Bredesen: Just say no to nepotism

I'd give that honour to Basso, Deckard and SM. You discussed why she's a poor choice, too...but then threw out the tokenism card.

Sammy got caught up in the AA link...and we digressed from there. Being one of the first minorities considered for the job is a double edged sword. On the one hand, she'll face the barriers because she's a minority. And at the same time, her support will be dismissed as tokenism.

Do you really think Powell was tokenism??

 

Another thought on tokenism is that Rice, Powell and Christie Todd Whitman show the problems that come up with having token representatives of a particular interest group when the Admin. overall isn't alligned with the interests of that group.

I firmly believe that Powell and Whitman were tokens to the African American and women voters along with the moderate wing of the Republican party. Since overall the Admin. wasn't interested in the positions they espoused their influence was greatly cut off. So while both were prominent they had very little affect on what the Admin did. While Whitman stepped down realizing this Powell soldiered on an its likely this may have costs him quite a bit in his standing among moderates and the international community.

Rice OTOH went along with the Admin. as a team player and while this has benefitted her politically this has hurt some of her standing as an academic and internationally. Her difficulties before the 9/11 commission clearly show that she was put into advocating policies that she herself didn't fully believe and as a once strong internationalist she's been forced to comprise that view in the interest of towing the Admin. line.

So if someone is to be put forward as a token to appeal to interest groups they need to be consider carefully how much they will do for that interest group if overall the party or corporation doesn't support the ideals of that group. So while Condi Rice might look great as a Republican Presidential Candidate for blacks and women I would say they should consider how much she might actually do to advance their interest or if she is really just going to be a figurehead.

At the same time conservatives should consider if its worth it to win a few more votes from those interest groups if they have a candidate that doesn't believe conservative views.

 

Isn't that true of everyone who didn't toe the company line?? This admin hasn't exactly encouraged open debate.

Would it be better if there was no diversity? I just don't see the need to disparage their qualifications or impact simply because they haven't made diversity issues their primary concern.

 

One thing is certain. Powell wasn't chosen of his views. This administration relied very little on Powell's input, and often went against it, even overruling him in matters that normally a sec. of state would have free reign.

I don't think they took him because of his race, but becauase of his solid reputation which they could capitalize on.

 

I'm not even sure why that statement is racist. He doesn't assume an inferiority of another race, nor does he try to discriminate against another race.

 

Actually he cited that after 'lot of foreign policy experience,' not the PR/Republican part.

Because its a given that she's smart, more well spoken than Bush, a conservative academic, well versed in foreign policy, and would piss of liberals.

Maybe you can repost where SM said that, cause I don't see it. In fact, he said that the whole abortion issue would be irrelevant to the next President - and as such it wasn't a factor is supporting or not supporting Rice. There has been no prioritization of the six reasons by SM that I can see, only more discussion of the race issue by you and others.

 

Let's vote for this guy I like his platform:

"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land."

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms."

"I believe there are more instances of abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations...."

"The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."

"Whatever may be the judgment pronounced on the competency of the architects of the Constitution, or whatever may be the destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express my profound and solemn conviction, driven from my intimate opportunity of observing and appreciating the views of the Convention, collectively and individually, that there never was an assembly of men charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them, than were the members of the Federal Convention of 1787."

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

 

Tokenism is racism. And actually he is saying that minorities won't purchase something that doesn't have a minority attached to it, is assuming they can't tell a good product from a bad one, and instead rely on racial identification to make up their mind. Bringing it back to politics that is like saying that minorities will vote for a minority candidate over a white one regardless of issues. See Alan Keyes to squash that claim. Rev. Sharpton didn't carry the largest percentage of African American votes either. The list goes on and on, because it simply isn't true that a minority won't buy into something without a minority PR face attached. That certainly would be an inferior quality.

The quote that he mentioned is exploitive which discriminates, and doesn't even recognize qualities of a minority. It is also textbook tokenism.

 

He didn't answer why it would piss off the liberals but he explained it in later posts which is that it would because she's black and a women and these are the liberal base.

I was interpretting his argument somewhat but he did say that he wouldn't vote for a pro-choice candidate and seemed to agree that Rice is a pro-choice candidate. So his support of Rice seems to be over his anti-abortion stance and since two (yes "cheesing off liberals" because of her race and gender is taking into account her race and gender) out of his six reasons are race and gender that would mean that race and gender are greater priorities.

Since were running down reasons if you look at my first post I cited her lack of domestic experience and policy and even her marital status as more important issues to whether she should be the Republican nominee and have brought those issues up far more in this thread than race or gender.

