It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Political: Acumen vs. Correctness

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
President elect Trump is in the process of selecting his cabinet appointees. It is no secret that the left thinks his choices are bad - for a variety of reasons. In this thread my goal is to address one of the more acidic: Political Correctness.

The question is this: Should we sacrifice the quality of the candidates in favor of diversity? What if the best person for the job is a white male?

I am not suggesting that there are no people of color or women who could not perform admirably in these positions. Far from it. But should we take the second or third or tenth (whatever) most qualified candidate because it will add diversity to the cabinet or should we always take the best person for the job regardless of their gender/ethnicity?

I believe the American people deserve the best, not the best some sub-group has to offer. I don't care what the personal attributes of the candidate are as long as they are the absolute best we can find for the position. The problem is that it seems the liberals believe that increasing diversity, while individual candidates may be less qualified, enhances the cabinet as a whole and makes it a better functioning unit. Personally I think that is the same as saying only women and people of color are capable of seeing beyond gender and ethnicity. Or, a group of white men can not function in the best interests of the American people as well as a group of men/women/people of color can.

Or more simply put - race and gender matter. Which, if I am not mistaken, is the antithesis of the liberal belief system...




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
At this stage of the game, I just want the best person in the positions...

Ultimately that is what should drive all appointments, in my opinion.... Now if a qualified person of color... different religion etc is denied because of their difference then people should be outraged.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I agree. I don't think race/gender should qualify or disqualify anyone. We need the best.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Political Correctness is a dangerous disease that must be eradicated. We must flood the colleges, use free pell grants. Poke holes in their... non-logic.

But seriously.. the lack of ideological diversity on campus is frightening.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Nice strawman. Did it ever occur to you that some of us don't like his picks because of their political views? Or did you already forget that Democrats were pushing for a white woman and white man to become President and Vice President?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Funny you brought this up.

My wife just asked if Trump was bringing in too many military people.

I said that we hear all the time how beneficial it is to hire a vet. They are dedicated, disciplined, hard-working people.

I also said that they are the biggest anti-war people you'd want to have since many of them have actually been shot at and know the risks involved, unlike some academic who have never seen the world outside their ivory castle.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Offering positions on the basis of race or gender is racist and sexist for the exact same reason as denying positions on the basis of race or gender. Diversity in skin color or gender is a public relations ploy for racists and sexists.
edit on 10-12-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I was told recently even but multiple times over the last 8 years I was racist for not liking Obama... the fact that I disliked he policies and thought he was a horrid leader didnt matter...

I also didnt like Hillary and was told I hate women because of it on multiple occasions..

Yes the OP was a bit of a strawman, but its one that was slung at many conservative types over the last 8 years.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Dude, join the club. Take a guess how many times I've been called a terrorist/extremist or given special security checks at airports because of my religion. Or how many times I've had the cops called on me for everyday tasks like walking with my Mom in a park, walking in my neighborhood, or "suspiciously" planting fruit trees. Or how many times conservatives have called me weak or meek for being a vegetarian, pacifist, and environmentalist.

Just because someone unjustly treats us like crap doesn't mean we should do the same thing to others. Otherwise it'll only perpetuate the negativity.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

World has more than its share of stupid no doubt about it, I entertain the straw man on line I try to treat everyone as I am treated in real life.

So far its lead to making some interesting friends around the world.

I do apologize for my last post it was a bit abrupt, I had just woken up and had to get the wife to the airport due to a family emergency stateside so... tired and grumpy is my name.

Keep being a good person, its all we can do some days..



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

No worries.

My extended family's had a whirlwind of drama over here, too. And the political climate has a lot of people on edge right, to say the least.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I can imagine, the climate over here is concerning to me and I dont fit any demographic thats being targeted..

I cant even imagine the stress if I was in a group being targeted.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Nice deflection.

This is not a straw man argument unless you are willing to overlook the concessions made in the opening statement. I stated that the left do not like his choices for a variety of reasons. I did not misrepresent anything and focused on one aspect of the resistance to President Trump's selections - political correctness. And I acknowledge that there are women and people of color who could perform admirably in these positions. This is not a blanket statement of all liberals allotting them one reason for disliking President Trump's cabinet selections. I am not fabricating a condition, then attacking based on that fabrication. This is real and happening now.

As pointed out above, some people think he is selecting too many military figures. One of his potential SCOTUS picks is being described as "too old to be appointed" indicating a preference for younger candidates. The same people complaining about age have no problem with people in congress in their 70's. This suggests at least the possibility that the age preference is aligned with the belief that a younger candidate has a greater likelihood for more progressive views.

