So, the DEI thing is something the right throws around a lot to be a slur against black people in any position of power, but in this case, it's actually accurate against Kamala Harris. The term comes from the term "Diversity, equity, inclusion", which is the 2020s form of affirmative action and racial quotas. Basically, it means, in the practice of hiring people or accepting college applicants, they choose people not based on their merits, but on their race, gender, or other identity based characteristics. This is seen as combatting "systemic racism" and promoting "diversity, equity, and inclusion" in the work place. You know, warm and fuzzy social justice terms geared toward ensuring the workplace in question has the same demographics, or more diversity, than the country at large.
I personally ain't a fan of this. While I believe everyone has a right to the basics in life, as per my call for UBI, medicare for all, etc, I'm not a fan of handing people scarce jobs on the basis of identity. I'm sorry, I'm not. It's divisive for one, as it causes resentments among meritocratic whites who believe that one's position in work should be earned, not given (and often it is seen as passing over more qualified candidates), and as someone who is one of those meritocratic whites, all it does is ensure more of us end up in poverty, as the amount of jobs in higher positions are relatively fixed, and one person's hiring can come at the expense of someone else. As a human centered capitalist in my own variety, I see jobs as a means to an end, not an end in itself, and i believe that the point of jobs is to make things, and i dont care what race the person in the job is, I care they're the most qualified.
Which brings us to Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris is the epitome if DEI. She was quite explicitly chosen because she was black. The party literally pressured him to choose a black woman VP nominee. And Harris was the person who got the job.
Harris....never really had much going for her. She was pushed relentlessly by the media in 2020 as a potential presumptive nominee, but the voters never bit. The logic was simple, they wanted someone who was progressive enough to win progressives, but not too progressive. Someone who was still friendly to centrists and their leadership. And someone who could win over black and female voters. In a sense, with Harris, the dems tried to repeat the Obama phenomenon, without realizing Obama had charisma that Harris, quite frankly, lacks. Anyway, she flopped out of the primaries before they began (or maybe right after the first one, I forget), and no one really wanted her. But the dems were tenacious, as calls to nominate a black woman grew, it seemed obvious the party still wanted to elevate her. Just as the party can suppress progressives like Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and Nina Turner, they can also elevate those who they want. So they elevated Harris to be the heir apparent to the party after Biden, to set up the line of succession for future dem nominations.
But...here's the thing. NO ONE LIKES HARRIS! She's been about as unpopular as Biden, people don't really like her, and despite me calling her DEI I'm probably more positive toward her than most dems are. Mainly because her healthcare plan in 2020 was medicare extra for all. But, I also recognize she's highly divisive, and given we're considering replacing Biden as a nominee, Harris's name keeps coming back up.
But as we know, Harris's numbers are...iffy. I'm not entirely sure replacing Biden with Harris is a good idea. I havent seen any evidence that Harris can win. I've seen little evidence that Harris could do better than Biden. It's mixed, really. And right now, as we discuss replacements, we need to really consider who the heavy hitters are. WHO CAN WIN?!
But...as we know, people are getting miffed we're considering bypassing Harris. After all, if Biden drops, it's "her turn". Now, I dont give a #### about the line of succession in the democratic party. FOr me, policy trumps all. And this election, electability trumps that. And it does make sense to consider bypassing Harris, who also has a high chance of losing to Donald Trump, for someone more qualified.
But, now we're seeing Harris allies come out of the woodwork saying NO YOU CANT DO THAT SHES A BLACK WOMAN, HOW DARE YOU BYPASS A BLACK WOMAN, YOU REALIZE YOU NEED THE BLACK VOTE RIGHT?! And here we go again. Now, I'm not a postmodernist, I'm not an SJW, I'm not in this weird religion of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" being good things, and I'm just gonna say it, SHUT UP! No one cares. We need to choose the best person. If it's Biden, we stick with Biden. If it's Harris, we go with Harris. If it's someone else, we go with someone else. If we choose Harris for DEI reasons, and it seems like the strongest arguments for harris right now come from "it's her turn" (hello, hillary 2016) and her race. And that just shouldnt be how we do things.
I'm sorry, but Harris was the DEI pick in 2020. She wasnt popular, she wasnt necessarily the best person for the job (or even, IMO, the best black woman for the job, run, Nina, run!), she was picked to appease the party who was obsessed with identity politics in the height of the "black lives matter" zeitgeist. And in 2024, I'm not sure she's really the best person for the job either. You can make arguments for her. But you can also make a lot of arguments against her in favor of Biden or in favor of someone elselike whitmer.
Point is. We shouldnt nominate or elect people on the basis of race. It's dumb. We should want the best person for the job. If it's Harris, so be it, but I'm not really sure she is. She seems to be almost as weak of a nominee as biden in my estimation, and perhaps worse. With democracy on the line, do we really wanna be playing the affirmative action card? That should be the least of our concerns. Nominate the best person for the job, no matter who they are. That's how I see it.
And as far as "DEI" goes, while you can criticize people who use the term unjustly, you cant really defend against it when you're a candidate chosen explicitly because of their race, and when they use their race as a core argument for why them and not someone else. That is the very epitome of DEI, and if the term has ever applied to anyone, it applies to Kamala Harris. She was not chosen primarily based on merit, she was chosen based on her identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment