race or gender.
My question is whether or not these are the best people for the posts. My assertion is that race or gender are not proper criteria to eliminate people, even from the short list, for Cabinet posts or government appointments. With all the talk of “Obama delivers on diversity promises” (which seemed to be the subject of all four of WordPress’s automatically generated “related posts”), it seems that picking the best person for the job was not president-elect Obama’s only criteria. Lacking any reasonable criteria for doing so, it’s a form of racism or sexism to favor somebody for a job for being a minority or a woman, just as it is racist or sexist to deny them a job for the same reasons.
After all the promises to usher in a post-racial America, this is not a good start.
To explain “victim-based group”: I’m talking about advocacy groups that seem to focus on blaming everyone else for their problems, and even seem to discourage solutions and reconciliation for the purposes of continuing their power. Also, advocacy groups that take the, “We were oppressed/discriminated against, therefore we’re going to do the same thing to you to get even.”
Advocating for equal opportunities and treatment is a very good thing. Advocating for special treatment is something else. If an Hispanic was passed over for a Cabinet post before, in spite of being the most qualified, we can’t fix that now by giving Cabinet posts to Hispanics who aren’t the most qualified. NOW, the main feminist group right now, plays this game, too; anyone who says something they don’t like is screamed down with, “You just want women barefoot, uneducated, beaten, and trapped in the kitchen!” This is not conducive to moving forward together, it only contributes to increasing Balkanization of American society.
There are advocacy groups out there that are doing good work by encouraging more diverse views of history and the world. I learned a lot from some of my profs in college who took time out once in a while from battles and presidents to focus on why, for example, the Confederacy could do what it did because of the work of women and slaves on the farms back home. When I teach my daughter history, we talk about the influence of colonial women, like Abigail Adams, on their husbands and their communities, and of the critical work they did at home to make it possible for the men to go do things that wind up in history books. While walking around my neighborhood last February, a grade schooler saw my Chinese-born daughter in the stroller and called out, “Gong hai fa tsai!” a Chinese New Year greeting. I wished that I had gotten to learn something about other cultures several decades back when I was in grade school.
We are all enriched by diversity and appreciating both our own cultures and those of others, but people will not appreciate others’ cultures if you begin by saying, “Our culture is interesting, creative, smart, and can do no wrong, but your culture (white, whatever the heck that means) is stupid, oppressive, and bad.” Yes, history and the world are certainly about a lot more than dead white males, but we also have to acknowledge that European and American history are very important and, well, there’s a lot of dead white males to talk about.
Racism and sexism are not ended by establishing quotas. They’re ended by giving everyone a fair chance to rise (or fall) based on their abilities and talents, with no consideration of race or gender. Then we learn to genuinely appreciate each other as we are, not as stereotypes or as competitors for special benefits.
As Booker T. Washington said, “No greater injury can be done to any youth than to let him feel that because he belongs to this or that race he will be advanced in life regardless of his own merits or efforts.”
Thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant by “victim-based group.” I don’t like to make assumptions and In the context that it was originally placed, I thought you were trying to say something completely different.
For the most part I agree with your post. I don’t completely agree with you but I do see where your coming from.
Always a pleasure, reading your posts.
In my book, if one finds one’s self having to even think, “How is my cabinet looking, diversity-wise?” they’re not going about it properly.
Give me the best man for the job. (oh, or woman.)