J D Vance, DEI Candidate

[wmw999 2,291]

This is an absolutely wonderful column from the NY Times. Copied in toto because of the paywall. 

Link

Quote

OPINION
LYDIA POLGREEN

JD Vance, D.E.I. Candidate
July 21, 2024, 6:00 a.m. ET

Ever since speculation began that Vice President Kamala Harris might replace President Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, there has been a steady, ugly chorus on the right. The New York Post published a column that declared that Harris would be a “D.E.I. president,” and quickly the phrase ricocheted across the conservative media ecosystem.

The invocation of diversity, equity and inclusion programs meant to bring people from underrepresented backgrounds into institutions of power and influence clearly implied that a Black woman got power because of racial preferences. Black achievement, in this narrative, is always unearned and conferred without regard to merit.

Listening to JD Vance’s speech at the Republican convention on Wednesday night, as he laid out his remarkable biography — a young man with roots in an economically devastated backwater who scaled the heights of the American elite — I couldn’t help thinking to myself: If Harris is a D.E.I. candidate, so is Vance. It just depends on what kind of diversity you mean. It depends, indeed, on how you understand the role of identity in shaping the opportunities that define anyone’s life.

All politics is, at some level, identity politics — the business of turning identity into power, be it the identity of a candidate or demographic group or political party or region of the country. For modern presidential and vice-presidential candidates, one of their most valuable assets is their life story. Some elements of that story are bequeathed at birth, but what makes politicians successful is their talent at narrating that story in a manner that allows voters to see some version of themselves and their own aspirations in the candidate. This kind of storytelling, embedded in American archetypes and ideals, has shaped our politics.

Vance’s entire business and political career has flowed from his life story, which is embedded in identities he did not choose: Born a “hillbilly,” of Scotch-Irish descent, he grew up in poverty, son of a single mother who was addicted to drugs. Overcoming this adversity, these disadvantages, lies at the core of his personal narrative. His ascent would hardly be so remarkable if he started from a life of middle-class comfort. But no one is portraying Vance’s elevation to the Republican ticket as the outcome of some kind of illegitimate identity politics, nor is Vance perceived as having benefited from a political form of affirmative action.

And yet he almost certainly did. Race is not the only kind of diversity that gets noticed and embraced. Elite institutions love up-by-your-bootstraps Americans, and that archetype is all over Vance’s life story. A promising white candidate from a county that sends few students to an elite college like Yale would get a strong look, even if that person’s grades and test scores were less impressive than other applicants’. (To be clear, I have no idea what kind of grades or scores Vance had.) Regardless of race, applicants from working-class backgrounds, especially if they were the first in their family to attend college, are deemed to add class diversity.

Natasha Warikoo, a professor of sociology at Tufts University whose scholarship focuses on affirmative action and ideas about meritocracy, told me that race is a highly visible identity and the one that is most likely to be associated with unearned advantage. Yet race is not the only kind of identity that excites elite institutions looking for diversity. “We want a variety of perspectives and lived experiences,” Warikoo said.

The labor historian Gabriel Winant, who crossed paths with Vance at Yale, wrote of him last year: “If you spend enough time at elite universities, you should be able to recognize this as a type: conservative white men from outside the WASP elite who have figured out how to present themselves as persecuted minorities and be rewarded for it. Although Vance no doubt did feel out of place at Yale, elite universities love promising young conservative men like him. Institutions often seek them out and do them favors; doing so makes faculty and administrators feel broad-minded.”

Vance benefited from one of the most powerful forms of affirmative action that elite universities practice to attract low-income students: need-blind admissions. Like many elite schools, Yale pledges to help cover the cost of attending for poor students, and Vance wrote about receiving generous financial aid for law school, not “because of anything I’d done or earned — it was because I was one of the poorest kids in school.” I am familiar with this phenomenon — my much less elite college had a similar policy. Our family was penniless, so I received aid that covered nearly the entire cost of my expensive education.

The sort of affirmative action that helped Vance gets easily overlooked — it’s less visible than race, making it easier to ascribe the achievements of white men to merit alone. The playing field is never tilted to help white men, the theory goes. If anything, it is tilted against them, in favor of women and minorities, we’re told by the right. And if there are any advantages for white men, they exist only to help elites remain elites — legacy admissions, preferences for athletes and players of expensive sports like sailing, old-boy networks.

