After the paragraph about how Pence, Vance, and Ryan are identity hires, this article became a little difficult to take seriously. The author sees no relevant distinction between an immutable racial identity and an ideological identity?
He is being either disingenuous or dumb. Hopefully the former.
The banal insight that some identity layers are immutable and some are choosable is far less argumentatively decisive than you think in this particular context. In some contexts, the distinction matters, but you've waded into a discussion about presidential politics—specifically, about how presidents go about selecting vice-presidential nominees. Which is a context in which that distinction dissolves into irrelevance. In other contexts, the distinction between mutable (e.g., I'm an athlete) and immutable (e.g., I'm Hispanic) identity layers matters greatly. I'm responsible for being, or not being, the first in a way in which I cannot be responsible for the second. It thus makes sense to say something like, "I've worked hard to be an athlete" in a way in which it wouldn't to substitute "Hispanic" for "athlete." But in the context of presidential nominees choosing VPs, the distinction isn't relevant.
Each of the three cases hovering in the background of this discussion—Trump picking Pence, Trump picking Vance, Biden picking Harris—involves a presidential nominee selecting someone boasting two things: (1) a political CV filled with successes and accolades and (2) certain identity-based characteristics thought to be conducive to the presidential nominee's success. Regarding the first quality, that's something all three possess. Pence, Vance, and Harris have had success politically—enough to put them on the map and become viable options for the president. What about the second characteristic? Pence is a softspoken evangelical midwesterner; Vance is an outspoken America First social conservative with white working class buy-in; Harris is a black woman with prosecutorial abilities/debate-readiness. Those aren't my own characterizations; those rationales were widely reported-on and have come to be our received understanding of why those picks were made. Now take a look at the descriptions for Pence, Vance, and Harris. Should Pence's being an evangelical or a midwesterner be rendered meritorious on his behalf, when it comes to why he was chosen? Part of why Vance was chosen was his ideological commitments—should we "credit" him with having achieved them and on that basis managed to get himself selected? Notice that these are all "mutable" identity layers; that is, Vance could change his mind and become a fierce Trump critic, if he wanted to (we know because he was one). Pence might've become an agnostic and ruined his chances to reach a constituency Trump wanted. Pence wasn't locked-in to being an evangelical forever. You're making a great deal about mutable characteristics like this one, but you have to ask yourself if that feature makes any difference here. What about Harris? Harris' being black is on the immutable side of things. Here's the point: none of these things—from the mutable to the immutable—accrues to the candidates as meritorious qualities that deserve praise. "Damn, Pence really nailed being an evangelical. Top marks to him for being such an attentive listener during Sunday sermons." "Vance's ideological convictions is some gold medal level stuff. He's earned it." That's not how we think of these qualities, even if we agree that they're mutable ones. If you want to ding Harris for the fact that her being a woman and her being black counted as part of the mix of factors that led to her selection, you have to do the same for Pence's evangelical midwesternness, or Vance's ideological zeal.
Where, then, does merit come in? Again, that's grounded in (1), above: their political accomplishments, experiences, and effectiveness. All three boast that.
All three have CVs filled with their accomplishments and abilities—and that's the part where their merit comes in. But they also have "extra-CV" identity layers, if you will—identity layers that the presidential nominees found useful to their prospects. Aspects of Pence's identity could help Trump secure buy-in with a constituency (evangelical Christians in middle America) that was foreign and alien to Trump; aspects of Vance's identity can help Trump secure a different constituency (white working class) that he thinks is crucial next go round; and aspects of Harris's identity helped Biden secure a constituency that Biden couldn't relate to as effectively on his own (women and African Americans). And Vance and Harris were also picked with an eye toward the future of their respective party's trajectories.
Look... I want Harris to win. Or more accurately, I am extremely concerned about Trump winning so... anyone else will do (and whatever Harris' perceived or actual shortcomings are, she's neither fond of dictators nor eager to be one herself).
But when it comes to DEI the Democrats are staring down the barrel of the biggest gaslight of all time. Either they are fond of this initiative and believe in it and think that diversity by diktat is a good thing (or a necessary evil, or however they want to frame it as a positive). Or they don't.
They CAN'T have it both ways. If it's a positive then there's no shame in being a DEI hire. If it's a negative then they need to assert that it's been a misguided effort by the extreme Left and they're sorry they were on board and it was a mistake for Biden to insist that "black" and "female" were the first criteria by which he'd be selecting his VP. But you can't tell people that that's not what happened because it IS what happened... we have the receipts. It's not racist to say Harris was a DEI hire because that's what she was by definition.
