How to fix the Democratic Party

[Larry]

Heard something this morning that I thought has been ticking me off multiple times in the past.  It's kinda related to the current election, but not quite.  More of a long term thing.  I think a thread like this might be a better idea.  

 

To start with, I'll point out.  About three weeks ago, I filled out my local election ballot, voting the straight Democratic ticket, without even bothering to find out any information whatsoever about a single one of the candidates.  Lately, I've gotten to the point where I'm unable to tell the difference between the GOP and Satan.  I've probably voted straight Dem in every election since Bill Clinton.  (And have not regretted it once.)  

 

But. . . . . 

 

There's things about the Dems that really tick ne off.  And I figure if they tick me off, then they've got to affect people who are less on their side than me.  

 

Was driving to work, listening to NPR on the satellite radio.  (No, I was not driving a Prius hybrid.  It's a Ford.)  The show was about Climate Change.  (Not fond of the show, but it's the closest to news I can find, that time of day.)  

 

And the interviewer asked her guest about whether Biden's appointee for Department of Interior should be Native American.  

 

And this is something I've seen the Dems do, a lot.  And it ticks me off every single time.  The notion of picking a job, and the first filter you put on the job is to pick a race and a gender for the job.  

 

I really liked Mayor Pete for the D nomination.  Yeah, his lack of experience was a serious red flag.  And I really know almost nothing about him.  I'm a very low information voter.  But my customer likes to watch Meet the Press on Sunday mornings.  And I saw parts of Pete on there, twice.  And I really liked the way he handled serious questions about his candidacy and his positions.  For example, when asked about his plans for the economy, he pointed out that he can't make glowing promises about rainbows and sunshine, because whoever takes over after Trump is going to inherit a dumpster fire.  He pointed out that whoever it is, is going to have to at least try to work with Republicans.  

 

And his famous appearances on Fox News haven't changed my opinion of him a bit.  

 

I would have loved to see Mayor Pete running as Veep right now.  A good, high-exposure position, and yet very suitable for someone with no experience.  A President In Training.  

 

But nope.  Couldn't do it.  Because the first thing Biden committed to, about a Veep, was to announce a gender.  

 

Yes, I think diversity is important.  I've even got no problem with things like race and gender being factors in the decision.  These decisions are political, after all.  Got no problem with a little affirmative action, in places.  

 

But damn, folks, can we please not be deciding, or even calling for, government positions to have race, gender, age, or similar factors listed as the first line in the job description?  

[LD0506]

Fair point

 

I have no problem with a declaration that no one will be ruled out because of race/gender/etc., that merit is the deciding factor ie. finding the best qualified/most suitable person for the job.

 

But having said that there is a ton of weight added by people seeing someone like themself in positions of power, genuine representation as opposed to merely comforting rhetoric.

 

For example, I was a HUGE Kamala supporter in the primaries, TBH even before the primaries and none of it had to with her gender or ethnicity. Her CV and intensity, intensity x integrity, won my vote for her to be one the ticket. Now if someone else sees her as primarily representing them because she is a woman or because she is biracial or whatever, so be it, that's just gravy. Millions voted for Obama because he was seen as a black president, am I supposed to tell them they were wrong? Motivation is highly subjective, I don't care as long as you are motivated to move, the hierarchies of motivations on a larger scale will funnel that movement but just washes around the rocks in the stream. 

 

In a perfect world we'd all think it through and make good choices, this ain't a perfect world.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Larry, I agree.  It’s a bad look for the party and beyond that it cheapens what it means for those of other genders, cultures, races, etc. when they get the position.  The least they could do is not discuss the strategic selection of minorities out loud and simply allow people to connect the dots on their own.

 

For me, it’s that the Dems have the tendency to make fools of themselves regularly.  The only thing they have going for them is the sheer repugnance of the loudest voices in the GOP.

[Springfield]

I do agree on that point @Larry. It did seem like Biden had 2 columns, maybe 3, to check off of a VP candidate. First, they had to be a woman. Second, they had to be much younger. Third, (bonus points) is a person of color.

 

Kamala Harris checks all those boxes without even knowing anything about her. I do know that I didn’t like her in the nomination process. She seemed a bit pointed at times. I know that she didn’t do much to help marijuana in CA. But she checked all the boxes.