In truth, it is pretty common for white men to get a leg up for some special part of their identity. Yet these men do not get labeled D.E.I. beneficiaries. No one worries that their surgeon or pilot or president was a “D.E.I. hire,” even though he might have gotten his spot at an elite college because he was the son of a wealthy alumnus, or because he happened to come from a state that is historically underrepresented in elite higher education. Indeed, he may have impressed an admissions officer with an unusual story of overcoming obstacles — a family rived by poverty and addiction in a forgotten corner of the country.

I wonder: Why do people look at Vance’s life story and achievements and see a vice president, and they look at Vice President Harris’s life story and achievements and see a “D.E.I. candidate”?

You have to look pretty far into history to find a vice-presidential nominee with a slimmer résumé than Vance. In fairness, he is only 39. Before he entered the Senate 18 months ago, his public service experience consisted of a stint in the Marine Corps, which is a solid early entry on a political résumé. This champion of forgotten America made his fortune by writing a best-selling book that portrayed the rural white community he came from as lazy and undisciplined, responsible for its poverty and misery. He got even richer working as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, hobnobbing with the billionaire fleece-vest crowd at invitation-only conferences among the uber elite. He is clearly a person of talent and drive. But it is hard to imagine that he could have gotten this far were it not for the value that elite institutions place on biographies like his.

Affirmative action of a kind is built into our political system. The drafters of the Constitution did not have the term “diversity, equity and inclusion” at hand, but how else do you describe a system that gives two senators and at least three Electoral College votes to a state that based on population qualifies for only one member of the House of Representatives? Our Constitution does not lecture Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas, Vermont and Delaware to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and do a better job of competing for residents with states like California and New York in order to earn their disproportionate representation.

Some of the earliest settlers of the United States were religious minorities fleeing persecution, and protection of the rights of certain minorities lies at the core of our founding documents. For better or worse, our Constitution finds value in tempering the power of the majority, though that has worked out in ways no one fathomed in the 18th century. It is telling that these kinds of preferences, the valuing of geographic and religious diversity, are so deeply embedded in our history and do not read to most people as unearned or unjust.

Personally, I think powerful institutions should value this kind of diversity. Over the course of my career I have hired and promoted many people, and diversity in the broadest sense has always been important to me. I have found that the best leaders I have worked with are eager to build teams from as wide a range of geographic, religious, class, ideological and, yes, racial and ethnic backgrounds as possible.

Kamala Harris and JD Vance, despite their political differences, have a few things in common. They were raised by tough, charismatic matriarchs. They both pursued legal careers. They both sought and won high elected office. They both come from backgrounds that are underrepresented in the halls of power. And now they are both engaged in the core work of politics — translating their stories into power. We would do well to ask why only one of these two remarkable Americans stands accused of getting where she is based on D.E.I. The answer, I fear, is written on their faces.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,229]

35 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The drafters of the Constitution did not have the term “diversity, equity and inclusion”

Morning, Wendy

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Abraham Lincoln called it “a rebuke and a stumbling-block to tyranny and oppression.” It continues to inspire people around the world to fight for freedom and equality. If this were not true, why do so many die trying to cross our borders. I get tired of the new word speak of the day. Perhaps if the US Constitution was again required reading in JHS HS, we wouldn't have these silly political footballs.   

[winsor 220]

39 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

This is an absolutely wonderful column from the NY Times. Copied in toto because of the paywall. 

Link

Wendy P.

The implication is unearned privilege.   While Vance appears to be moderately bright, Kamala is a moron and represents the downside of affirmative action.

I've known enough people who got where they were to fill quotas that I empathize with those who had to demonstrate conclusively that they met any applicable standards.

I'm all for providing equal opportunity to anyone with the ability and drive to take on a particular role, be it PIC, MD, CEO or whatever.  I staunchly oppose quotas that supercede merit.

[wmw999 2,291]

8 minutes ago, winsor said:

Kamala is a moron and represents the downside of affirmative action.

What leads you to that conclusion? Could it be that your news choices focus only on the negative?

Wendy P. 

[tkhayes 241]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

The implication is unearned privilege.   While Vance appears to be moderately bright, Kamala is a moron and represents the downside of affirmative action.

 

She has two degrees including a JD..... not exactly 'moron' class.  

[winsor 220]

15 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

She has two degrees including a JD..... not exactly 'moron' class.  

I've worked with people with advanced degrees whose abysmal grasp of the fundamentals was downright stunning.

She's a moron.