And maybe that's a good thing (I happen to think it's not, but I've been wrong before) but they can't simultaneously say that DEI is a good thing AND that people who are hired through the DEI pipeline can't be described that way because describing them that way is "racist".
Hiring people through quotas based on their immutable characteristics is a racist practice. Telling people that to notice this fact is to be racist is self evidently a gaslight. If the Dems want to win (and again - I really want them to win) they can't keep doubling down on this self evident contradiction and chastising and shaming people who notice this emperor is wearing no clothes.
Kind of like how Republicans can't have it both ways on abortion by saying it should be "left to the states". Either they want to ban it everywhere or they have changed their minds and want it to be legal everywhere.
Politics is all about having your cake and eating it too. Trump wants to "fight inflation", but also he wants to implement a 10% tarrif on all imports, which would obviously lead to inflation. Some Democrats like affirmative action, some don't. Part of why Dems are turning from DEI is that they've realized it's unpopular, part of the reason is that evidence shows that it only makes people more racist. Either way, I think it's a good thing when political parties move away from unpopular ideas. That's kind of the point of Democracy.
The problem with DEI is that it ostensibly promotes "diversity" and of course what reasonable modern person can be against diversity? Indeed - diversity is essential to a thriving culture.
But rather than being an aspirational project that broadly tracks statistics and more importantly takes into account people's experience and economic backgrounds and points of view as measures of how diverse they are, they decided to go the Marxist route and just work on ethnic and gender quotas.
I'm not using the word Marxist as a virtue signal to throw the "libs" under the bus - I'm using it in its historical and contextually applicable way.
My mother wasn't admitted to university after she graduated highschool with a gold medal (meaning she never got anything less than an A on any assignment during her school tenure). Why? Because Jews were 2% of the population and already at the 2% university student body quota so there was no more room for them.
This was Soviet Russia in the 60s. This was DEI in all its Marxist glory.
Martin Luther King Jr. nailed this puppy... we don't need to improve upon his work. Just put it into practice and give it some time. It's BEEN working marvels. All we need is a little patience and compassion for those who aren't getting their due fast enough.
Please tell me what constitutes a DEI hire, she has all the accomplishments expected. What maker her different from the "default".
Ronald made it a point to put a women on the court & its not like there just getting random Dicks & Janes off the street, furthermore lets not act like folks are color-blind here pal.
Any time you start with the criteria of a specific immutable characteristic rather than qualification it's by definition a DEI hire. I'm not saying that as a pejorative, although I personally find it reprehensible, but the whole point if DEI is to elevate people based on things like skin color and gender rather than ability or specific personal experience.
Biden expressly declared that this was how he was going to find and pick his VP and then did.
This obviously doesn't mean that she's not qualified but indeed no one suggests that DEI is the express desire to hire unqualified people It just means prioritizing their immutable traits over their qualifications and subsequently excluding people with different immutable traits which I assert is patently racist and therefore bad.
social media tends to not bring out the best in people so I will ignore your insult though I Will ask you to consider that if we were standing next to each other and you accused me of word salad rather than asking for clarification to what I'm saying I would simply walk away from you because such a remark would indicate that you are unqualified to engage in civil discourse and I think people should try to bring their real world personalities to this medium as hard as that is to do.
The fact that it may have been necessary to hire a black woman as VP in order to engage a certain population and secure their vote is entirely plausible but that doesn't change the definition of DEI.
No need to be sensitive, I just feel you're being rather naive in regards to the broader picture. Do you hold DEI to the same accord as nepotism, cronyism & other anti-meritocratic means...
I wasn't being sensitive. I was pointing out that you were being rude and that in the real world I would not continue to engage with you.
if I'm being naive I would encourage you to explain in what way.
I think DEI may be worse than the other antimiratocratic mechanisms you mentioned but only because it is applied institutionally and has developed a reputation that is obviously far less negative than the others while being just as pernicious.
Yevgeny is not sensitive, just as President Trump is not a racist or a sexist. The problem with accusing people of crimes of intent, after COVId lockdowns/vaccines, Ukraine, Gaza, and four years of hunting MAGA voters, is your accusations are unprovable and nobody trusts your cabal. Why not zip it up, and hope the mail in vote harvesters are diligent enough to win you another election?
