(from http://www.mrc.org/node/42198)
So what's wrong with the picture above? According to the New York Times this is President Obama and his advisors. They are all men and most of them are white. Unless you see the leg behind the guy in the in the middle. That's the leg of the only woman in the meeting fo this particular group. Yet to one degree of another, those on the far left are truly upset by this picture because they see Obama as betraying the trust of women and minorities by surrounding himself with powerful, primarily white men. We will leave the fact that the most powerful person in the room is a person of color to the side. His top cabinet posts have so far gone to white men. Yet to hear the pundits on the left, this picture ignores his promise. One even asked him the question about the "lack of diversity" at a recent press conference.
Obama's response was half his staff were women and his two appointments to the supreme court were women. His top advisor on foreign affairs was a woman. Quite simply it is a bit too early to be making such judgements. You see this picture is not the only one taken of the President and his advisors, but it doesn't make quite as good of press if it looked like...oh this...
(from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-skew-toward-male-appointees.html)
Any one else seeing yet once more Much Ado...
a couple of thoughts on all this hullabaloo. first, he hasn't made all his new appointments, correct? we could see that balance shift signifcantly with further appointments. Secondly, i recall that when GWB was in office, and i reviewed his cabinet appointments, i thought to myself, "oh he is stacking his cabinet with a collection of diverse people, as a political play, to show how diverse his appointments are." my view on it has changed a little by now, and while i still think that was and apparently still is a part of the decision process, it seems that Dubbya appointed people who would unabashedly and generally without question support his agenda. that is why we saw colin powell leave in the second term...he didn't want to tow the line. i am sad to see that people are still thinking about it as a political equation. i do believe there should be diversity in our representative government just as there is in our populus. however, i do not want to be having the conversation based on "oh we don't have enough women in there, or enough people of color...better get some in!" i want the collection of people who lead this country to be competent first and foremost. i want our president to make thoughtful choices as well. if it were across the board all one genus, and there were some clear alternative choices of candidates who were just as qualified who were passed over because of their gender or race, that would be unacceptable to me. however, the president has shown a committment to diversity with his thoughtful appointments thus far, and, more importantly....with his leglislative agenda. That's what I care about.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the issue of placing people in the post for the optics rather than the best person. My point for the next few rants is as news becomes more and more entertainment driven, we see more and more discussions about things that don't really matter. Some of the talk shows I follow on occasion have the farther left (I guess I am suppose to use the words progressive) really discussing this article from the Times. I don't recall this kind of discussion ever occurring before, but perhaps I was just not paying attention. Still with all the problems, I think we could spend more time on those than how many of who and what has been appointed and, like it or not, there is a certain amount of quid pro quo required of all politicians for support and help. Even the movie Lincoln makes that clear.
Delete