It seems very likely that President Obama will name Massachusets senator John Kerry as Hilary Clinton's successor for Secretary of State. However, some concern has been raised about the idea of Obama selecting a security team with higher-up positions filled pretty much only with white males, a discomfort that illustrates some of what may be warped American ideals about diversity in government. (When does it become tokenization, using someone from a minority group just so that you can say you're diverse?)The decision will be delayed at least until later this week, partially because as a result of Friday's shooting and its aftermath.
You can read more here.
9 comments:
If Obama does choose Kerry as Clinton's successor, I don't think it should cause too much of an uproar. Obama has already proved that he's supportive of diversity in government (he did choose Clinton as his first Secretary of State, and he's technically part of a racial minority). Furthermore, Kerry has proven himself an able politician. He ran (unsuccessfully, as well all know) for president and has served for some 25 years as a Massachusetts senator. If anyone as well-qualified as Kerry becomes a viable option for Clinton's successor, it might change my opinion. However, given that the vast majority of current politicians with large amounts of experience in government are white and male, any such contender would likely add just as little diversity to the executive branch as Kerry.
I agree with what Garret stated, having Kerry succeed Clinton shouldn't create too much discomfort. Kerry is definitely qualified for the job, as he himself is a man of character. Not only has he received three purple hearts from outstanding military service, but also served for more than two decades as Massachusetts senator. To accept any less able candidate to serve on the impetus of promoting diversity is tokenization. I believe that such policy is discriminatory, for lack of a better word, and that race should not factor into such appointments.
Why would diversity be an issue for the case of Obama? There is no way he's racist against black people because he is black. Also, as Garrett and Kurtis said, he has already diversitized(is that even a word?) the cabinet. Even if Hilary Clinton is replaced we know that he is willing to represent all. And especially with Obama supporting Gay Rights, there is no way that he is discriminatory.
Thoughts on Kerry? I think he's a capable politician that will do what he needs to do as the secretary of state. We all know him because of the 2006 election and most Californians were sold. I feel like this political move won't have a big effect on Obama's term. The big thing now is can Obama get to the plans he had from the beginning of the term.
I don't think that every appointment should be concerned so largely in part with race. Kerry is being chosen for his capability in the field, not for his race. While it is true that many government posts seem to be filled with white males, race is not the sole factor, or even a large one, in choosing candidates. To tokenize a candidate for the purpose of diversity in and of itself makes race an issue when it should not necessarily be one, as Kurtis points out. The goal is not to become racially discriminatory in the quest to achieve "diversity." Hopefully, that is not where the nation is headed with its immense efforts to achieve "diversity."
I know I'm basically going to sound like everyone else by agreeing that selecting Kerry won't be a big deal, but that is because it shouldn't be a big deal. It makes sense that Obama would select a qualified and experienced politician to serve in an elite position. Why would Obama bother with diversity when the country can probably agree that he is quite open to diversity? It is only logical for Obama to take advantage of this and employ the most suitable candidates for important positions without having to worry about being called racist.
I must respectfully disagree with the above comments, especially on the topic diversity. What we must recognize is that race is perhaps the most publicized but least relevant portion in the ability of a candidate to fulfill a role. In terms of government, is it not true that the diversity we seek is not in race but rather in viewpoint and opinion? If we were to have 30 people of all genders and all races, but of the same opinion, does it make it more preferable over a government composed of white males with a more diverse array of opinions?
With respect to these questions, the only logical answer would be that the most important factor in determining the strength of a candidate is not in physiological factors but rather in policy and aptitude. Given that the Obama Administration and Kerry are clearly aligned in policy, wouldn't diversity be more accurately achieved by placing a person with viewpoints differing from those of the Administration?
With all due respect, Anguna Munat
I'm not sure that I agree with Mr. Munat's sentiments, in this day and age, although race and religion is still a publicized factor, it is still not as strongly emphasized compared to more relevant policy viewpoints that may affect the electorate between different candidates. Also, although a range of diverse opinions would be nice, as we learned in class, having too strong of a differing opinion/ way of enacting policy has the possibility of steering astray from the President's most important issues and main constituents. (i.e. Carter firing Califano for doing his job as the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare)
Nonetheless, even if Obama names Kerry the new Secretary of State, I highly doubt that that it would raise much brouhaha within public opinion. As Garrett, Kurtis and Bruce have mentioned already, diversification of Obama's Cabinet already exists and gender should not make it any different. If diversity could actually be "achieved" though tokenization, it would be like selecting someone from a specific group primarily for the support of that constituency and the appeasement of diversity-seeking individuals, which seems quite counter-intuitive to me. The selection would be in line with other former Cabinet appointments as Kerry is a highly qualified, well-versed and experienced politician and also because a large majority of government has, up to this point, been...middle-aged, white males since the founding of our country.
Like everyone above, I agree that picking Senator Kerry is probably a pretty safe and smart choice. Kerry is a succesful politician who is pretty liked in Washington. Getting him passed throught the senate will be pretty easy and he is definitly qualified for the job.
In response to the diversity question, I don't think it's too big an issue. Obama himself adds diversity to the cabinet and he has proven that he likes to integrate everyone (He picked two women to the supreme court and one is even Latina.) The ironic part about picking Kerry is that, it adds a sort of diversity to the Secretary of State position, seeing that the last 5 or so have been people of color, women, or both.
I feel similarly to everyone else that choosing Kerry is not going to cause that much drama. He is qualified and why does it matter if there is already diversity in the cabinet? Qualifications for a job should not depend on the person's race, religion, gender, or gender affiliation; if they are qualified, they are qualified, end of story. I would like to comment on what Mr. Munat said. Diversity of opinions would be great to have in government cabinet, in a perfect world. I also feel it would also be beneficial for coming up with different solutions which the other side may not have thought of. However, in a time where our nation is so polarized, I feel it would be extremely difficult to make this happen, and it would probably cause more harm than good.
Post a Comment