White men make up 35% of the electorate since 1980. Of the 8 sets of candidates run by Democrats since 1980, 4 have had exclusively white men. The probably that this pattern represents a bias in favor of white men is 71%, which does not rise to statistical significance. For Republicans it has been 7 of 8, the probability that this reflects a bias in favor of white men is 99.7%
Republicans also select based on immutable characteristics, specifically their candidates need to be white men for identity politics reasons.
This is like the old practice of selecting for regional balance. The part of the country where you grew up is also immutable and back in the day that was an important identity that parties catered too.
Identity has always played a role in American politics because people often vote for people they see as like them.
Mike, I think your premise starts begging the question with the first 2 words. We've fallen into this comfortable and totally unexamined pattern of grouping people by things like skin color as though it means something. What exactly is a "white man" (when not being used as a pejorative by a Native American in a 1970s Hollywood Western)? Isn't it time we stop repeating the absurd and totally unscientific notion that "white men" have anything monolithic about them?
Now - if you want to get into issues of specific cultures and nationalities and wealth classes (you mention regions where people grow up), I'm willing to entertain a lot more uniformity in those striations and perhaps we should try to encourage institutions to pull people from more diverse backgrounds in this respect. But that diversity needs to reduce skin color to the same level of irrelevance as hair and eye color. These are not important factors and they say very little about an individual. I can tell you that many would regard me as "white" (though many others would not). What do you now know about me? Just about nothing.
Yes - we are tribal creatures that use superficial factors (amongst many others) to try to in/out group everyone around us and in the wider world. That's a factor of our innate behavior that we've been struggling to subdue for quite a while and, on the whole, we've been making a lot of progress.
The idea that this project has been a waste of time and we should just all see each other as white men and black women is highly dubious and I see no good evidence for moving in that direction.
You brought up the immutable characteristic. If one is going to call Bidens deliberate selection of a nonwhite woman to balance the ticket as an identity politics (DEI) hire, then one can call Republicans overwhelming bias in favor of white men as the same thing.
My point was that this "balance" didn't take into account her height or weight or if she'd ever lost a kid in a car accident or had measles or won a state fair or grew up in Bangalore. It only factored in her gender and skin color. That's the definition of DEI. If Biden felt his ticket needed a half black,half South Asian woman to be more competitive that may have been a politically expedient choice. But announcing ahead of time that he's going to pick a woman of color makes that a DEI decision.
And I repeat that perhaps that's how they want to play it. They can insist that merit is secondary to a racially diverse staff. it's not a crazy argument. But they can't hire her this way and then pretend they didn't. We were there, we watched it happen.
The other stuff you brought up was all opinion and insults based on opinion. Oh, did you forget to look up "fact" and "opinion?" You should sue the grade school, high school, and college that never pointed you towards a dictionary.
The problem is that DEI is being used to mean different things to different people and the response of “she’s not a DEI hire” or the related “that’s a racist accusation” are dealing in the DEI as perceived by people who view it as purely about promoting unqualified minorities for a goal of equal socio-economic outcomes. That isn’t what promoters of DEI see it as or intend for it, so in a different context they may well say “yes, DEI is good and Harris is a good example”, but when you use the derogatory definition then “no, Harris isn’t DEI, I.e. unqualified and put up just to satisfy optics)”.
In other words, it isn’t hypocritical at all and you are oversimplifying what people mean. I don’t know you so I’m hesitant to ascribe motive (conscious or otherwise), but your take feels to me like trying to be “above it all” and the sane/independent thinker amongst a bunch of ideologues.
Of course what "DEI" actually means is at the heart of it and I'm doing my best to apply it as I understand people to mean it. But if you (meaning "one") are in the camp that believes that DEI is an effective practice and ought to be promoted and celebrated (nevermind what you believe it means - however you interpret it you are on the side of endorsing it and being in favor of it) you can't rationally take umbrage at it when someone says it was used to hire someone.
I totally take your point that the person using it in a derogatory way is (almost certainly) interpreting it somewhat differently or at least focused on the negative side-effects rather than the positive ones (and there are both present to be sure). But the term is the term. You can't say you love cake and then get angry at me when I call you a cake lover - even if I'm saying it as a pejorative because I happen to hate cake, or whatnot.
I'm not trying to be "above it all" (other than not get bogged down in personal attacks and or pointless negativity). I'm just describing how I see this issue and laying out in the clearest terms possible why I see it this way.
I appreciate you engaging on this in good faith and apologize for the speculation of your approach. I actually immediately tried to go back and edit that out as soon as I posted it as I realized it was unfair and unproductive but my comment didn’t show up and I couldn’t figure out how to edit it (using the app).