Edited July 21 by winsor

[lippy 852]

43 minutes ago, winsor said:

She's a moron.

A fair opponent for Trump then

[billeisele 130]

48 minutes ago, winsor said:

I've worked with people with advanced degrees whose abysmal grasp of the fundamentals was downright stunning.

She's a moron.

Correct. I don't care about anything other than ones ability to do the job. Seen plenty of unqualified and lesser qualified folks placed in positions that they were unequipped to manage. I've also seen folks that would be classified as "minority" that proved themselves with accomplishments and they earned more prominent roles and continued to succeed. Yeah for them and for all that enjoy that success.

Since Harris has become prominent I've not seen evidence that she has the experience or capability to problem solve or manage a complex task. The Presidency should not be a training job or proving ground. What's needed is proven leadership and a long history of success in multiple areas.

[BIGUN 1,229]

21 minutes ago, lippy said:

A fair opponent for Trump then

Yeah, think of it as a new presidential reality game of "Survivor - White House Edition."

[wolfriverjoe 1,447]

32 minutes ago, billeisele said:

...Since Harris has become prominent I've not seen evidence that she has the experience or capability to problem solve or manage a complex task. The Presidency should not be a training job or proving ground. What's needed is proven leadership and a long history of success in multiple areas.

City Attorney & District Attorney of San Francisco.
Attorney General of California (elected twice).

But she has no 'experience or capability to problem solve or manage a complex task'

Sure.
Right.

[kallend 1,798]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

City Attorney & District Attorney of San Francisco.
Attorney General of California (elected twice).

But she has no 'experience or capability to problem solve or manage a complex task'

Sure.
Right.

Yes, but other than that. . . .

 

 

[Erroll 74]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

What's needed is proven leadership and a long history of success in multiple areas.

Like J.D. Vance?

[nigel99 273]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Yeah, think of it as a new presidential reality game of "Survivor - White House Edition."

Commit fully to American craziness and elect Hawk Tuah

[BIGUN 1,229]

7 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

Commit fully to American craziness and elect Hawk Tuah

I think Bill Clinton already did that. 

[billvon 2,676]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Since Harris has become prominent I've not seen evidence that she has the experience or capability to problem solve or manage a complex task.

Other than being DA of San Francisco, Attorney General of California and US Senator you mean?  I'd say that's much better experience than being a reality TV star, or running businesses that failed.

Quote

The Presidency should not be a training job or proving ground. What's needed is proven leadership and a long history of success in multiple areas.

Agreed.  Since she was president for a short time, she does have proven experience in the role.  And since she was a successful Attorney General of the most populous state in the US, she has experience leading huge organizations.

[Phil1111 1,049]

7 hours ago, winsor said:

I've worked with people with advanced degrees whose abysmal grasp of the fundamentals was downright stunning.

She's a moron.

Black and a Woman, got it.

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

Correct. I don't care about anything other than ones ability to do the job. Seen plenty of unqualified and lesser qualified folks placed in positions that they were unequipped to manage. I've also seen folks that would be classified as "minority" that proved themselves with accomplishments and they earned more prominent roles and continued to succeed. Yeah for them and for all that enjoy that success.

Since Harris has become prominent I've not seen evidence that she has the experience or capability to problem solve or manage a complex task. The Presidency should not be a training job or proving ground. What's needed is proven leadership and a long history of success in multiple areas.

55 Things You Need To Know About Kamala Harris Politico 2020

Black and a Woman, got it. As to compared to a racist, rapist, convicted felon, admitted fraudster, ex multiple bankrupt,....... oh well for some facts are irrelevant.

[johnhking1 83]

I have seen youtube videos of a number of her speeches.  She needs extensive training in public speaking.  She also needs work on eliminating her nervous laugh.  I don't know if she is a moron, a genius or in between, she currently doesn't present herself very well. 

[Stumpy 280]

8 hours ago, johnhking1 said:

I have seen youtube videos of a number of her speeches.  She needs extensive training in public speaking.  She also needs work on eliminating her nervous laugh.  I don't know if she is a moron, a genius or in between, she currently doesn't present herself very well. 

seen any videos of trump speaking? She could be standing on her head and laughing like a hyena and she'd still present better than he does.

[wmw999 2,291]

Yes, but Trump is one of them. Remember, any single error by an "other" is disqualifying. Any single right action by a "same" is qualifying.

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,798]

Trump's own supporters tried to hang his previous VP.

