I’ve touched on this issue before, but this post over on AmericaBlog got the ol’ gears going overtime in my brain. John Aravosis, arguably the internet’s premiere gay-rights political blogger, links to the Human Rights Campaign’s post concerning Bill Richardson’s withdrawal from Obama’s cabinet, following it up with his own two cents:
“With the vacancy of Governor Bill Richardson as the nominee for Secretary of Commerce, President-elect Obama is presented with yet another opportunity to make good on his promise of equality for all LGBT people,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese.
It’s all well and good to claim that Obama is post-partisan, but he went out of his way to try to make his Cabinet look like America. But it doesn’t. It looks like straight America. Now it’s time to make it truly look like America. Someone in Obama-land could make up for Rick Warren, and more, in one fell swoop.
Okay, now for mine.
I understand where John and the HRC are coming from. The same could be said concerning the inclusion of any minority, be it racial, sexual, or religious. However, for the same reason I argue against making his cabinet artificially bipartisan by picking X number of Republicans and Y number of Democrats, throwing a gay person into the fold just to add to the rainbow (so to speak) is the wrong way of doing it.
What Obama should be heralding in is a “colorblind” era, so to speak, wherein cabinet positions and judicial appointments are made on the merits of their qualifications rather than their pedigree, be it political or otherwise. The last eight years showed what happened when political appointments are made based on the letter by their name or the churches they go to. For us to take a step forward, the superficial should have nothing to do with their selection.
Gays, like blacks/women/Republicans/Jews/etc, should neither be excluded nor included simply by virtue of one of their qualities. Should a qualified member of the LGBT community fit the role vacated by Richardson, then by all means pick ‘em. To search just in that pool for someone limits the choices and potentially robs us of the best person for the job.
By the by, I realize this seems like it could be applied to affirmative action, but that’s a wholly different matter.
I agree. It’s tokenism. I voted for Obama, but not because he’s black. I didn’t vote for Hillary (tho’ I’m a woman and allegedly she’s one too). What do the sexual preferences of the Secretary of Commerce have to do with job performance? (OTOH, by appointing an LGBT Secretary of Education, Obama could have made a bold statement, which I’d have heartily endorsed….and there’s still the Supreme Court!)
A gay justice on the SCOTUS would be, to put it mildly, incredible. For one big reason: the right would absolutely explode trying to explain their opposition to the choice without sounding like massive bigots. While they might not want any LGBT cabinet members, like you said the sexual orientation of the Secretary of Commerce doesn’t really matter. A gay Supreme Court justice? Oh yes, that would be significant.