Anyway, to follow up on your cake analogy, I think a more appropriate scenario would be one side using cake to mean a sweet baked enjoyable food and those accusing you of being a cake lover meaning yellow cake uranium for more nuclear bombs, or something crazy like that. I think it’s fair to argue that Harris and the Dems could be clearer in their messaging to call out what they perceive the charges against her to be, but I also feel like we should recognize how hard that is in such a polarized environment with a term that is still relatively new in political discourse and yet carries so much baggage.
You're correct and it's ultimately impossible to thread this needle while running a political campaign were every noise you make and every face you show is going to get mined for every ounce of bad faith political utility by your opponents.
However outside the campaign it shouldn't be so hard for people who claim to be in favor of DEI to either acknowledge that it is a zero sum practice where people with certain genetic traits will be selected ahead of people without those traits specifically to bring about a greater equilibrium as to how those trait holders are represented across our institutions OR to explain what their actual goals are and how the above description mischaracterizes them.
I'm extremely open to the notion that the people who are opposed to DEI in good faith misunderstand its aims somehow, but I am a refugee from a "communist" dystopia where these practices were implemented precisely as they are described today and led to horrible outcomes and collective mystery so I can't just politely let it go and hope for the best.
Much more likely is that the people who are in favor of it have been bamboozled by it's ostensible kindness towards the underprivileged and has been snuck into our discourse by actual Marxists who realized that the ground is fertile for planting the seeds in what was a genuinely wonderful civil rights movement.
Even the language is similar. giving everybody equal opportunity sounds like it can be easily mistaken or extesed to simply putting people in places due to the color of their skin.
anyway I'm rambling but I take your point that when somebody calls you a "Jew lover" it's hard to shake your head proudly in agreement and proclaim YES I AM!! because you understand that they intended as an insult but it's probably best for everyone if you just lean into it. That's what I have done in the past and it actually works to disarm the attacker because suddenly what they think is an insult is being acknowledged as a compliment.
it's sort of the way the gay community conquered the term "Queer".
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?
You complain about the opposition picking on Harris for a DEI choice, and then admit she was a DEI choice.
DEI is an evil burden placed on society. It's a disease that is affecting how seriously the rest of the world takes the US. If people can't accomplish on merit, they don't deserve the rewards. It's as simple as that. This is not 70, 50 or even 30 years ago. It's time to STOP pandering to race because identity politics are nothing more than a reversion to the racist past.
I share your disgust with identity politics but let's not pretend that everyone was making hiring decisions based on merit before DEI came along. The whole reason it became a thing is that hiring managers WEREN'T making decisions based on merit.
Let's also not pretend that nobody was making hiring decisions based on merit. Like most all things woke, they make sacred the plea of every minority and make it seem like it's the majority problem. Racism, bigotry, inequality are all slowly being weeded out as society progresses. We live in a time in the West were we are in the top percentage in the world in terms of standard of living, everyone can fairly vote and there is an unprecedented amount of opportunity.
50, 40 and even 30 years ago, I think it was safe to say we needed DEI controls around certain parts of society.
That's no longer the case, and it's now doing more harm than good, being weaponized politically and creating far more division and collateral damage than any benefit being achieved.
Our children are being taught racism all over again.
Time to just let it go. It's doing far more harm than good these days.
The race obsessed left should admitt, she is not black, and 100% of her policies disproportionately impact poor citizens negatively. "Poor" is ofteb conflated with "minority" communities, because no community has ever been elevated to even the middle class by our federal ruling class.
Unfortunately, she can not be "Indian" either, because the US Indian population is roughly twice as affluent as the domestic white population right now. US Indians do not want or need federal "help." In fact, they will soon be asked to pay "their fair share" to an bloated federal bureaucracy that only helps politically active billionaires and/or oligarchs and politicians.
I suppose, I wonder if you think your base has not seen a thousand fluff articles that praise Kamala without listing any accomplishments and insult President Trump. Does this seem like persuasion?
Her dad is black and her mom is Indian so...she's not black or Indian? Would love to hear all your thoughts on how mixed race children are allowed to be referred to. Since it's the left that is obsessed with race.
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.
After the paragraph about how Pence, Vance, and Ryan are identity hires, this article became a little difficult to take seriously. The author sees no relevant distinction between an immutable racial identity and an ideological identity?
He is being either disingenuous or dumb. Hopefully the former.
