1/08/01 10:10 a.m.
The Diversity of Diversities
A stark contrast.

By Robert A. George, an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

ill Clinton’s stated goal eight years ago when assembling his team was that he wanted a “Cabinet that looked like America.” Clinton faced a fair amount of criticism for what seemed like pandering to every possible group and sub-group. Now, in 2001, George W. Bush has put together a group where white men are, surprisingly in the minority. Bush seems to be getting almost universal acclaim from conservatives and liberals alike for his apparent commitment to diversity.

Is there a contradiction here? Not at all. The major difference here is between two very different concepts of “diversity.” Clinton has become a master of playing the “diversity of grievance.” Bush is pushing forward with a “diversity of assimilation and accomplishment.” At first blush, the two types of diversity appear indistinguishable, but in substance they are quite different.

The classic example of diversity-y grievance was Clinton’s early insistence that his attorney general be a woman. The suggestion is that there is something inherently wrong with the American system that a woman had never been attorney general beforehand. Putting forth the argument in such a manner is an invitation to grievance.

Clinton thought he had a good pick in Zoe Baird. But no sooner was she named, than a “nanny problem” surfaced. In the context of everything that has happened since in the Clinton administration, it retrospectively seems like a rather quaint thing to torpedo a nomination. Baird seemed qualified for the job. However, that she had paid her nanny in cash and not paid payroll taxes on the employee as demanded by the law was crippling. If the attorney general is supposed to be the nation’s chief law enforcer, she can’t be seen to ignoring laws in her private life.

Clinton then turned to Judge Kimba Wood, only to find that she had a similar nanny problem. Clinton’s determination that the position had to be filled by a woman caused the entire process to be drawn out. It would have been fine to say that he would “like” to have a capable female lawyer or judge in the position. But the setting aside of one of the jewels in the Cabinet for somebody of a particular genetic make-up wasn’t merely unseemly — it was bad judgment that caused a serious delay in filling a critical slot. It might have been nice for Clinton to be able to send a message by installing the first female attorney general. Instead, a very different message was received.

It’s that the very process of grievance diversity can cause serious problems. Clinton finally selected Janet Reno. More than enough has been said about Reno’s fitness for the role. But the main issue here is not the qualification argument. A case could be made, for example, that the process — and the lateness of her final approval that resulted — may have contributed to the series of bad decisions that culminated in the Waco fiasco.

Contrast this with Bush’s “assimilation” diversity. Upon selecting Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Bush was asked if he was trying to send his own kind of message. Bush’s response was honest. Sure, there was a message: "People who work hard and make the right decisions in life can achieve anything they want in America... Each person has got their own story that is so unique. Stories that really explain what America can and should be about. And so I welcome them."

The contrast is powerful. Bush is making the argument that the Powell and Rice appointments show what is right about America — not what is wrong. The message is that America ultimately works, not that there is something fundamentally wrong with the nation.

Furthermore, Bush chose people that have had solid public careers and impeccable credentials. There might be controversy over labor secretary-designee Linda Chavez’s views, but no one questions her credentials (except for AFL-CIO head John Sweeney). What is quite remarkable about the Bush selections is their brutal efficiency. He has announced his entire Cabinet in barely three weeks. Again the contrast with stresses that “diversity-grievance” creates.

To be fair, one should point out that Clinton occasionally practiced the diversity of assimilation. Putting the ethical questions that dogged him prior to his death, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown can be seen as someone with an exemplary professional and political career that found its reward as being the first black secretary of commerce. But in the context of Clinton’s other appointments and the emphasis that he placed upon them in terms of gender and race, the Brown appointment was not seen as the assimilation diversity it represented. In other words, Clinton undercut what could have been a positive statement. That’s the main problem with that sort of diversity. His recess appointment of African-American Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals suffers from the same problem.

Under grievance-diversity, even qualified individuals are perceived as fitting a certain racial/gender agenda above the prerequisites of the position. Under assimilation-diversity, the gender/racial component becomes a complementary affirmation that the American dream remains attainable for all.