Upfront disclaimer: I wrote this on December 4, 2019, right after Kamala Harris dropped out of the race. Then I sat on it. Anything race has proven to be quite possibly the most touchy of subjects, and I’m not a fan of having my thoughts “knee-jerked”, and that happens often when the topic is race. Anyway, time has moved on, the ‘big issue’ no longer is, but the feelings are still valid and similar scenarios will come up again, you can be sure of that. So, here we go…
There may be no minorities in the next Democratic debate. Why does it matter? <Original title>
Kamala Harris has ended her run for president. Many people are decrying there will now be no minority candidate in the next-scheduled debate. Ok. Seriously, why does it matter? At this point, I mean. Some critical factors that should not be forgotten…
- There are still minorities in the race, they’re just not doing well enough to qualify for the next debate. (Subject to change, I suppose, but doubtful. If they haven’t appealed by now…)
- There have been minorities in the race who have since dropped out… because they didn’t do well. You can’t make the voters like somebody, and even then, it should be based on substance, not the superficial.
- Are we suggesting that minorities should be given some special boost to artificially convey them status they haven’t earned? (Kinda sounds like the whole conservative argument regarding quotas, doesn’t it? Maybe in some way it is, see below.)
- As time goes by in the primaries people are going to fall out. Duh! That’s what the primaries are designed to do. That’s their sole purpose.
- You might have a minor point if there had been no minority candidates at all, but even then it was legitimately open to anybody. Just as you cannot make voters like somebody, you cannot make people run for office.
I generally keep race-related discussion and commentary to a minimum because race has become “the new abortion” in the sense that it’s virtually impossible to have an adult discussion. Even when you’re right, you’re wrong, and there are lots of people, loud people, willing to tell you so. There is no sharing of ideas or give-and-take. No nuances. Neither volume nor self-righteous indignation makes up for specious arguments, but I digress.
Anyway, per point #2 above, there have been several minorities in the race, and they simply didn’t appeal to enough voters. What more do you want?
So, per point #3, maybe this does expose the liberal mindset regarding racial issues, and it does go back to quotas, and so on. To an underlying mindset that subconsciously drives conclusions from far-left extreme partisan people like this. Opportunity isn’t enough, it must be results or it’s invalid. Are you suggesting we artificially push a minority candidate or two forward so they can stay in the race in some vague quest for perceived equality?
We never learn, do we?
Reminds me of the not-too-long ago issue in Iowa regarding women office holders. The then-angst for Iowa liberals was that Iowa was one of the last two states (Mississippi being the other) that had never elected a woman to either the US Senate or as Governor. I have several very liberal friends… two who leap to mind immediately whenever I think of this… who kept this mantra this going constantly. Paraphrasing, Iowa needed to correct this, needed to come out of the dark ages, needed to catch up to the rest of the “progressive” world, blah blah, blah… Iowa needs to elect a woman to one of these posts. It was deemed significantly important.
Then Iowa elected a woman to the US Senate.
Joni Ernst, a very conservative Republican. Oopsie! To paraphrase Forrest Gump, and just like that, all the progressive liberals went silent. I mean, you could have heard a pin drop.
Wait, isn’t that what they wanted? An elected woman to one of those two offices? No distinction was specified, just assumed. But there were no liberal celebrations. No proverbial ‘high fives’. No congratulatory “Finally!”, or “It’s about time!”, or other statements of accomplishment and satisfaction being uttered. Not… a… single… word.
You see, when these people got what they claimed they wanted, they became like the ungrateful spoiled child who got the cheaper generic version of the trendy new toy for Christmas. Fact is, despite what they said, a woman was irrelevant, it had to be the right woman. A progressive woman. Or, at least a liberal woman. A woman who would push *their* agenda. Just a woman, undeniably, wasn’t good enough. (Shhh, don’t tell anyone, but a man… a progressive man… would have been much better, but they won’t say so because they’re not talking about it now.)
In reality it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t about the sex of the person then, and it shouldn’t be about the race of the person now. At all. Because when the rubber hits the road, it’s not the race or ethnicity or the sex or the gender of the person being elected that is important, it’s their positions and what they are going to do. Period.
If you find yourself placing primary importance on the sex or gender or race or ethnicity of the person you want to elect, you’re doing it wrong. Ask yourself this: In 2016 would you have wanted Ben Carson to become president?* No? Point proven, mic drop.
Bottom line: Primaries are a weeding out process. That’s what they do, weed out.
Back-end disclaimer: If all candidates are the same in policy and ability (for the sake of discussion), and the only difference is sex or race, then fine, whatever. Honestly, I wouldn’t care what you do or who you vote for or who you advocate in that scenario. You do whatever you’re going to do based on whatever leftover factors there are from which to choose. But, in the real world no two candidates are the same, hence here we are.
*-Inevitable comparisons to Donald Trump not the point here.