Don’t forget the noisy harrumphing!
2 Likes
I think Biden has selected a solid roster - no bombthrowers, focusing on people who have legitimate core competencies for the job they’re serving in. It’s refreshing.
Klain was a great choice for COS. Neena Tanden is a good choice and is a sign Biden isn’t headed into the world of Bernie-economics. The choice for SecDef (Austin) looks very good.
All in all, it appears Biden is staffing up with competent adults in the room. America needs that desperately.
1 Like
I’m something like 1/16 Irish, if that counts. There was a quite a number of Irish soldiers in Austrian service who had settled down and married local women, their surnames having survived, but butchered beyond recognition.
And that’s without taking into account the Irish-Austrian nobility with ludicrous names such as von Banflieds, von Westmeaths and so on…
1 Like
This is what I was thinking listening to the news in the car this morning (I shift around between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox). They were talking about some-group-or-another’s (Hispanic Caucus?) call for greater representation and I was like THIS! This is what gave Trump so many traditionally Dem heartland voters. They feel left behind and left footing the bill somehow for identity politics they can’t relate to.
I am really excited about Biden’s choices and I absolutely crave diversity combined with competence. I agree about the people screaming “MORE, MORE! IT CAN NEVER BE ENOUGH!!!” though. The crazy comes from both sides, definitely.
2 Likes
What is the obsession with diversity ? Shared principles, morals and values are far more important.
1 Like
I am tired of rage. There is no reason NOT to have diverse government in a diverse nation. I agree that there should also be shared values, etc, and believe that reducing alienation forwards that goal.
I am not saying this is a reason, but if more qualified people are not “diverse”, they should get the job. IMO, that is a good reason for a lack of diversity. Additionally, it is a shame when a diverse candidate for a job doesn’t get it because of diversity when they are the most qualified.
1 Like
I have wondered why Americans are so obsessed with cultural or ethnic heritage…I mean, you never hear about Brazil’s Bolsonaro being Italian as, say, JFK being Irish, because they don’t give a shit, and they don’t say he’s Italian Brazilian, he’s Brazilian, just like Pele or Anderson Silva.
Fascinating obsession, but divisive.
3 Likes
To an extent yes. But if discrimination has not allowed a candidate to accumulate all the qualifications of his/her straight white male counterpart then that’s a problem.
Let’s remember that folks at the C-level typically have been in the workforce for decades… When it was certainly not a level playing field.
Self loathing whites shouldn’t be hired anywhere. “Diverse” people occupy each and every economic and social strata now. It’s just a Trojan horse at this point.
Seems arbitrary and pointless to me. I couldn’t care less what one looks like, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc… So long as we all coalesce along the same morals and values as decided together
I get that argument, but at the highest level, don’t we want the people who would do the best job? I guess we can acknowledge that someone has had disadvantages in life, and that would make them not quite as good at the job as someone who didn’t have those disadvantages, but at the same time when it is something like national security, I’ll take the person who is most likely to be the best at the job.
Totally, Im a big fan of meritocray. The key thing is how to judge someones merit- realizing that a slightly less impressive resume from a 60 yr old black woman shouldn’t disqualify her from the interview pool compared to the 60 yr old white men with slightly better resumes for example.
Attempting to limit nepotism and crony capitalim is another goal of the diversity mandates. Additionally, a number of studies have shown that “a more diverse employee group” (however general that is) leads to greater productivity.
Then I assume you are more comfortably assimilated than we are. But in today’s America JFK’s Irish Catholic background would not be an issue, nor any of the Europeans. They are now just “American.” Less so the non-white minorities.
I think we are big enough and broad enough that, as pointed out, “diverse people” are successful in every field of endeavor, so there are plenty of highly competent people for these handfuls of high positions. Once you get to a “10” on a 1-10 scale, you’ve arrived at “qualified” and from that pool you can choose based on other criteria (e.g. “in line with my agenda”).
An analogy would be “beautiful places.” Italy and New England are both beautiful places to visit. It just depends then on which you prefer.
Is that what you imagine me?
I agree with you in theory. In practice, I don’t know a way in which we account for upbringing in a fair way. Perhaps doing it by economic status makes more sense than by race (which I have advocated for in the past). Plenty of poor white and Asian folks out there (IMO, they really get screwed as they are in a similar spot to other poor minorities, but don’t get points added to their Harvard application score).
Its not self loathing to say that as a white male ive had it easier than others. It would be like acknowledging my homerun stats are inflated because i played my whole career at Coors field.
For every position out there, there is a person who is the best suited to do it. I will concede that we can’t likely determine who that person is in many cases, but if we could, then there would be a best fit person. IMO, if we could know who is the best fit, then they should get the job.
The real world is more messy. I am not a fan of adding points to a person’s resume because of race. They could have had more advantages than another candidate who is not POC. Doing it by economic status make more sense IMO. Perhaps going back to their parents economic status. Perhaps more than economic status is at play. If that is the case, it needs to be quantified to be considered in a meaningful way. I just don’t know how one could do that.
Who has had it harder to succeed in the workforce over the past 40 years: a straight white male from a lower class home, or a straight black women from a lower class home? Leave socioeconomic background the same but compare black vs white, straight vs gay, male vs female as to who faced more disadvantages in the workforce.
So, we come up with a best fit solution meant to do the most good for the most people. Will it be perfect? hell no. We try something, figure out where it needs to be improved, fix it and repeat. What is the alternative? Just acknowledge the problem and try to do nothing to fix it?
Do you push for more diversity in the NBA or NFL ?
No. That’s a general statement.