Eh. I don’t know about that, but I will acknowledge that there is a major ideological wedge in the conversation. Namely, I consider the government a small minority because it comprises well less than 50% of the population, and supporters of democracy ideologically buy into the idea that a majority controls policy.
And I still have no idea what you are actually trying to say.
Link doesnt lead to that page.
Let us pretend that there isn’t strong evidence that these appointments were not earned but purchased, which isn’t that different from the norm here.
If the selection process was to select the “best of the best” to represent us as Americans, wouldn’t you be concerned that the “best of the best” does not reflect the electorate?
Are you arguing that there is some special trait that makes older white males more qualified for these positions and if that is not your argument why are you not concerned that there were no qualified applicants which were not more representative of the electorate?
Indeed. It was of some interest to some Americans that the upper levels of the Executive Branch under Obama started to vaguely look representative of the U.S. population in general, and it’s also of some interest to some Americans (or at least the Times assumes so) that under Trump, this is far less true.
On a personal note, I find I’m okay with the Times having an anti-Trump bias, if that is the case. He was treated far too kindly for far too long and allowed to go far too far as a result.
i think what will is trying to say - if i may presume to speak for him - is that it doesnt matter what the government looks like, its not representative of the people.
or to put it another way: the people in government are not looking out for its citizens well being, its looking out for its own well being. and that doesnt change with color or gender.
and because of the virulently divisive 2 party system we have, at any given time as many as 50% (or more) will feel as if theyre on the outside looking in
mc
How many women did recent Presidents place in their cabinet when they first entered office?
Ronald Reagan: 0
George H. W. Bush: 1
Bill Clinton: 3
George W. Bush: 3
Barack Obama: 6
Donald Trump: 4
So if it’s a good thing to have women in the Cabinet, Trump surely deserves praise for the bringing in the second highest number in American history. And he may bring in more female cabinet secretaries in the years ahead, as there are usually several openings during the course of a presidency.
Alternatively, one could say that Trump increased the diversity of the cabinet by bringing in people from outside the usually system. Rex Tillerson comes from outside the foreign policy establishment, which is not something you can say for most Secretaries of State. Certain people are complaining that Betsy Devos has never been a public school teacher or administrator, but if we want a diverse group bringing many contrasting perspectives, that’s certainly a good thing.
Or we could just launch into complaints about “white men”, and how many white men there are in the cabinet, over and over, implying that there’s something wrong with a group containing above a certain number of white men, which is what the Times is doing. And perhaps that what has the OP slightly miffed about the Times article.
Who are some minority names that Trump passed up that would fit into his ideological framework?
Nowhere in that article is there any suggestion that any of these candidates, as individuals or as a group, are unqualified because of their skin color.
In that spirit, I put myself forward as a nominee for the Secretary of Defense. Maybe once I’m confirmed someone can teach me to fire a gun, and explain to me whether the marines are really a separate branch of the armed forces or part of one of the others (or is the air force that’s not exactly its own branch, I forget).
If we are going to criticize Trump for not nominating more minorities, perhaps we could name those that meet his qualifications and he passed over.
Isn’t UN Ambassador considered a Cabinet level position?
My criteria for who should be appointed is who would intervene less. That’s beside the point.
I told you why I’m not concerned. I’m not concerned because it’s a marketing gimmick. Appointing a diverse government tools the masses into thinking they have representation in government. They don’t. No matter who is in there, they are a minority, lording over a majority.
Not really.