Reflections of America

If President-elect George W. Bush’s Cabinet was selected to compensate for his lack of Washington experience, its unprecedented diversity also makes up for his party’s lack of color. While Democratic administrations make diverse appointments to pay back loyal constituencies, Bush has made them to cultivate new ones. In 1992, Bill Clinton’s fulfillment of his promise to make his Cabinet “look like America” was not greeted with nearly the good notices that have, so far, been showered on Bush. At least part of the difference lies in language used to justify the choices. While Clinton’s selections smacked of affirmative action--his attorney general had to be a woman--the Bush team has wrapped its appointments in the language of meritocracy: They simply chose the most deserving.

Bush’s Cabinet selections are further proof that the Republican Party has, at long last, begun to acknowledge the role of race and ethnicity in U.S. society. For too long, conservatives resisted recognizing racial and ethnic differences for fear that it would undermine American unity. But denial of diversity was not only a lame strategy for social cohesion; it ultimately became politically unfeasible in a diversifying nation.

Still, even as Republicans take ethnicity into account, they adhere to the pretense that they are “colorblind.” When asked the significance of his diverse Cabinet, Bush responded that it was proof that “people who work hard and make the right decisions can achieve anything they want in America.” While certainly a valuable sentiment worthy of repeating, it doesn’t tell the whole story: While Clinton’s diversity strategy was both heavy-handed and borderline insulting, the new Republican one is disingenuous and incomplete.

Nine years ago, just after President-elect Clinton announced his first Cabinet, his communications director, George Stephanopoulos, assured reporters that the Arkansas governor had tried “to balance the need for diversity with the need to get excellent people.” Clinton himself boasted that he had “worked very hard” to put together a team that was “representative of both men and women and different racial groups.” The message was not only that diversity and excellence are a rare combination, but that they were doing the American people an enormous favor for having actually accomplished it. One anonymous aide told the New York Times that Clinton was “struggling really heavily” with the search for Latino candidates.

But even though he did appoint what was at the time the most diverse Cabinet in U.S. history, Clinton was ambushed by advocacy groups, primarily those representing women and Latinos, in the weeks leading up to his Cabinet announcements. Frustrated by the demands of constituency groups he courted during the campaign, Clinton wound up lashing out at what he called “bean counters,” accusing them of playing “quota games.” Having made too many promises to too many groups, Clinton’s diversity pledge had sparked an unseemly political feeding frenzy.

Yet, there is nothing new or particularly wrong about this type of political patronage. U.S. politicians have long acknowledged the importance of diversity in their staffs. It’s just that a generation and more ago, diversity referred to religion, geography or white-ethnic national origin. Old-style urban political bosses had to appease varying European-origin groups in their administrations. Presidents routinely appealed to state and regional loyalties.

One difference between then and now is that the definition and elements of diversity have changed. European-origin groups, Catholics and Jews now fall under the broad “white” category, and women, blacks and Latinos have finally been thrown into the mix. The other difference is that making politically calculated patronage appointments is now treated as if it were some sort of saintly, selfless deed. Such appointments used to be considered politically savvy; today, they are seen as an act of compassion or good will.

Over the past few decades, the concept of diversity has evolved into something close to a civic religion. It’s not unusual to hear everyone from human-relations workers to corporate recruiters utter the same slogan about the need to “celebrate diversity.” But whereas this rhetoric was once employed to justify programs to make institutions more inclusive, diversity is now a goal in itself. Last month, a Reagan-appointed federal judge upheld the University of Michigan’s affirmative-action program on the ground that “the need for diversity lives on perpetually.” No longer a remedy for past wrongs, the objective of affirmative action is now to create diversity, which is believed to enhance the educational experience. In other words, affirmative action has legal standing because it has been proved to benefit whites, too.

Yet, no such legal logic can be employed to justify diversity in Cabinet appointments. Women or minority groups have no right, per se, to have one of their own present at the highest level of government. Furthermore, minority Cabinet members are not sworn to serve as proxies for their ethnic groups. Certainly, a person’s background may bring special insight or sensitivities to a job. Having minorities by his side may also affect a president’s personal attitudes. President Richard M. Nixon might not have felt as comfortable spewing his racist comments had there been African Americans in his immediate circle. But it is still impossible to conclude that, say, Cabinet members Federico Pena or Bill Richardson implemented a Latino agenda at their jobs as secretaries of Transportation or Energy.

In truth, the genders and ethnicities of Cabinet members play an almost purely symbolic role. Diverse Cabinets, be they Democrat or Republican, are not accurate reflections of the country, but seductive images of what America still could be. They are meant to tell voters, especially those still struggling to enter the mainstream, that a particular political party will help get them there. But by making members of these groups actually feel more integrally part of America by extension, they become rare instances when political tactics actually serve a social good.

Racial and gender determinists on the left contend that government personnel should proportionally reflect the percentages of groups in the population at large. Politics has distilled the racial debate in this country to those who think race is everything and those who think it doesn’t matter at all. Bush’s appointments have already caused some stir on the far right by those who worry that the GOP is simply mimicking Democratic identity politics. New to coalition politics, Republicans are still reluctant to verbally acknowledge their potential coalition partners.

The withdrawal of Linda Chavez, the only Mexican American Cabinet appointee, from consideration for secretary of Labor put Bush in the uncomfortable position of having to pick another minority to replace her. Yet, his choice of Elaine Chao to head Labor undermined the already threadbare myth that ethnicity and gender were not factors in his selection process.

Ironically, the absence of a Mexican American on Bush’s Cabinet puts him at a clear disadvantage in his efforts to court the very group that helped him forge his image as an inclusive Republican in his home state of Texas. Or it may just further strengthen the political logic behind appointing the first Mexican American to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is already rumored to be considering the selection of either Alberto R. Gonzales, the Texas Supreme Court judge whom he has named White House legal counsel, or Emilio M. Garza, a federal appeals-court judge in Texas, to the U.S. Supreme Court. When and if he does appoint one of them, Bush should make it clear that the judge’s ethnic background was one factor among many in his selection.

A decade ago, nobody believed President George Bush when he insisted that race played no part in his choice to replace retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. Just as Clinton took on his “bean counters” nine years ago, George W. must tell his party’s right wing that no longer is it anathema to address race in the Republican Party. If he fails to do so, he will not only doom his party’s new minority outreach strategy, but he will have wasted an opportunity to bring the country’s racial dialogue to a reasonable middle ground.