The worst kind of affirmative action: The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate exposes Republican hypocrisy regarding affirmative actionRepublicans have always been hugely critical of affirmative action policies, believing that giving preferential treatment to women and minorities leads to the promotion of underqualified people over more qualified or experienced individuals. To them, affirmative action goes against the meritocratic nature of America. This explains why, in July, John McCain voted in support of a ban led by Republican Ward Connerly that would end race- and gender-based affirmative action policies in his home state of Arizona.... It's interesting - and somewhat hypocritical - then, that the same could be said about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. If an affirmative action policy existed for presidential and vice-presidential candidates and Obama and Palin were the beneficiaries, their respective cases would be living examples of the best and worst aspects of affirmative action.
Sarah Palin appears to be an example of the worst kind of affirmative action, the type that Republicans typically argue against and attribute to liberal political correctness. Their promotion of this particular female candidate is more of a cynical, tokenistic gesture than evidence of any real desire to promote merit in cases where it may have gone unnoticed, or to advance the cause of underrepresented women in politics. If that was the case, there are a number of other female Republican politicians – including Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Hutchinson - who could have been selected, and may have been better equipped for the role. It would be interesting to hear how those women feel - incorrectly used affirmative action policies often cause resentment among those feel that that they have been overlooked in favour of someone else who is clearly less able but seems to have benefited from special treatment.
Critics of affirmative action tend to claim that engagement in the practice forces institutions or companies to lower their standards. Before McCain selected Palin, his key requirements for a vice-president were someone "who can best take place and carry on the agenda and the vision that outlined and will continue to outline during this campaign."... Even some Republicans believe that Palin's political background is not up to scratch. Advisers Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy were caught off-camera last week expressing their true thoughts about her. When Noonan was asked whether Palin was the most qualified woman for the job, her blunt answer was: "No."
Writing in the City Journal, conservative writer Heather McDonald provided a great analysis: "True, Palin brings traditional political strengths - such as gun enthusiasm and a pro-life record - to the ticket. Her fight against self-dealing in Alaskan politics counters the inside-the-Beltway corruption that damaged the Republicans in the 2006 elections. And her stance on drilling for Alaskan oil admirably bolsters the Republican party platform on energy issues. But admit it, fellow conservatives: none of these attributes pushed her over the top." I'd have to agree.... The nomination of Sarah Palin is nothing more than a poor use of affirmative action in a way that the Republicans have always decried. Between now and November 4 we'll see how well this tokenism plays out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/uselections2008.sarahpalin2?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