I have been called a racist for the last eight years because I don't like obama. Others have noted here that they have been called misogynist for not liking hillary. Which begs the question, are women who dislike President Trump misandrists? Are people of color who dislike President Trump racist? Which takes us full circle - it seems political correctness only allows for white men to be guilty of this behavior while women and people of color get a free pass.
edit on 10-12-2016 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



The problem is that it seems the liberals believe that increasing diversity, while individual candidates may be less qualified, enhances the cabinet as a whole and makes it a better functioning unit.


Where did you read or hear that? I'd like to know where you got that idea from.

Have a link?



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



I have been called a racist for the last eight years because I don't like obama. Others have noted here that they have been called misogynist for not liking hillary. Which begs the question, are women who dislike President Trump misandrists? Are people of color who dislike President Trump racist? Which takes us full circle - it seems political correctness only allows for white men to be guilty of this behavior while women and people of color get a free pass.


I think our fellow member was right. You are creating a straw man argument.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You know perfectly well this is a common liberal attitude. I did one search and clicked on one article and found this:


But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly, as we have just seen. National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them.

The media’s newfound, almost anthropological, interest in the angry white male reveals as much about the state of our liberalism as it does about this much maligned, and previously ignored, figure. A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns. It also encourages the fantasy that the Republican right is doomed to demographic extinction in the long run — which means liberals have only to wait for the country to fall into their laps. The surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote that went to Mr. Trump should remind us that the longer ethnic groups are here in this country, the more politically diverse they become.

Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because it absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored. Such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America (they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country). But they are reacting against the omnipresent rhetoric of identity, which is what they mean by “political correctness.” Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists. Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it.
Source: Mark Lilla, Professor of Humanities at Columbia quoted in the NY Times.

Unless you are asserting that the liberal desire for diversity is intended to create a dysfunctional government the logical assumption is in the belief that a diverse body of people will work better than a body of people with similar characteristics. Or, as the article above suggests, perhaps liberals are just angry and lashing out creating their own straw man - the angry white male.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



You know perfectly well this is a common liberal attitude. I did one search and clicked on one article and found this:


Your own source separates those that push identity politics and the rest of the party. Bill Clinton was used as an example.


So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them.


While there are those that use identity politics for whatever purpose, it is dishonest to say that it is a common liberal attitude. Many within the party and others on the Left take no issue with an individual taking a position based on their experiences and expertise.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

I believe the American people deserve the best, not the best some sub-group has to offer. I don't care what the personal attributes of the candidate are as long as they are the absolute best we can find for the position. The problem is that it seems the liberals believe that increasing diversity, while individual candidates may be less qualified, enhances the cabinet as a whole and makes it a better functioning unit. Personally I think that is the same as saying only women and people of color are capable of seeing beyond gender and ethnicity. Or, a group of white men can not function in the best interests of the American people as well as a group of men/women/people of color can.

Or more simply put - race and gender matter. Which, if I am not mistaken, is the antithesis of the liberal belief system...


Actually, race and gender matter. But, not in the way you're thinking there.

Those liberals you point to believe that what makes America great is the 300 Million Americans themselves, and not the handful of dudes and dudettes that hold high office. But, role models are important in lifting the spirits of those Americans, to make them believe in themselves, so that they are encouraged to pick themselves up, dust off their grievances, and make their mark by contributing to the great society. So, these positions of high office are just role model posts. To expect these ordinary folk who sit in the high chairs to solve all the nations problems is just the delusions of some, who can't see the bigger picture.

If only Blue people held high office, then all the Green people will think that the society doesn't reward Green for efforts, so why try? That means, the Blue people will be doing all the work, while the Green people sit around and complain, and not bother to help. That will then reinforce the Blue people's opinion that Green people are lazy and useless, and can't do things, that they really could. This in turn, will cause the Blue people to overlook Green people's applications for jobs, when the few who try to pull themselves out of the dumps make the effort. And the cycle spirals downwards.

To balance things out, you've got to give every group a chance to sit in the high chairs, so that group will turn its negative attitude around, and start thinking like Trump: "I can, I will, I win."



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You prefer to believe it is the minority liberal attitude. I see otherwise. You are entitled to your view and I leave you to it. I have to believe my own eyes.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

I get your point but I disagree. People come to this country for opportunity. They are fully aware of the possibility of being successful before they even touch our shores. I don't disagree there are those who think the system is rigged against them and don't bother trying. But I also see that as a cop out. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. No matter how bad it may look everyone knows you can't win if you don't play.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join