 

 

What I don’t like is the whole, “If you don’t agree with me (us) personally, then you’re a sexist/racist/bigot/idiot” line of thinking. It gets us nowhere. Bonus points is when one super clever democrat makes this argument and then all the other democrats want to start piling on to show how magnanimous they are. It’s a real turn off.

[TheGoodBits]

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to signal that you intend to appoint leaders that are going to reflect your broad, diverse, and historically underrepresented coalition. 

[Springfield]

4 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to signal that you intend to appoint leaders that are going to reflect your broad, diverse, and historically underrepresented coalition. 

 

Yes, but when people wanted to disqualify Joe Biden because he was an old, white, male, who was a moderate it was kinda off putting. Just because you want to be inclusive with your political party doesn't mean that you should purposefully exclude white men from it, otherwise you push them the way of the republican (who claim that white men aren't welcome in the democrat party).

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to signal that you intend to appoint leaders that are going to reflect your broad, diverse, and historically underrepresented coalition. 

 

Agree.  just saying there's a huge difference between "My cabinet will contain more than one gender" and "this one job on this org chart is reserved for Race X".  

 

Maybe the guideline to follow is "Let's not talk about (job vacancy's) race or gender, before the nominee is announced"?  

 

It's the difference between talking about the race or gender of the Veep, when no Veep has been picked, vs talking abut the Veep's race and gender after Kamala has been announced.  

Edited November 1, 2020 by Larry

[PleaseBlitz]

Man, white men sure don’t like it when they aren’t the ones getting the preferential treatment. 

[bearrock]

It's a difficult question where I think you can see reasonable positions on both sides.  On one hand, I totally get what Larry and people with that view are saying.  Going beyond not discriminating anyone based on some impermissible category and saying that you must belong to this group sure feels like discrimination in its own right.

 

On the other hand, I can also see the view point that if you don't put down a litmus test like that, you end up finding every which way to come to a conclusion that the best qualified candidate just happens to look like the previous occupants of that position.  Sure you'll have the Barack Obamas and Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of the world who'll break through on their own superstardom, but it takes an Obama, a Ginsburg, who proves to the world that a person of that group is every bit as qualified for those positions by not just being just as good as other people they were competing with, but quite frankly, heads and shoulders above the competition.  And if narrowing the criteria to that historically underrepresented group is what it takes to ensure that those groups receive fair share of their opportunity at the highest positions, then that is preferable to the alternative.  It would be akin to justification for affirmative action: we hope to reach a point where race blind admission is the right and appropriate way to handle college admissions, but we're not there yet (I say this as a person who thinks socioeconomic background should have a greater factor in ensuring admissions parity to college).

 

But it's definitely an issue the Dems have to be mindful of and the messaging needs to be really good on this issue regardless of how they proceed.

 

[Larry]

Like I said, I don't have a major problem with race or gender or home state or things being a factor.  

 

For one thing, it's politics.  "Will this person get me votes from Demographic X?" is part of the calculations.  

[Corcaigh]

As a white male you can rationalize a “best person for the job” argument for an individual position. But when a woman or minority looks at the executive branch and sees nothing but white men they know that they are seen as less worthy.

 

Every study shows the benefits of diverse opinions and representation that reflects the whole population. Biden may have believed he needed a female’s perspective and if so he would be correct.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by Corcaigh

[tshile]

37 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Man, white men sure don’t like it when they aren’t the ones getting the preferential treatment. 

another off putting thing is this bull****. 
 

letting you virtue signaling get in the way of at least being honest is a major trait of the left

 

 

[Springfield]

I guess, "let the best person suited" get the job isn't a think any longer?

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

I guess, "let the best person suited" get the job isn't a think any longer?

 

I think realistically, at that high level a position, you end up with multiple choices who all have a very credible argument for being the "best person suited".  It would be like Brady and Manning being available as free agents during their prime.  You could make a credible argument for either being the better signing.

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

I think realistically, at that high level a position, you end up with multiple choices who all have a very credible argument for being the "best person suited".  It would be like Brady and Manning being available as free agents during their prime.  You could make a credible argument for either being the better signing.

