On December 14, 2019, I posted “The Democratic Party’s Unethical And Irrational Obsession With Diversity” at a point where I concluded that the Left’s diversity con had reached res ipsa loquitur dimensions, at least for Americans still capable of hearing what this res was loquituring despite years of pummeling by consultants and diversity seminars. That would be that “diversity” is a cover word for “quotas and affirmative action.”
I’ve been in some of those seminars; to my undying shame, I’ve even taught a couple for a fee. They are intellectually dishonest to the core, resting on the Bizarro World argument that more diverse groups and bodies are necessarily better, wiser, and more effective than homogeneous groups with more ability and talent. This is manifestly nonsense, except that it is not politically correct to say so. Is President Trump’s Cabinet better in any way because Ben Carson is Secretary of HUD? He’s a dolt, as anyone who watched the GOP Presidential debates knows beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is the Supreme Court better because Justice Sotomayor is on it? Read one of her opinions and then try to say that with a straight face.
The proof that diversity activism is a rationalization-based scam is everywhere, with the fact that it is only applied in one direction the smoking res. Nobody argues that NBA and NFL teams would be better of they had demographics closer to the nation’s. The Oscars were attacked because there aren’t “enough” black performers or female directors nominated this year, but no one complains about the lack of diversity in all-black awards shows. The impetus for December post was all the Democratic and mainstream media flesh-rending over the fact that the erstwhile Presidential candidates “of color” had been so weak and feckless that even Democrats had rejected them. “But…but..diversity!”
Pointing to the Washington Post’s assessment of the top 13 people with the best chance of being on the party’s ticket as Vice President—all are women, minorities or both—I wrote, “What subliminal message are Democrats sending to the world when they exclude straight, white men as qualified candidates for Vice-President? That’s easy. They are saying that the party cares more about diversity than it does about leading the nation.”
Diversity without rigging the result can be a valuable measure of how race, ethnicity and gender-blind the culture has become, but the fact that any group or body happens to appear diverse is itself no indication of excellence. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or deluded.
I thought the bloviating about the Democratic debate line-up was as ridiculous as this sham could get, Boy was I wrong.
First, as reported by the Washington Examiner, Senator Elizabeth Warren promised Wednesday that “at least 50% of Cabinet positions [will be] filled by women and non-binary people.” To begin with Warren has to stay in her lane: she’s the official shameless demagogue in the Democratic field; Pete Buttigieg is the shameless panderer. That aside, Warren’s announcement explicitly rejects excellence, experience and relevant credentials at the highest level of government in deference to diversity for its own sake. What’s your guess regarding the size of the pool of Cabinet-qualified “non-binary” individuals? My guess: minuscule. Warren’s promise shows us what her priority is, and it isn’t excellence in governing.
Then, yesterday, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin revealed how diversity can’t had eaten his brain. Even as he opined that the President’s defense in the Senate impeachment trial was “winning,” he complained that the defense team was not sufficient diverse.
“White House and white people,” Toobin said. “This is a lesson in the diversity of the two parties — I mean you look at the House managers. It was almost evenly divided between men and women. You had two African-Americans, you had a Hispanic. It was all white men today, there are allegedly two white women on the team — we’ll see if they’re allowed to argue. But I think, you know, in a visual medium, when you have one side that has a very diverse team and the other side that’s all white men, that says something in and of itself.”
Yeah, you know what it says, you hack? It says that the defense team was chosen according to who was most likely to do the best job. When advocates in trials are chosen based on any other rationale, you know what happens?
They lose, that’s what. I was just watching again “The People vs. O.J. Simpson,” and reminded that the prosecution was deliberately made up of a woman and an African American, the former so blinded by her feminist agenda that she made one bias-based blunder after another, and the latter so inexperienced and emotional that he made the decisive mistake with O.J.’s gloves. What the prosecution needed to go up against a high-priced assembly of some of the best defense attorneys in America were the most experienced, effective prosecutors available, and diversity be damned.
Yet here is Toobin, saying on live television without a hind of comprehension, that the White House and Republicans should have thought, “Never mind preventing the Democrats from succeeding in their attempt to defy democracy and overthrow an elected President, or convincing the basically uninformed public that the President has committed impeachable offenses when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. The important thing is to have a defense team with some African Americans, Hispanics, and non-binary lawyers!”
The Left in politics, education, law, entertainment, media and the professions have been repeating this alternate reality for decades now, hoping to brainwash us all into believing it makes sense., that it’s “the right thing to do.” Diversity for diversity’s sake is neither. Quotas are discrimination and bias rationalized. Those who understand this must be vocal and persuasive.
Please us this link to share on Facebook: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1221463400108171265