June 25, 2007
Presidential Campaign:
The Real Diversity Is In the Republican Camp
The Democrats have apparently proven yet again that they are the party
of diversity and open-mindedness just because their leading presidential
candidates are a woman and a moderately black man. This logic is
parallel to that of elite college administrations nowadays: It is
irrelevant that all of our professors teach from the exact same point of
view. What matters is that they are a healthy mix of men and women,
straights and homosexuals, and most importantly, that they create a
pretty collection of skin colors for students to look at.
But are the Democratic presidential candidates really that diverse?
Hillary Clinton’s gender helps her stand out from the pack, as does
Barack Obama’s race and John Edwards’s adorable southern accent. But how
do these characteristics matter when all three enthusiastically defend
abortion? When each seeks to harm the economy through higher taxes and
minimum wages, combined with hostility toward business and rejection of
Social Security privatization? How about the Democratic candidates’
refusal to give our troops in Iraq the moral support they deserve in
times they need it the most, particularly in light of the fact that some
of these candidates voted for the war?
The fact of the matter is that these candidates’ superficial
distinguishing characteristics don’t really matter. The focus on skin
color and gender, however, is quite extensive. In the recent Fox
News-sponsored GOP debate, one of the moderators asked about the
Republican Party’s inclusiveness considering that its presidential
candidates did not include any women, blacks or Hispanics. Well, who
cares?
Such a question is totally irrelevant. Are we looking for a president
who will add a different cultural atmosphere to the next administration?
Or perhaps we are looking for a president with a novel feminine touch
just to shake things up at the White House? The answer is neither. We
are asking for a president who will win wars, boost the economy and
strengthen our nation. Adding skin color or gender as a factor in the
equation significantly undermines the importance of real national goals.
The only diversity that matters, therefore, is diversity of ideas and
principles. And the Republican candidates are offering far more of it
than their superficially diverse Democratic counterparts. The fact that
leading Republican contenders are doing well in polls despite often
significant conflicts with their base demonstrates the absence of a
litmus test on a variety of issues that Democrats hypocritically accuse
Republicans of maintaining.
The issues and beliefs on which Republican candidates offer diversity
are not insignificant. They encompass some of the most important topics
to Americans. Take, for instance, religion. Republicans have gone beyond
the traditional alternatives of Protestants and Catholics. One of their
leading candidates, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon – and by and large, the
voters don’t count this fact against him, despite overwhelmingly
disagreeing with his religious beliefs.
The tolerance also extends to policy issues. See Rudy Giuliani, who has
consistently ranked at the top of polls in the primary race. His
pro-choice position on abortion, one abhorred by many Republicans, does
not preclude him from being one of the leading contenders for the
nomination. On the other hand, a pro-life Democratic nominee would never
see the light of day – or more accurately, he would only upon conversion
to the pro-choice position (see Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and so on).
The Grand Old Party even has room for anti-war candidates such as Ron
Paul. Seeing that the Iraq War has unfortunately turned into one of the
biggest political issues of the day, it is not insignificant that one of
the Republican nominees is running on such a platform. Whether a pro-war
Democrat would even be invited to the party’s presidential debates is
highly doubtful. Their recent primary battle against their own recent
vice-presidential candidate, purely because of his pro-war stance, is a
good indication of their treatment of any Democrat who dares believe in
the troops’ ability to succeed in Iraq.
Another top Republican candidate is John McCain, the same man who voted
against the Bush tax cuts, the same man who pushed for the controversial
McCain-Feingold campaign finance law – and the very same man who
strongly supports what could reasonably be perceived as an amnesty bill
for illegal immigrants. Despite what many Republicans consider to be a
series of severe faux pas, McCain is indeed one of the most serious
candidates in the race. Can one credibly imagine his Democratic
equivalent doing so well today on that side of the spectrum?
Democrats claim to be the party of diversity, and hold up pictures of
Hillary and Obama to prove it. Superficiality, however, does not
suffice. When a pro-life candidate leads Democratic polls, when a
pro-war contender makes his entry into the Democratic race, or when a
moderate with a history of compromising with the right is widely
respected in the Democratic Party, then they can label themselves as
open-minded. Until then, real diversity – diversity of beliefs – remains
limited to the Republican camp.
© 2007 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column # PI058.
Request permission to publish here.
|