Admittedly it sounds far-fetched, that the Democrat Party
would cancel their presidential primaries in deference to a selection committee
of party leaders. But given the praise
being heaped on Senator Cory Booker for his recent interview with MSNBC
Lawrence O’Donnell, I don’t think it’s quite as absurd as some would pretend.
If you missed it, here was the exchange:
First of all, it’s a silly question from O’Donnell. Of course Booker would accept the VP position
if Biden offered it to him. Cory Booker
is an ambitious politician and that would be a significant step up for him in
terms of exposure, influence, and future prospects. It’s impossible to imagine a scenario where
Booker (or any of the current Democrat candidates) are offered the #2 spot by
Biden (or any of the current Democrat candidates) and the answer be no. So again, it was a silly question.
But the answer was even worse. To say you aren’t thinking about being
anyone’s Vice President, but instead, “thinking about how we can best move our
country forward,” is the logical thing to say.
You demur so you don’t look desperate, but at the same time you don’t
offend a guy who is polling much better than you at the moment.
Instead, Booker floats the proposition that the two highest
positions in the land be determined on the basis of some kind of ethno-gender
diversification test. Not who is most
qualified, not who has a skill set best suited to the country’s most immediate
needs, not wisdom and experience, not integrity and character, not policy and
ideas – who’s a girl, who’s a boy, who’s black, Hispanic, biracial, or white.
First, I guess I have to ask why Booker stops with just
gender and racial diversity? What about
sexual orientation diversity? What about
religious or faith diversity? What about
socioeconomic diversity? What about
geographic diversity? What about
educational diversity? If it’s not right
to have two men on the ticket, then why is it fair to have two people from the
northeast? Or two wealthy, college
O’Donnell, unsurprisingly, didn’t ask that.
Nor did he point out that Booker’s underlying premise is a
frightening one when you think about it – that a white man cannot possibly
govern in a way that treats black and Hispanic citizens as fairly as a black or
Hispanic man; that a female would necessarily – simply by her chromosomal makeup
not her ideas – be better for the country’s women than a man could be
regardless of his policies.
If O’Donnell was a legitimate journalist he would have shot
back, “Wait, are you suggesting that your policy ideas would somehow treat
women worse than Kamala Harris’s or Kristen Gillibrand’s? Women should not be comfortable voting for
you since you’re not a woman?”
This is a dangerous and stupid game we’re playing, but it’s
one that the progressives have committed to with their overemphasis on intersectionality
politics. It’ll be interesting to see
how long until their party has to take corrective action to ensure voters don’t
“mess up” and fail to select candidates across the ballot that “speak to who we
are as a country.”
What a sorry state of affairs.