The banal insight that some identity layers are immutable and some are choosable is far less argumentatively decisive than you think in this particular context. In some contexts, the distinction matters, but you've waded into a discussion about presidential politics—specifically, about how presidents go about selecting vice-presidential nominees. Which is a context in which that distinction dissolves into irrelevance. In other contexts, the distinction between mutable (e.g., I'm an athlete) and immutable (e.g., I'm Hispanic) identity layers matters greatly. I'm responsible for being, or not being, the first in a way in which I cannot be responsible for the second. It thus makes sense to say something like, "I've worked hard to be an athlete" in a way in which it wouldn't to substitute "Hispanic" for "athlete." But in the context of presidential nominees choosing VPs, the distinction isn't relevant.
Each of the three cases hovering in the background of this discussion—Trump picking Pence, Trump picking Vance, Biden picking Harris—involves a presidential nominee selecting someone boasting two things: (1) a political CV filled with successes and accolades and (2) certain identity-based characteristics thought to be conducive to the presidential nominee's success. Regarding the first quality, that's something all three possess. Pence, Vance, and Harris have had success politically—enough to put them on the map and become viable options for the president. What about the second characteristic? Pence is a softspoken evangelical midwesterner; Vance is an outspoken America First social conservative with white working class buy-in; Harris is a black woman with prosecutorial abilities/debate-readiness. Those aren't my own characterizations; those rationales were widely reported-on and have come to be our received understanding of why those picks were made. Now take a look at the descriptions for Pence, Vance, and Harris. Should Pence's being an evangelical or a midwesterner be rendered meritorious on his behalf, when it comes to why he was chosen? Part of why Vance was chosen was his ideological commitments—should we "credit" him with having achieved them and on that basis managed to get himself selected? Notice that these are all "mutable" identity layers; that is, Vance could change his mind and become a fierce Trump critic, if he wanted to (we know because he was one). Pence might've become an agnostic and ruined his chances to reach a constituency Trump wanted. Pence wasn't locked-in to being an evangelical forever. You're making a great deal about mutable characteristics like this one, but you have to ask yourself if that feature makes any difference here. What about Harris? Harris' being black is on the immutable side of things. Here's the point: none of these things—from the mutable to the immutable—accrues to the candidates as meritorious qualities that deserve praise. "Damn, Pence really nailed being an evangelical. Top marks to him for being such an attentive listener during Sunday sermons." "Vance's ideological convictions is some gold medal level stuff. He's earned it." That's not how we think of these qualities, even if we agree that they're mutable ones. If you want to ding Harris for the fact that her being a woman and her being black counted as part of the mix of factors that led to her selection, you have to do the same for Pence's evangelical midwesternness, or Vance's ideological zeal.
Where, then, does merit come in? Again, that's grounded in (1), above: their political accomplishments, experiences, and effectiveness. All three boast that.
All three have CVs filled with their accomplishments and abilities—and that's the part where their merit comes in. But they also have "extra-CV" identity layers, if you will—identity layers that the presidential nominees found useful to their prospects. Aspects of Pence's identity could help Trump secure buy-in with a constituency (evangelical Christians in middle America) that was foreign and alien to Trump; aspects of Vance's identity can help Trump secure a different constituency (white working class) that he thinks is crucial next go round; and aspects of Harris's identity helped Biden secure a constituency that Biden couldn't relate to as effectively on his own (women and African Americans). And Vance and Harris were also picked with an eye toward the future of their respective party's trajectories.
You want to argue that Vance was hired for his "ideological identity"?
Really?
You think Trump vetted him at all? He read how JD compared him to Hitler and said "That's my guy!"?
Please.
JD's qualifications were the same ones that got him his Senate seat and his venture funds -- Peter Theil likes him.
Kamala Harris had the spine to ask Biden hard questions on the debate stage. That's why he picked her.
Because Joe Biden isn't Donnie boy and he doesn't surround himself with third rate loser sycophants.
Bush was a legacy hire…and an unmitigated disaster. So then you hired Trump and Lizard Cheney!! 😂 😆
Look... I want Harris to win. Or more accurately, I am extremely concerned about Trump winning so... anyone else will do (and whatever Harris' perceived or actual shortcomings are, she's neither fond of dictators nor eager to be one herself).
But when it comes to DEI the Democrats are staring down the barrel of the biggest gaslight of all time. Either they are fond of this initiative and believe in it and think that diversity by diktat is a good thing (or a necessary evil, or however they want to frame it as a positive). Or they don't.