 

I think he said it would be better to have an identification with the product/company & would be good for business. The existence of advertising denies your assumption that people defer to an analysis of which product is a good one and which is a bad one. As far as 'tokenism' (if there IS such an -ism), simply repeating your assertion that tokenism is racism doesn't make it true, or provide any new depth to why it would be true. If you're trying to reach a Hispanic demographic, and you hire a Hispanic spokesperson - that does not make you a racist.

Or just like saying the white south will vote for a white candidate over a black one, regardless of issues. Haven't seen you jump out with calls of racism over that one.

 

I've never disparaged anyone for lack of diversity. Diversity it itself is a good thing but at the same time you have to consider is it doing anything to help out those groups.

Sure I think it was a good idea to have Powell, Whitman, Norton, Gonzales, Rice, Chao and Mineta in GW Bush's cabinet. In terms of people they've had more minorities in the Cabinet than any other admin. and that's admirable in itslef. Whether that's advanced particular ethnic or gender groups I'm not so certain.

Its one thing to have someone there its quite another to actually have that person have sway on policy.

 

Not that James Madison would make a great president, but he spent alot of time drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Not that the people running today don't know just as much if not more about the intent of the document.

Politicians today seem to know more about what the Constitution really means than Madison and John Jay who labored over writing a pretty smart piece of goverance.

I wish Jeb and Hillary could be made to sit down with James Madison and explain just what happened to America. He would fall over and die all over again.

 

Why should we listen to Dolly?

 

He didn't just say it was good for business, he said it was the only to survive. He also didn't mention hiring the person in regards to only advertising. He mentioned hiring the person in regards to not having a minority in the business. When you are ignoring a person's qualities and hiring them solely for skin color, and solely on the assumption that unless you have a person with that skin color you can't survive in a market economy.

The existence of advertising doesn't disprove anything. While advertising might play a part in a product it does factor in other things such as the quality of the product and not the fact that minorities work there. These cases could also be designed in a product by product examination. Other factors such what the specific product and who designed it etc. would come into play. SM's scenario was a blanket statement, however.

As for the South not voting for a black candidate over a white one that isn't discrimination to say that. The white is the power base, and it is silly to claim that moves made against the power base is discrimination. Only those in power can truly discriminate. There may be isolated situations where other groups have the power and discrimination is possible. The 'white South' isn't one of those.

 

He mentions in based on PR, which goes hand in hand with advertising - creating good relations with the public so they will buy your product or service.

What? Yes, advertising does disprove your assertion that what people buy is determined by the worth of the product. His 'scenario' was that he didn't have a problem with a company hiring a minority to increase their business. That's why I gave the example of hiring a hispanic spokesperson (who would generally be considered PR) to increase business in the hispanic demographic. That's not racist. Doing it to increase business is not racist. NOT having an altruistic motive does not make it racist.

It just ridiculous to claim that a group not 'in power' (whatever that may mean) cannot discriminate. I hesitate to go any further because that is so off base as to skew this whole discussion. You claim above that asserting one racial group will vote based on their skin color is racist, then turn right around and argue that claiming whites will only vote for whites is NOT racist. That is a joke and an oversimplification of how oppression works. Blacks cannot be racist because they are not 'the largest power base?' Women cannot be sexist because they are not 'the largest power base?' That is silly.

 

It isn't silly and isn't even my own assertion. How can people who don't hold power prevent others who do from doing anything, in some sort of significant way? Discrimination can't really exist without power. What else is someone being discriminated against? Discrimination is allowing one thing for one group and not for the other. How is that possible unless one group holds the power? On a personal note that might be possible but not on any systemic level.

Anyway advertising does not exclude the value of the product. The value of the product may be less or more highlighted by advertising, but one does not preclude the other.

Also SM didn't advocate hiring a minority as a PR person. He advocated hiring a minority and then using that person's race as PR. There is a difference.

 

First, your view would imply that one group holds all the power - in this case, whites in the south. False. See black boycotts in the south, if you really NEED an example. I'm sure black leaders in the south would be amazed to find out they are powerLESS. Second, as I said before - can blacks not be racist? Can they not feel they are superior because they are black, or treat whites differently because they are white? Can women NOT be sexist because they are the minority in business? Is racism geographically bound? In Africa blacks can be racists and not in the US, and in the US whites can be racists but blacks can't? Thats absurd.

So you are against systemic racism but not 'personal' racism?