Illusion of inclusion or legitimate diversity?

John Johnson, DC '03, is the coordinator of public relations for the African-American Cultural House, the founder of the Martin Luther King Day Coordinating Committee, the founder of the Yale Black Male Forum, and a member of the Black Student Alliance at Yale (BSAY) executive board.

Eldred Marshall, ES '03, is a member of the executive committee of BSAY and director of the Yale Gospel Choir.

Francisco Lopez , TD '02, is the moderator of Movi-miento Estudiantial Chican de Aztlán at Yale and a member of the Latin-American Student Organization.

All of the participants are Political Science majors.

Yale Herald: What are your personal reactions to Bush's Cabinet appointments?

John Johnson: These appointments pretty much go against what he was saying in terms of making his priority Democrats working together with Republicans. By having a Cabinet in which even the minorities he appointed seem to effuse the same Republican values, a lot of values which from my point of view are not beneficial to communities of color, I don't think he's really doing that.

Eldred Marshall: I actually have to take some issue with what [Johnson] said. Now, because the minorities are Republican does not mean that they are sell-outs. For instance, we have Colin Powell, who is a pro-affirmative action, pro-minority rights Republican, as is Condoleezza Rice, who was born in the segregated South. I know these minorites will not let Bush steer so far to the right that he would turn into another Reagan. Secondly, Rod Paige was endorsed for that job by the National Association of Black School Educators, and I'm pretty sure that if they recommended him for that position, for Secretary of Education, he must be a pretty good guy.

Francisco Lopez: I would just say that although this probably is the most diverse Cabinet in the history of Presidential Cabinets, it just kind of gives [Bush] the legitimacy, if he so chooses, to pull rank farther right later on in the administration. Because he's just coating the pill, so to speak, with these minorities, and saying, "Well, we are diverse, we have the best intentions of all minorities," even though these people are kind of minorities in those minorities, in the sense that 90 percent of blacks are Democratic, as are most Mexicans.

JJ: You have Condoleezza Rice, who's brilliant in her field. Yet she's focused on Russia—she's a Russian specialist. I just find that interesting, that the first black person brought in would be primarily concerned with Europe, which wouldn't really bring much change in terms of having an impact on policy in Latin America, Africa, or India. Also, Powell has done many great things, but I feel a lot of times when individuals are brought along in the military, that there's a very strong alliance—I mean I'm sure there's a strong allegiance to Bush.

EM: But with Bush's foreign policy, he's going to actually be probably the best president we've had for black America: he understands the people, he understands the language, and also that he said that his foreign policy team has got to look south in this hemisphere and clean up our act there.

JJ: It sort of goes along with the same criticism of the illusion of inclusion. When you bring someone into a party, referring back to how Rice still remembers racism, every time I hear somebody using that as a way to say, "We're so great, even this person has an opportunity," if anything it's just a smokescreen.

YH: Beyond merely the need for representation in government, what are the issues of the minority communities in America today that these Cabinet members could possibly address?

JJ: Well, I think one big problem is that as history moves further from the era of visible racism, it becomes a lot easier to say that certain structural problems no longer exist. It's a lot easier to blame [lack of success among minorities] on lack of merit or lack of effort on their parts, yet I think that's done without recognizing certain structural issues, such as differences in housing, differences in loans that are available, differences in education, differences in funding. You still have things such as racial profiling, you still have things such as voter disenfranchisement. These are the things that you hope that Cabinet members of color would address.

FL: But are there any in the Cabinet that would have that kind of power to change the discourse to those kind of things? Absolutely not. So I don't think that he looked for people of color to place them in spots where they're going to do anything for those kind of social, structural things that you're talking about.

YH: Would a Gore administration have been more friendly to minority issues?

FL: I remember reading a New York Times article about Clinton's innermost circle—it was almost all white men. I think the one thing that is commendable in Bush is that he has [minorities] in some of the highest Cabinet posts, like National Security Advisor. But I feel Gore would have done a Clintonesque thing and placed them in strategic places where they would be able to affect policy, but when it came to very important decisions, the close circle of the president [would still be white].

JJ: I think this time around that there were actually differences in the two individuals who were running in terms of how they would treat the communities of color. I wouldn't automatically say that Gore would have had a better Cabinet than Bush. I'm not saying that Bush's Cabinet is the only one that would have flaws in terms of mixture. I think Gore's Cabinet would have had flaws as well.

FL: Do you remember that thing about Race in Dialogue? I really don't think that Bush would touch that type of issue. A president's power is making the agenda for the nation, and I think Clinton did a tremendous amount of incorporating [racial issues] into his.

JJ: I think there would have been a difference in the Attorney General appointment, in terms of John Ashcroft's being challenged by NAACP and other groups. In positions like that, having a person who would listen to the concerns of a constituency could be more important that just having a person of color. It's not just about having a person of color; it's what the person will do.

EM: I really don't think there would have been a big difference between how Al would have handled race relations and how Bush has dealt with it. Knowing how Gore ran his own campaign, where even Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney said Gore has "a low Negro tolerance level," he would basically pander to the black and Hispanic communities to get the vote out in key swing states, but then, once he got into office, forget all about us. Now, Bush doesn't have to remember us, because we didn't vote for him. But I feel that Bush is going to try to reach out. I hope that he tries to reach out, because if he doesn't, then I'm going to look like a fool right now.

FL: I think this is where the train comes to a stop. It started at the convention and it's just going to end here with these appointments. When it comes to racial issues or issues that affect minority communities or immigrant communities that are coming in, their ears are going to go deaf to any concerns.

YH: Do you think, if this was an attempt to draw minorities to the Republican party, that it's going to work?

FL: Not the blacks.

EM: Not at all. If they want to draw our votes, they're going to have to treat the black person as if he were a real candidate. Until that happens, blacks are always going to be on the Democratic side.

JJ: I do think you will see an increase in the number of Republicans of color regardless. In terms of socioeconomics, if you have more blacks that are going up into the upper-middle class, you're going to see more of them going over to the Republican side when it comes to money issues.

FL: I would warn the Democrats to make sure they keep true to minorities. Most people with families tend to have conservative values, and Republicans pander to the values of hard-working Americans. If you check out the demographics, a lot of them are the minorities in lower-level jobs and brought up with a very traditional type of background. I feel that the Democrats might come to a crisis, where, as the Latino vote did this last time, it wasn't secure, and it had been solid. The Democratic strangle hold on minorities is getting shaky.

EM: Bush really better deliver on the policy issues. That's all he can do at this point. Blacks are skeptical of these appointments, saying, "We know you're trying to get us just by putting these people here." If Bush does not deliver on policy issues, then the next Democrat who runs, probably Gore in '04, is going to get 95 percent of the vote of black people and Hispanics.

JJ: In terms of Linda Chavez, her being placed [as Secretary of Labor] almost acted as a silencer for the Hispanic community. That was part of the reason why she was chosen, to be able to put in things that would go against what [Hispanics] want, yet have more leverage because she's a minority.

FL: At least race is getting its just due in this election. I just turned on the news, and it's like, "Wow, Latinos everywhere!"

Back to Opinion...