They CAN'T have it both ways. If it's a positive then there's no shame in being a DEI hire. If it's a negative then they need to assert that it's been a misguided effort by the extreme Left and they're sorry they were on board and it was a mistake for Biden to insist that "black" and "female" were the first criteria by which he'd be selecting his VP. But you can't tell people that that's not what happened because it IS what happened... we have the receipts. It's not racist to say Harris was a DEI hire because that's what she was by definition.
And maybe that's a good thing (I happen to think it's not, but I've been wrong before) but they can't simultaneously say that DEI is a good thing AND that people who are hired through the DEI pipeline can't be described that way because describing them that way is "racist".
Hiring people through quotas based on their immutable characteristics is a racist practice. Telling people that to notice this fact is to be racist is self evidently a gaslight. If the Dems want to win (and again - I really want them to win) they can't keep doubling down on this self evident contradiction and chastising and shaming people who notice this emperor is wearing no clothes.
Kind of like how Republicans can't have it both ways on abortion by saying it should be "left to the states". Either they want to ban it everywhere or they have changed their minds and want it to be legal everywhere.
Politics is all about having your cake and eating it too. Trump wants to "fight inflation", but also he wants to implement a 10% tarrif on all imports, which would obviously lead to inflation. Some Democrats like affirmative action, some don't. Part of why Dems are turning from DEI is that they've realized it's unpopular, part of the reason is that evidence shows that it only makes people more racist. Either way, I think it's a good thing when political parties move away from unpopular ideas. That's kind of the point of Democracy.
The problem with DEI is that it ostensibly promotes "diversity" and of course what reasonable modern person can be against diversity? Indeed - diversity is essential to a thriving culture.
But rather than being an aspirational project that broadly tracks statistics and more importantly takes into account people's experience and economic backgrounds and points of view as measures of how diverse they are, they decided to go the Marxist route and just work on ethnic and gender quotas.
I'm not using the word Marxist as a virtue signal to throw the "libs" under the bus - I'm using it in its historical and contextually applicable way.
My mother wasn't admitted to university after she graduated highschool with a gold medal (meaning she never got anything less than an A on any assignment during her school tenure). Why? Because Jews were 2% of the population and already at the 2% university student body quota so there was no more room for them.
This was Soviet Russia in the 60s. This was DEI in all its Marxist glory.
Martin Luther King Jr. nailed this puppy... we don't need to improve upon his work. Just put it into practice and give it some time. It's BEEN working marvels. All we need is a little patience and compassion for those who aren't getting their due fast enough.
Please tell me what constitutes a DEI hire, she has all the accomplishments expected. What maker her different from the "default".
Ronald made it a point to put a women on the court & its not like there just getting random Dicks & Janes off the street, furthermore lets not act like folks are color-blind here pal.
Any time you start with the criteria of a specific immutable characteristic rather than qualification it's by definition a DEI hire. I'm not saying that as a pejorative, although I personally find it reprehensible, but the whole point if DEI is to elevate people based on things like skin color and gender rather than ability or specific personal experience.
Biden expressly declared that this was how he was going to find and pick his VP and then did.
This obviously doesn't mean that she's not qualified but indeed no one suggests that DEI is the express desire to hire unqualified people It just means prioritizing their immutable traits over their qualifications and subsequently excluding people with different immutable traits which I assert is patently racist and therefore bad.
That's some real good word salad. But once again VP are all picked for particular reasons to shore up perceived weaknesses of the President.
So you have to define who is the best candidate, which is not always cut & dry.
social media tends to not bring out the best in people so I will ignore your insult though I Will ask you to consider that if we were standing next to each other and you accused me of word salad rather than asking for clarification to what I'm saying I would simply walk away from you because such a remark would indicate that you are unqualified to engage in civil discourse and I think people should try to bring their real world personalities to this medium as hard as that is to do.
The fact that it may have been necessary to hire a black woman as VP in order to engage a certain population and secure their vote is entirely plausible but that doesn't change the definition of DEI.
No need to be sensitive, I just feel you're being rather naive in regards to the broader picture. Do you hold DEI to the same accord as nepotism, cronyism & other anti-meritocratic means...
I wasn't being sensitive. I was pointing out that you were being rude and that in the real world I would not continue to engage with you.
if I'm being naive I would encourage you to explain in what way.
I think DEI may be worse than the other antimiratocratic mechanisms you mentioned but only because it is applied institutionally and has developed a reputation that is obviously far less negative than the others while being just as pernicious.
Yevgeny is not sensitive, just as President Trump is not a racist or a sexist. The problem with accusing people of crimes of intent, after COVId lockdowns/vaccines, Ukraine, Gaza, and four years of hunting MAGA voters, is your accusations are unprovable and nobody trusts your cabal. Why not zip it up, and hope the mail in vote harvesters are diligent enough to win you another election?