But at least Vance doesn't have bone spurs.

[billeisele 130]

20 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

City Attorney & District Attorney of San Francisco.
Attorney General of California (elected twice).

But she has no 'experience or capability to problem solve or manage a complex task'

Sure.
Right.

It's been proven many times that being "elected" doesn't prove anything. Look at her record of things she actually did.
As VP she is one of the least popular. One poll had her as the worst. Whatever that means.
Her comments on coconut trees (huh, what??), clapped along to a song in Spanish that was attacking her, and has said this non-sensical sentence many times, "what can be unburdened by what has been." 

She was chosen as VP for one reason, to draw votes. Nothing unusual about that.  Then she was set aside. Well, except for her appointment as Border Czar. How long did it take her to visit the border? 

Her record will be examined and brought forward. As VP pick that didn't happen. She'll have to defend the economy. the border, her statements about Israel, and her AG record. 

She'll have to defend why she resisted DNA testing that could have proven the innocence of jailed minorities, why she opposed the legalization of marijuana and jailed 1,500+ during her term as AG. why 600 drug convictions were thrown out due to mishandled evidence that wasn't disclosed. Mishandling is one thing, deciding to not disclose it is another, more serious, issue.

The party has identified at least 4 other candidates that some think would be better. They will have to contend with those disagreements and do it quickly. The $91 million has to be addressed.

The only group having fun is the talking heads. Wonder what they get paid to be on TV and have all that fun?

Politics is a mess and it's about to get worse. The DNC convention is 4 weeks away, plenty will happen before that.

[kallend 1,798]

1 minute ago, billeisele said:

It's been proven many times that being "elected" doesn't prove anything. Look at her record of things she actually did.

Do the same for Trump.

Fined 3 times for fraud (Trump U, Trump Foundation, Trump Organization

6 banktruptcies, screwing his investors each time.  Bankrupted a casino, FFS!

Self confessed pussy grabber.  Large civil penalty for sexual assault.

34 felony convictions.

His own VP won't support him.

[billeisele 130]

This isn't news to the D or R professional political peeps.

Both sides have those that would vote for a rock rather than the other side and both sides have hard supporters that are difficult to sway. The fight is for that majority of voters in between those two extremes. Note how the VA governor said that Trump doesn't have to win northern VA (where many of the Washington elite live), he just has to lose it by less. Both sides will ignore the rock voters and the hard-liners to court the middle ground.

For the Rs: Trump is seen as a leader, triumphant over the evil system that has been attacking him, he makes his own decisions and can't be bribed. The assassination attempt and his reaction to it will certainly gain votes. K is seen as an unaccomplished, incompetent puppet that sways with the wind and will be the voice of Chuckie, Nancy and others, not the people.

For the Ds: Trump is the devil and K is, well, that story will be written in the next few weeks. Because she was marginalized for 3.5 years It will be a tough sell to convince voters that she's ready. They will have to contend with those that don't like K and some that simply won't vote for a woman.

Wish I had stock in the polling companies, they will be making millions in the next few weeks.

[Phil1111 1,049]

37 minutes ago, billeisele said:

It's been proven many times that being "elected" doesn't prove anything. Look at her record of things she actually did.
As VP she is one of the least popular. One poll had her as the worst. Whatever that means....

Have you ever represented or said anything based in facts? Or are you more of a "feelings" kind of MAGA?

Edited July 22 by Phil1111

[billeisele 130]

29 minutes ago, kallend said:

Do the same for Trump.

Fined 3 times for fraud (Trump U, Trump Foundation, Trump Organization

6 banktruptcies, screwing his investors each time.  Bankrupted a casino, FFS!

Self confessed pussy grabber.  Large civil penalty for sexual assault.

34 felony convictions.

His own VP won't support him.

Yep and the polls show that voters are willing to look past it. The 34 convictions are highly questionable but yes, under the law he was convicted. It doesn't help the haters that recent court rulings have thrown out other cases, and that the Atlanta case was and is a mess. The assassination attempt also helps the R nominee. 

Apparently many people don't care about a lot of that history. It's already been vetted. The problem for the VP is that her past has not been vetted.

Watching the RNC it was interesting how it was crafted to portray him as a grandfather, father and man fighting for all Americans. The team that created that strategy is to be commended. We'll see how the DNC goes.

Both parties will throw more mud hoping that their mud sticks better than the other sides mud.