There are no “Republicans” anymore. (Ronald Reagan started the destruction of the Republican Party by welcoming Jerry Falwell and his Christers into the Party). Now Trump has taken over over and created the Christo-Fascist Party that now occupies the space formerly held by the likes of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon (a criminal to be sure but a Constitutionalist non the less), George HW Bush and his son GW, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Let us get real. Language means everything. And this trump ilk is NOT conservative. By any definition of that word. (Read William F. Buckley on the true meaning of Conservatism.) Trump’s MAGA people are white-Christian Nationalists. The very people Willian Buckley, to his credit, ostracized from the Republican Party in the late 50s. Because they are Fascist and Buckley understood who these people were and are. He understood they want to control your private life from the cradle to the grave. And that’s not “Conservative”. And he knew they would start with women. But, if these new-Nazis get power we are all doomed.
It's pretty silly to pretend that race should never play a factor in any decisions, that's just not how people function in the real world. But our goal should be to live in a world where race matters as little as possible and candidates are chosen on merit to the greatest extent possible. If Republicans actually don't like identity politics then they should stop engaging in it. Unfortunately today's GOP is obsessed with race and identity, which is why they are talking about DEI constantly and policy very little.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. I reject the notion of the "white man" - there is no such thing. Joe Biden has very little in common with most people who we call "white" (or anyone else). This form of succumbing to our ape instincts is bad and Western liberalism has been saying it's bad for over a 100 years. We're correct. It's bad.
However - the fact that it's bad doesn't mean it's not massively influential. So - if for the time being we need to shame people into lying about their DEI hires then - yes - that is "better" than suddenly changing course and collectively encouraging and defending racist (read: ape tribalist) practices, which are at the heart of everything we've been struggling to outgrow as a species.
Once we agree that racist practices are bad we can deal with the imperfect world where they're sometimes still present in various ways - and we can work to stamp them out as is possible.
And it makes me happy to see the nation vote for a person whom *they* see as "black" or "woman" or whatever - so from a realpolitik stance I think it's important to push such people into the spotlight and help the populace shed yet another layer of their tribal tendencies but it still has have the optics of meritocracy.
Kamala seems like a competent and clever individual - it would not have been a lie to say she's amongst the best candidates for the position and as an after thought add that it would be nice to see [immutable characteristics] in the role of VP for the first time. But that can't be what they lead with... unless the Nazis were right all along and I'm pretty sure that they aren't.
Sorry to all the anti DEI ideologues but the DEI vs Meritocracy debate is a straw man.
First there never has been any sort of meritocracy in our society that isn't driven by economic advantages.
Everyone wants equality of opportunity but not equality of results. DEI is one of the tools to achieve equality of opportunity and demonstrate merit
DEI might help get one in the door but only merit will allow one to stay and advance.
To hide behind a theoretical but non-existent meritocracy in order to guarantee and justify continued homogeneity, inequity and exclusion (HIE) based largely on economic advantages doesn’t speak of racism of the past but racism of the present and future.
Sure, but if we want to actually achieve a future meritocracy, DEI doesn't quite seem like the way to do it. And there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. Reduce poverty across the board for all races and I think that will achieve better results.
Because meritocracy never has been and never will be. It is an unattainable goal. Kind of like SOME Democrats and their "Medicare for all" and defund the police thing. Never going to happen.
I agree that DEI is a blunt instrument but it all we have until something better comes along. DEI has in fact helped lift many out of poverty of all races. Anyone who comes from a disadvantaged background and has benefited from ANY institutional assistance philosophically aligned with the goals of DEI has benefited from DEI even though not labeled as such.
Hopefully, in time, DEI will be replaced by "natural" diversity, equity and inclusion. Voting rights will be naturally given to all citizens without any special federal enforcement. Civil rights and freedom from discrimination will naturally flow to all citizens without the creation of protected classes. Check out Berea College in Kentucky to see how a more natural DEI is cultivated. https://www.berea.edu/
Or is that like meritocracy always a mirage "down the road" but somehow never obtained?
We are all well aware of the staggering lower test scores of black admits at all academic levels. In the case of law school that’s the LSAT, and you can easily look up what a huge advantage blacks get relative to their scores. That’s what “affirmative action” is.
Harris even adds to this basically sleeping her way up the career ladder.
So yes, she is an unaccomplished and unqualified woman who’s only where she is because of identity politics.
As opposed to a felon and adjudicated rapist.
My take on the whole DEI "controversy," FWIW
https://mchubbard.substack.com/p/did-you-know-that-jd-vance-is-a-dei?r=1n0un3
My take on the whole Kamala was a DEI Hire, FWIW:
https://mchubbard.substack.com/p/did-you-know-that-jd-vance-is-a-dei
I’m waiting with eagerness for the Vice Presidential debate..