White men make up 35% of the electorate since 1980. Of the 8 sets of candidates run by Democrats since 1980, 4 have had exclusively white men. The probably that this pattern represents a bias in favor of white men is 71%, which does not rise to statistical significance. For Republicans it has been 7 of 8, the probability that this reflects a bias in favor of white men is 99.7%
Republicans also select based on immutable characteristics, specifically their candidates need to be white men for identity politics reasons.
This is like the old practice of selecting for regional balance. The part of the country where you grew up is also immutable and back in the day that was an important identity that parties catered too.
Identity has always played a role in American politics because people often vote for people they see as like them.
Mike, I think your premise starts begging the question with the first 2 words. We've fallen into this comfortable and totally unexamined pattern of grouping people by things like skin color as though it means something. What exactly is a "white man" (when not being used as a pejorative by a Native American in a 1970s Hollywood Western)? Isn't it time we stop repeating the absurd and totally unscientific notion that "white men" have anything monolithic about them?
Now - if you want to get into issues of specific cultures and nationalities and wealth classes (you mention regions where people grow up), I'm willing to entertain a lot more uniformity in those striations and perhaps we should try to encourage institutions to pull people from more diverse backgrounds in this respect. But that diversity needs to reduce skin color to the same level of irrelevance as hair and eye color. These are not important factors and they say very little about an individual. I can tell you that many would regard me as "white" (though many others would not). What do you now know about me? Just about nothing.
Yes - we are tribal creatures that use superficial factors (amongst many others) to try to in/out group everyone around us and in the wider world. That's a factor of our innate behavior that we've been struggling to subdue for quite a while and, on the whole, we've been making a lot of progress.
The idea that this project has been a waste of time and we should just all see each other as white men and black women is highly dubious and I see no good evidence for moving in that direction.
You brought up the immutable characteristic. If one is going to call Bidens deliberate selection of a nonwhite woman to balance the ticket as an identity politics (DEI) hire, then one can call Republicans overwhelming bias in favor of white men as the same thing.
My point was that this "balance" didn't take into account her height or weight or if she'd ever lost a kid in a car accident or had measles or won a state fair or grew up in Bangalore. It only factored in her gender and skin color. That's the definition of DEI. If Biden felt his ticket needed a half black,half South Asian woman to be more competitive that may have been a politically expedient choice. But announcing ahead of time that he's going to pick a woman of color makes that a DEI decision.
And I repeat that perhaps that's how they want to play it. They can insist that merit is secondary to a racially diverse staff. it's not a crazy argument. But they can't hire her this way and then pretend they didn't. We were there, we watched it happen.
The other stuff you brought up was all opinion and insults based on opinion. Oh, did you forget to look up "fact" and "opinion?" You should sue the grade school, high school, and college that never pointed you towards a dictionary.
Also, you're welcome.
The problem is that DEI is being used to mean different things to different people and the response of “she’s not a DEI hire” or the related “that’s a racist accusation” are dealing in the DEI as perceived by people who view it as purely about promoting unqualified minorities for a goal of equal socio-economic outcomes. That isn’t what promoters of DEI see it as or intend for it, so in a different context they may well say “yes, DEI is good and Harris is a good example”, but when you use the derogatory definition then “no, Harris isn’t DEI, I.e. unqualified and put up just to satisfy optics)”.
In other words, it isn’t hypocritical at all and you are oversimplifying what people mean. I don’t know you so I’m hesitant to ascribe motive (conscious or otherwise), but your take feels to me like trying to be “above it all” and the sane/independent thinker amongst a bunch of ideologues.
Of course what "DEI" actually means is at the heart of it and I'm doing my best to apply it as I understand people to mean it. But if you (meaning "one") are in the camp that believes that DEI is an effective practice and ought to be promoted and celebrated (nevermind what you believe it means - however you interpret it you are on the side of endorsing it and being in favor of it) you can't rationally take umbrage at it when someone says it was used to hire someone.
I totally take your point that the person using it in a derogatory way is (almost certainly) interpreting it somewhat differently or at least focused on the negative side-effects rather than the positive ones (and there are both present to be sure). But the term is the term. You can't say you love cake and then get angry at me when I call you a cake lover - even if I'm saying it as a pejorative because I happen to hate cake, or whatnot.
