The Cabinet for that President Bush has selected for his second term would score very high on the University of Michigan admissions grid. The new cabinet is the most diverse one ever assembled by a president — and that includes the Clinton administration’s two terms. But this has hardly dominated the news (USA Today):
With little fanfare and not much credit, President Bush has appointed a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history.
There has been “little fanfare” for two reasons. First, the liberal media is rarely quick to applaud Bush, especially for achieving the goal of diversity which has become one of the key components of the Democrats’ agenda.
Second, the Republican Party doesn’t believe in grouping people the way that Democrats do. The Dems claim to be the party of diversity and racial harmony, but they are generally the first ones to point out differences between people. Democrats are constantly reaching out to one faction or another, trying to convince each group that their interests will be represented well by the liberal agenda. The end result is predictable: the creation of all of these groups make for political stereotyping that leads to ridiculous phrases like “black leaders” — as if there are just a couple people who speak for all African-Americans in this country — and an inability to fulfill all the promises that are made to each group. The GOP isn’t running around with a checklist, trying to add the “right mix” of ethnic and gender groups in order to play to certain groups. The president is simply choosing people he believes are qualified for their positions. (That the best person should get prestigious positions, independent of color, is part and parcel of the American Dream.) The result has been a diverse cabinet.
In his first term, Bush matched the record that President Clinton set in his first term for appointing women and people of color to the Cabinet, and Bush had a more diverse inner circle at the White House. Since his re-election last month, the president has made a series of groundbreaking nominations.
Bush has named his White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, to be the first Hispanic to hold one of the powerful “big four” Cabinet jobs, attorney general.
He named his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to be the first female African-American secretary of State, the Cabinet’s senior position.
He also nominated Margaret Spellings, his domestic policy adviser, to lead the Education Department and Cuban-born business executive Carlos Gutierrez to head Commerce.
“Bush did not go out and say, ‘I’m going to create an administration that looks like America,’ which is how Clinton led off,” says Paul Light, a political scientist at New York University who has studied presidential appointments. “He has just gone about recruiting a diverse Cabinet as an ordinary act. That’s remarkable in the sense it sends to future administrations: ‘This is just the way we’re going to do business.’ “
This is the way it is supposed to be in our country. When a nation provides equal opportunities to minorities to get good educations and good jobs, that is all anyone can truly expect in this country. At that point, the sky is truly the limit. Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales are just two examples. The Dems, however, have the wrong viewpoint:
Even some Democrats grumbled during the presidential campaign that Bush had more African-Americans and Hispanics among his closest advisers than did Democratic challenger John Kerry, who won a majority of black and Hispanic votes.
“On the Democratic side, we see that and we say, ‘Hmmm,’ ” says Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 and is African-American. She credits Bush with instinctively believing that surrounding himself with able women and people of color helps him make better decisions — a lesson she says some Democratic officeholders and candidates have yet to absorb.
This is not the way to look at hiring. First off, Kerry’s “closest advisers” were likely to be people he knows very well and trusts. If Kerry has come to know and trust three white males who are his best friends and advisers, that’s perfectly acceptable. When you’re dealing with a very small sample size, statistical fluctuation alone is going to produce some odd results. Additionally, it is a horrible (and degrading) attitude to say that, as a party, the Dems need to have a certain number of some group involved in every step of the political process. Qualified minorities should never be used for their race rather than for their skill. We need to get away from this idea that there is some magic number out there that is needed to be politically correct.
More:
Dem ShillsTM: “Tokenism is alive and well in GOP.”
Nathan Novak at 12:10 am
Enough already!
Diversity and Civil Rights are two separate things entirely. A revealing report done by the US Commission on Civil Rights entitled “Refining Rights in America” was recently released much to the chagrin of the Republicans and it doesn’t bode well for the President.
The Bush Administration promotes “race neutral alternatives” instead of promoting affirmative action in federal contracting and education. In many instances this practice is quite ineffective at maintaining diversity.
“The president seems to deliberately, and in a highly disciplined manner, alter public discourse by expressing diversity and civil rights as interchangeable concepts.”
The report also states:
“Although a worthwhile goal, diversity does not necessarily translate into support for civil rights. By conflating the terms, the president minimizes the persistence of discrimination and the remaining barriers to equal opportunity, which are at the center of civil rights.”
Of course Bush supporters are desperately trying to discredit the report calling criticism of his civil rights record hypocritical. “So, Mr. Bush is insensitive to civil rights if he doesn’t appoint minorities, but he’s also insensitive if he does,” cried a Wall Street Journal editorial rant.
This one dimensional way of thinking is sadly typical of many Republicans and Bush supporters oversimplifying the complex issues of race and ethnicity.
The commission report reveals that the appointments he has made actually illustrates the problem with Bush and civil rights: He does not know what the term means. And obviously, neither do the people who have the gall to point to Conoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Kenneth Blackwell, Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales as stellar examples of furthering the cause of civil rights in this country. That’s simply asinine. None of these people effectively or adequately represents–nor can they speak on behalf of African Americans, Latinos or Women.
For example, Miguel Estrada, who is Latino, and Janice Rogers Brown, who is Black. Their mega-conservative views may very well lead to the “eventual weakening of civil rights laws” the civil rights report noted.
Also
During his announcement that his administration would oppose the University of Michigan’s affirmative action system, Bush stated that Michigan’s admissions policies amount to a “quota system” that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race. Bush’s is very aware of the strong negative reaction the word elicits which is why he chose to use the racially charged word “quota.” Howard Dean would often cite this when he was campaigning.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court did rule against George W. Bush and rejected Bush’s position on affirmative action at U of M, ruling that the system was definitely *not* a quota and that the Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” [Source: US Supreme Court 6/23/03]
Not surprisingly, Bush received a legacy preference in his admission to Yale despite the fact that his academic record and test scores were well below the Yale admission average. Bush, Jr. was admitted to Yale University under a legacy program that admitted more than two-thirds of alumni children, even though a disproportionate number flunked out or were placed on probation. Ironically, the numeric advantage given to Bush for his legacy preference was greater than the points given to the minorities students at the University of Michigan. [Sources: NY Times, 6/23/03; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/13/02; Yale Book of Numbers Historical Statistics of the College and University 1701 1973]
It’s clear to anyone awake that the Bush Administration is notorious for silencing or ignoring any voice (regardless of race, gender or ethnicity) that deings to disagree, critique, criticize, question or opposes the president. Moreover, making high profile ethnic appointments is a far cry from promoting civil rights. The mere assertion that it does is actually insulting.
This warped racist rationale only makes sense to racists and bigots who obviously know nothing about civil rights and diversity. It is downright shameful especially when you consider he refuses to listen to their views if it happens to differ from his own. Simply putting Black faces in high places without backing it up with federal funds and the political will necessary to ensure effective civil rights enforcement, is nothing but a transparent pretense.
Comment by Oliver — December 12, 2004 @ 3:12 pm
Considering the fact that the words “civil rights” were not once mentioned in our article, I can not understand why this was left as a comment here. In the future if you’re looking to bait and switch our readers into looking at your cut-and-paste article from elsewhere, the proper way to do it is with a trackback.
Comment by Nathan J. Novak — December 13, 2004 @ 2:14 pm