There are no “Republicans” anymore. (Ronald Reagan started the destruction of the Republican Party by welcoming Jerry Falwell and his Christers into the Party). Now Trump has taken over over and created the Christo-Fascist Party that now occupies the space formerly held by the likes of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon (a criminal to be sure but a Constitutionalist non the less), George HW Bush and his son GW, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Let us get real. Language means everything. And this trump ilk is NOT conservative. By any definition of that word. (Read William F. Buckley on the true meaning of Conservatism.) Trump’s MAGA people are white-Christian Nationalists. The very people Willian Buckley, to his credit, ostracized from the Republican Party in the late 50s. Because they are Fascist and Buckley understood who these people were and are. He understood they want to control your private life from the cradle to the grave. And that’s not “Conservative”. And he knew they would start with women. But, if these new-Nazis get power we are all doomed.
Kamala “…swiftly staked an undisputed claim on the Democratic nomination”?
I don’t think so. Democrat donors, the Clintons and Obamas made it happen.
So many labels, so little time.
Donald Trump has hired .more DEI incompetents than anyone on the planet. And not just Navarro, Gorka and their ilk. But the real D E I screwballs:
Don jr.,
Eric,
Ivanka.
So you don't believe black women can be competent?
It's pretty silly to pretend that race should never play a factor in any decisions, that's just not how people function in the real world. But our goal should be to live in a world where race matters as little as possible and candidates are chosen on merit to the greatest extent possible. If Republicans actually don't like identity politics then they should stop engaging in it. Unfortunately today's GOP is obsessed with race and identity, which is why they are talking about DEI constantly and policy very little.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. I reject the notion of the "white man" - there is no such thing. Joe Biden has very little in common with most people who we call "white" (or anyone else). This form of succumbing to our ape instincts is bad and Western liberalism has been saying it's bad for over a 100 years. We're correct. It's bad.
However - the fact that it's bad doesn't mean it's not massively influential. So - if for the time being we need to shame people into lying about their DEI hires then - yes - that is "better" than suddenly changing course and collectively encouraging and defending racist (read: ape tribalist) practices, which are at the heart of everything we've been struggling to outgrow as a species.
Once we agree that racist practices are bad we can deal with the imperfect world where they're sometimes still present in various ways - and we can work to stamp them out as is possible.
And it makes me happy to see the nation vote for a person whom *they* see as "black" or "woman" or whatever - so from a realpolitik stance I think it's important to push such people into the spotlight and help the populace shed yet another layer of their tribal tendencies but it still has have the optics of meritocracy.
Kamala seems like a competent and clever individual - it would not have been a lie to say she's amongst the best candidates for the position and as an after thought add that it would be nice to see [immutable characteristics] in the role of VP for the first time. But that can't be what they lead with... unless the Nazis were right all along and I'm pretty sure that they aren't.
Sorry to all the anti DEI ideologues but the DEI vs Meritocracy debate is a straw man.
First there never has been any sort of meritocracy in our society that isn't driven by economic advantages.
Everyone wants equality of opportunity but not equality of results. DEI is one of the tools to achieve equality of opportunity and demonstrate merit
DEI might help get one in the door but only merit will allow one to stay and advance.
To hide behind a theoretical but non-existent meritocracy in order to guarantee and justify continued homogeneity, inequity and exclusion (HIE) based largely on economic advantages doesn’t speak of racism of the past but racism of the present and future.
Sure, but if we want to actually achieve a future meritocracy, DEI doesn't quite seem like the way to do it. And there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. Reduce poverty across the board for all races and I think that will achieve better results.
Because meritocracy never has been and never will be. It is an unattainable goal. Kind of like SOME Democrats and their "Medicare for all" and defund the police thing. Never going to happen.
I agree that DEI is a blunt instrument but it all we have until something better comes along. DEI has in fact helped lift many out of poverty of all races. Anyone who comes from a disadvantaged background and has benefited from ANY institutional assistance philosophically aligned with the goals of DEI has benefited from DEI even though not labeled as such.
Hopefully, in time, DEI will be replaced by "natural" diversity, equity and inclusion. Voting rights will be naturally given to all citizens without any special federal enforcement. Civil rights and freedom from discrimination will naturally flow to all citizens without the creation of protected classes. Check out Berea College in Kentucky to see how a more natural DEI is cultivated. https://www.berea.edu/
Or is that like meritocracy always a mirage "down the road" but somehow never obtained?
Harris should get out in front of Rebpuvlican attacks by defining herself as a tough on crime prosecutor and let the attackers play whataboutism.
Seems to be her strategy so far. Thank God it isn't 2020 any more.
We are all well aware of the staggering lower test scores of black admits at all academic levels. In the case of law school that’s the LSAT, and you can easily look up what a huge advantage blacks get relative to their scores. That’s what “affirmative action” is.
Harris even adds to this basically sleeping her way up the career ladder.
So yes, she is an unaccomplished and unqualified woman who’s only where she is because of identity politics.
I admit that I find it odd that this piece argues that “Harris is the only option on the ballot for […] safeguarding civil liberties” while completely brushing her horrific record on gun rights (https://texas.gunowners.org/kamala-harris-is-the-gun-owners-worst-nightmare/ & https://x.com/JoeyMannarinoUS/status/1818381487516926275) under the rug; if you believe other issues are more important, fine, but surely a classically liberal publication should at least mention such blatant illiberalism.
Is gun licensing illiberalism? They don't feel that way in England or Australia. Those places still seem pretty liberal.
You might have a point if that was as far as she goes on the issue, but it’s not.
Good post. Controversy creates conversation!