I'm not trying to be "above it all" (other than not get bogged down in personal attacks and or pointless negativity). I'm just describing how I see this issue and laying out in the clearest terms possible why I see it this way.
I appreciate you engaging on this in good faith and apologize for the speculation of your approach. I actually immediately tried to go back and edit that out as soon as I posted it as I realized it was unfair and unproductive but my comment didn’t show up and I couldn’t figure out how to edit it (using the app).
Anyway, to follow up on your cake analogy, I think a more appropriate scenario would be one side using cake to mean a sweet baked enjoyable food and those accusing you of being a cake lover meaning yellow cake uranium for more nuclear bombs, or something crazy like that. I think it’s fair to argue that Harris and the Dems could be clearer in their messaging to call out what they perceive the charges against her to be, but I also feel like we should recognize how hard that is in such a polarized environment with a term that is still relatively new in political discourse and yet carries so much baggage.
You're correct and it's ultimately impossible to thread this needle while running a political campaign were every noise you make and every face you show is going to get mined for every ounce of bad faith political utility by your opponents.
However outside the campaign it shouldn't be so hard for people who claim to be in favor of DEI to either acknowledge that it is a zero sum practice where people with certain genetic traits will be selected ahead of people without those traits specifically to bring about a greater equilibrium as to how those trait holders are represented across our institutions OR to explain what their actual goals are and how the above description mischaracterizes them.
I'm extremely open to the notion that the people who are opposed to DEI in good faith misunderstand its aims somehow, but I am a refugee from a "communist" dystopia where these practices were implemented precisely as they are described today and led to horrible outcomes and collective mystery so I can't just politely let it go and hope for the best.
Much more likely is that the people who are in favor of it have been bamboozled by it's ostensible kindness towards the underprivileged and has been snuck into our discourse by actual Marxists who realized that the ground is fertile for planting the seeds in what was a genuinely wonderful civil rights movement.
Even the language is similar. giving everybody equal opportunity sounds like it can be easily mistaken or extesed to simply putting people in places due to the color of their skin.
anyway I'm rambling but I take your point that when somebody calls you a "Jew lover" it's hard to shake your head proudly in agreement and proclaim YES I AM!! because you understand that they intended as an insult but it's probably best for everyone if you just lean into it. That's what I have done in the past and it actually works to disarm the attacker because suddenly what they think is an insult is being acknowledged as a compliment.
it's sort of the way the gay community conquered the term "Queer".
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?
You complain about the opposition picking on Harris for a DEI choice, and then admit she was a DEI choice.
DEI is an evil burden placed on society. It's a disease that is affecting how seriously the rest of the world takes the US. If people can't accomplish on merit, they don't deserve the rewards. It's as simple as that. This is not 70, 50 or even 30 years ago. It's time to STOP pandering to race because identity politics are nothing more than a reversion to the racist past.
I share your disgust with identity politics but let's not pretend that everyone was making hiring decisions based on merit before DEI came along. The whole reason it became a thing is that hiring managers WEREN'T making decisions based on merit.
Let's also not pretend that nobody was making hiring decisions based on merit. Like most all things woke, they make sacred the plea of every minority and make it seem like it's the majority problem. Racism, bigotry, inequality are all slowly being weeded out as society progresses. We live in a time in the West were we are in the top percentage in the world in terms of standard of living, everyone can fairly vote and there is an unprecedented amount of opportunity.
50, 40 and even 30 years ago, I think it was safe to say we needed DEI controls around certain parts of society.
That's no longer the case, and it's now doing more harm than good, being weaponized politically and creating far more division and collateral damage than any benefit being achieved.
Our children are being taught racism all over again.
Time to just let it go. It's doing far more harm than good these days.
The race obsessed left should admitt, she is not black, and 100% of her policies disproportionately impact poor citizens negatively. "Poor" is ofteb conflated with "minority" communities, because no community has ever been elevated to even the middle class by our federal ruling class.
Unfortunately, she can not be "Indian" either, because the US Indian population is roughly twice as affluent as the domestic white population right now. US Indians do not want or need federal "help." In fact, they will soon be asked to pay "their fair share" to an bloated federal bureaucracy that only helps politically active billionaires and/or oligarchs and politicians.
I suppose, I wonder if you think your base has not seen a thousand fluff articles that praise Kamala without listing any accomplishments and insult President Trump. Does this seem like persuasion?
Her dad is black and her mom is Indian so...she's not black or Indian? Would love to hear all your thoughts on how mixed race children are allowed to be referred to. Since it's the left that is obsessed with race.
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.
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.
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!
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..
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.