 

Yeah but what about Mike Vick or Randall Cunningham? You aren't gonna include them? Racist.

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Yeah but what about Mike Vick or Randall Cunningham? You aren't gonna include them? Racist.

 

HOW DARE YOU!  MY FATHER'S BROTHER'S NEPHEW'S COUSIN'S FORMER ROOMMATE USED TO LOVE DOUG WILLIAMS!!!!! 

[88Comrade2000]

Let the Dems win first; so we can get to point of needing to fix it. 
 

There will be grumbling between the AOC progressive wing and the Biden centrist wing.  Especially in the 24 Democratic nomination race. Kamala will not just be given that nomination.

 

Let’s win now. Try to spend next 2 years to enact an agenda. Worry about any fixing post 2022.

[TheGoodBits]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Agree.  just saying there's a huge difference between "My cabinet will contain more than one gender" and "this one job on this org chart is reserved for Race X".  

 

Maybe the guideline to follow is "Let's not talk about (job vacancy's) race or gender, before the nominee is announced"?  

 

It's the difference between talking about the race or gender of the Veep, when no Veep has been picked, vs talking abut the Veep's race and gender after Kamala has been announced.  

In the example you cited with DOI, there’s a *really* good reason to appoint a Native American. The Bureau of Indian Affairs falls under DOI. They administer all the tribal land. 

[Corcaigh]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

And the interviewer asked her guest about whether Biden's appointee for Department of Interior should be Native American.  

It’s an interesting question. Another fair question might be whether the appointee for Department of the Interior should be a lobbyist for the mining industry. Why exclude them if they are the best candidate?

Edited November 1, 2020 by Corcaigh

[Hersh]

A few things: 

 

1. People should keep in mind that there is no one perfect person for the job when it comes to VP or cabinet positions. 
 

2. VPs are always selected in a way that checks boxes for whomever is the nominee. With Pence is was his being a regular super religious conservative.

 

3. Given that we know multiple people can do a job at a high level, it’s important to have different perspectives that are formulated from different backgrounds.

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Also saying that Mayor Pete (mayor of a medium-sized town) is more qualified to be VP than Kamala Harris (6 years as AG of the largest state, 3 years as Senator of the largest state) is ridiculous.  

[redskins59]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

I guess, "let the best person suited" get the job isn't a think any longer?

 

 The country is, what, 40% minority now, or close to it?

You mean to tell me that there aren't minorities that are  experienced enough out there?

Forget politics for a second. If things were fully fair, it would not be Whites who benefit.  Look at  Thomas Jefferson high school.  It is 80% Asian. Now Whites are trying to change it. Personally, I feel that schools should be all-inclusive.  Doesn't feel good if there isn't diversity. 

Similarly, had there not been any "holistic" selection, the ivy leagues would be dominated by Asian Americans. The only group not benefiting from this "holistic" selection process are Asians. 

This is the truth.You will say, I want the best person right now. But IMO Whites will scream if the best people aren't whites like in the case of Thomas Jefferson high school.

Proof of people screaming because TJ is, uh, not too White:

 

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/915086.page

Edited November 1, 2020 by redskins59

[CousinsCowgirl84]

For me, the biggest issue with the democrats is they whine a lot but don’t get a lot accomplished. Pelosi as whiner in Cheif.

 

Republicans get what they want for the most part.

Edited November 1, 2020 by CousinsCowgirl84

[redskins59]

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

For me, the biggest issue with the democrats is they whine a lot but don’t get a lot accomplished. Pelosi as whiner in Cheif.

 

Republicans get what they want for the most part.

 

How would you feel if best people are all Asians?  

Whites are already screaming about Thomas Jefferson high school. I read it in the forums all the time. I don't believe the "best person" crap you all are spewing.  You would change your mind in a hurry.

 

[Hersh]

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

For me, the biggest issue with the democrats is they whine a lot but don’t get a lot accomplished. Pelosi as whiner in Cheif.

 

Republicans get what they want for the most part.

 

 Yeah, the GOP wants to get rid of ACA, Medicare, SS, abortion, gay marriage, and on and on. They just get what they want.

Edited November 1, 2020 by Hersh