Richard,
Sorry, David, to jump in on your argument, but I just couldn't resist the urge to throw 2 more cents into this pile of cash.
>There's much talk about how popular Pres. Clinton was amongst the black community, but surely GWB could well deliver the representation and equity that Clinton/Gore talked about. If there's one party who seem to patronize minorities and seem to be ok with the fact that they are ghettoised - and the other party assembles a cabinet that is inclusive of all America, where could the tide of support turn to by 2004 if the second party actually delivers the
full promise of that pledge?
While you talk a whole lot in your last post about how the best way to deal with racial problems is to treat everyone equally (a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree in theory, but with which I have some problems in reality), here you seem to contradict yourself, in my view. The whole idea that Clinton started and W has continued of a cabinet thet "looks like America" is quite flawed. If we're treating everyone equally, then the person most qualified and suitable for the cabinet post should get the post. Instead, "ethnic" folks (no specific people in mind here) are often given preference in order to get the cabinet to look better. As if having a Hispanic Secretary of Agriculture (just a made-up example) is going to help the Hispanic community. Instead of basing the cabinet on these cosmetic features, we would be better off (going by your racial equality dictum) only giving preference to minorities if the position deals with minority issues. Otherwise, to promote equality, we should just give the positions to the best people, and if they happen to be minorities, then that's just dandy. Okay, that didn't come out as clearly as I intended, but do you get the contradiction in your argument that I'm pointing out? Clinton was good with the black community because of policy, and so what if that policy was worked out by white folks?
-Scott
just a quickie, as this isn't my argument...
Scott
location: Canada
listening to: Brooks Williams
registered: 2009.07.04
posts: 89
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
S
Scott
(view)
Richard,
Sorry, David, to jump in on your argument, but I just couldn't resist the urge to throw 2 more cents into this pile of cash.
>There's much talk about how popular Pres. Clinton was amongst the black community, but surely GWB could well deliver the representation and equity that Clinton/Gore talked about. If there's one party who seem to patronize minorities and seem to be ok with the fact that they are ghettoised - and the other party assembles a cabinet that is inclusive of all America, where could the tide of support turn to by 2004 if the second party actually delivers the
full promise of that pledge?
While you talk a whole lot in your last post about how the best way to deal with racial problems is to treat everyone equally (a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree in theory, but with which I have some problems in reality), here you seem to contradict yourself, in my view. The whole idea that Clinton started and W has continued of a cabinet thet "looks like America" is quite flawed. If we're treating everyone equally, then the person most qualified and suitable for the cabinet post should get the post. Instead, "ethnic" folks (no specific people in mind here) are often given preference in order to get the cabinet to look better. As if having a Hispanic Secretary of Agriculture (just a made-up example) is going to help the Hispanic community. Instead of basing the cabinet on these cosmetic features, we would be better off (going by your racial equality dictum) only giving preference to minorities if the position deals with minority issues. Otherwise, to promote equality, we should just give the positions to the best people, and if they happen to be minorities, then that's just dandy. Okay, that didn't come out as clearly as I intended, but do you get the contradiction in your argument that I'm pointing out? Clinton was good with the black community because of policy, and so what if that policy was worked out by white folks?
-Scott
Sorry, David, to jump in on your argument, but I just couldn't resist the urge to throw 2 more cents into this pile of cash.
>There's much talk about how popular Pres. Clinton was amongst the black community, but surely GWB could well deliver the representation and equity that Clinton/Gore talked about. If there's one party who seem to patronize minorities and seem to be ok with the fact that they are ghettoised - and the other party assembles a cabinet that is inclusive of all America, where could the tide of support turn to by 2004 if the second party actually delivers the
full promise of that pledge?
While you talk a whole lot in your last post about how the best way to deal with racial problems is to treat everyone equally (a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree in theory, but with which I have some problems in reality), here you seem to contradict yourself, in my view. The whole idea that Clinton started and W has continued of a cabinet thet "looks like America" is quite flawed. If we're treating everyone equally, then the person most qualified and suitable for the cabinet post should get the post. Instead, "ethnic" folks (no specific people in mind here) are often given preference in order to get the cabinet to look better. As if having a Hispanic Secretary of Agriculture (just a made-up example) is going to help the Hispanic community. Instead of basing the cabinet on these cosmetic features, we would be better off (going by your racial equality dictum) only giving preference to minorities if the position deals with minority issues. Otherwise, to promote equality, we should just give the positions to the best people, and if they happen to be minorities, then that's just dandy. Okay, that didn't come out as clearly as I intended, but do you get the contradiction in your argument that I'm pointing out? Clinton was good with the black community because of policy, and so what if that policy was worked out by white folks?
-Scott
