I’m assuming it’s the same thought process that leads some people to go into convulsions about Hollywood “pandering to SJWs” every time they encounter a film or TV show with a protagonist who isn’t a straight white man. “Straight white male” is the norm, the societal “default setting”. Any deviation from that must be due to affirmative action; the idea that someone who isn’t a straight white male might actually be a better choice is beyond comprehension to these folks.
Meet Madison Cawthorn.
Cawthorn often talks about the need for Republicans to have a fresh young face, and to wrap conservative ideas in “better packaging” and “better messaging” that is less “abrasive.” But “better packaging” is just that—packaging. Cawthorn is following the playbook of other, more successful far-right Republicans in recent years, attempting to rebrand his extreme views—which include what I would describe as white supremacist-adjacent nationalism—as squarely in the mainstream of the Republican Party. In doing so, he’s co-signing those ideas for a new generation of voters who may be turned off by Old White Men but who might embrace them from a fellow millennial.
As for his qualifications. He’s the CEO of a real estate investment firm! No, he isn’t. The firm has made one small purchase and has never had any income. He’s wealthy by his own hard work! No, he’s not. He’s never had a penny of earned income. He was going to the Naval Academy before a car accident partially paralyzed him! No, he wasn’t. He had already been rejected by that time. He majored in political science in college! No, he didn’t. He dropped out after one semester.
So what does he do? He’s a racist. Loud and clear. And white. And Christian.
Lemme tell ya, I resent that like crazy. And I don’t have to know him personally to do so.
But…but identity politics!
And yet, you just did. 
Loath as I am to appear to be defending the claim that Sharice Davids is uniquely unqualified (because I’m not defending it and I don’t believe it’s true), is it really that mystifying to you that conservatives think this happens?
I mean, for example, Joe Biden said before he picked his VP that she would be a woman of color. He has said that he wants to appoint a woman of color to the Supreme Court, and did not appear to be referring to a specific individual. Someone being a woman, or a person of color, or both, is something that is widely raised as a point in their favor prior to them achieving a distinction, and then widely remarked upon in a favorable way when that person achieves distinction. You think it’s weird that a person who is not progressive and is already opposed to intentional diversity efforts looks at those things and claims that some people achieve certain roles because of their identity? It seems pretty straightforward to me, and while it isn’t how I would choose to articulate my thoughts about it, I think there’s a sense in which it is true that, for example, Harris was chosen “because” of her identity.
I think the underlying values are conflicting, not the observation.
I didn’t really mention people being appointed to a position. I was talking in general about people who succeed in a white male-dominated role. I agree that appointments are a different story. So, Obama or Davids getting elected is a more impressive feat than Biden or Madison Cawthorn. Similarly, female scientists and doctors had some unique roadblocks that their male counterparts didn’t have (I hope that’s changing, but certainly, in the past it was much harder for women and minorities).
Shhhh… he’s already said too much. There’s a white van suspiciously parked outside.
Seems like the same effect would be at work whether it were an election or an appointment, at least from UR’s point of view. He was the one who brought Davids up in connection with Harris; I read him to be saying (in the context of ‘resentment politics’) “the Democrats” are just generally more likely to elevate people based on their identity, and he views that as a reflection on the value of any given white male.
That’s not to say that resentment is a good or fair or appropriate reaction, or that this point of view is, like, the right one. But I think I understand the point of view.
To have this point of view, you would have to ignore the fact that trying to promote more equal representation is something you can do in addition to finding qualified people, not instead of.
I don’t. There’s so much evidence that shows how false this is – white men still dominate the elected ranks of Democrats as well.
I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand it in literal terms, I guess. Do you think it was harder, or more difficult, to get chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate if you were a person of color? In 2018 and 2020, was white male the predominant identity of newly elected Democrats?
These are unfair questions, because history exists, and because there are an absurd number of factors that the questions ignore. But I think we all come up with the same answers to them.
Again, not saying I think the observation is morally appropriate. I’m saying that I understand the empirical observation that’s being made.
I guess I’d like to see the empirical evidence. I find it unlikely that there are more women and people of color among elected Democrats than there are white men.
Joe Biden’s running mate is one example, but of course Joe Biden himself is a counter example, both as the appointed VP of Obama and as the chosen candidate for Democrats in 2020 where he ran against many women and people of color. I’ll see if I can track down the demographics of elected Democrats for 2018 or 2020.
In 2018, there were 67 new Democrats. 38 were women; 23 were people of color. I believe that 18 were white men, but that’s based on me looking at these pictures, so could be off.
I think people (especially if they’re straight, white and/or men) sometimes personalize it like this and imagine themselves as the most qualified straight white guy who lost a position to someone from a different group and feel like something is being taken from them.
The problem is even if you ignore the idea of trying to achieve restorative justice for the candidates themselves, this doesn’t make sense for politics at all. Politicians need to make decisions that won’t affect every group of people in the same way, and there are countless examples of a government dominated by straight white guys having unacceptable responses to crises that have a disproportionate effect on minorities, women, LGBT etc. I don’t think the government’s response to AIDS in the 80’s would have been nearly as bad if there had been more gay men in the decision room. If someone is interested more in the personal side of politics than in things like that, it’s hard for me to really empathize with their perspective.
According to this (PDF), in October 2020, there were 236 Democrats in the House. There were 90 women who are Democrats, and 52 African Americans (but I don’t know the overlap who were African American women).
Separately, according to this, of the 126 total women in the US Congress, 47 are women of color.
I can’t figure out how to combine and contrast, but I don’t think I’m going to get to a majority of Democrats being women or people of color.
Sorry, just saw this. And, I’ll say, so what? Other than the 67 new Democrats, there were also tons of returning white men, right? They all get elected every two years.
Moderating:
They gave a real answer that you chose to ignore (the MMA business was just in passing, but you chose to play it up. If you don’t want to debate, don’t. But then you follow it up with innuendo that you say you can’t talk about. If you can’t talk about it, don’t talk about it. I judge that this justifies an official warning.
That’s the subject I thought we were talking about, I guess. The current political climate as it relates to identity. I didn’t say that I believed Congress was majority minority, of course.
And like I said, this is all bad reasoning because it ignores the weight of history. But “the Democrats want to advantage minorities over people with my identity,” as a basis for resentment, seems pretty straightforward to me. And it is a significant challenge when it comes to how white people vote, if you’re a person who doesn’t want to live in the world we currently live in.
Edit: jesus, that’s an official warning now? I guess I take everything back, never met the guy
OK, just to be clear, I understand that there are people who resent how things are going. You and I agree there. I’m just saying that they’re wrong and they’re guilty of confirmation bias – they only notice the women and minorities who get elected (or who become doctors or whatever) and ignore the tons of white men who continue to dominate many of those fields.
So, I agree that they are resentful, but that’s because of their own confirmation bias (and, probably, because of their news sources that like to stir up outrage for these kinds of things).
Of course it was more difficult if you were a person of color. In order to get on the “long list” you need to be a person with a national political profile, which is usually built from being in Congress or having a Governorship under your belt along with a large number of personal connections that gets you inroads into the party because you’ve met and befriended “the right people” often by having gone to “the right schools” or having “the right parents,” etc. And that long list - even in the Democratic party - has an overrepresentation of white men. To be clear, the path to making that long list is not a cakewalk for almost anyone, but it is IMNSHO, easier for men than for women and it is easier for white people than POC.
If you’re trying to narrow your question down to just was it easier to make Biden’s shorter list from the long list - yes, in this year, it might have been easier for a WOC. However, if you do so, you’re ignoring all of the difficulty up to that point, which is disingenuous at best.