How does affirmative action voting denote any real progress in society? It means the opposite!
Diversity for the sake of diversity is an idea with deep roots in the Democratic Party. While originally intended to integrate those whom society had improperly excluded–the goal of the civil rights movement—the push for diversity has led us right back to where we started. People aren’t seen as individuals, but as demographics to be used, exploited, and manipulated to the benefit of politicians. To me, this is not only racist and sexist, but dangerous.
On Tuesday night, Harvard University hosted journalist Jorge Ramos, and Ramos had some seemingly positive things to say:
“…for the first time in history, there are two Hispanic candidates running for president…the Republicans have been doing something right that they have two Hispanic candidates…And the Democrats don’t have a single Hispanic candidate for this election.”
Yay, diversity! But the message lurking just beneath the surface of Ramos’ seemingly positive comments is something ugly.
The real message here is that the Republican Party is better than it was before simply by virtue of its new diversity, and that the Democrats are now lesser because they are lacking diversity. None of this, however, is based on policy, but entirely on skin color and birthplace.
“[Ramos] mentioned that if Cruz or Rubio is on the top of the 2016 ticket, it will be very interesting to see if Hispanic Democrats vote for a Latino candidate…[Ramos] said Latino voters will be faced with the question about whether they should vote for a Latino candidate just because he is Hispanic.”
And here the problem is laid out more explicitly. Once again, Ramos is suggesting that having a Hispanic contender in the general election might help the Republican Party gain votes. Why? Because diversity.
Diversity has become demographic blocking, a system in which we are not individual voters, but cattle to be herded. Oh look, the Republican candidate is a minority this time! Let’s vote for him! I don’t agree with anything he says, but he has my skin color, so. The same goes for gender.
It’s insulting, but unfortunately, largely true. Caleb Bonham of Campus Reform recently asked college students why they were supporting Hillary in 2016. Student after student said versions of the same thing: because she’s a woman. One student even said: “She’s a woman, so, diversity, you know?” I’m not kidding.
If we vote for candidates based solely on their race, or gender, we might as well be voting for them because of the shape of their heads, or for the symmetry in their faces. It’s arbitrary, and for a journalist to pose that question is truly depressing. Will Hispanic voters gravitate toward someone because they’re the same ethnicity? I hope not. Just as I hope no one would vote for a candidate because of gender, or facial symmetry. These things should have zero influence on voting, yet here we are.
The love of diversity has created a cult of diversity, in which we are not individuals, but homogenized blocks. We are told that it’s better to have candidates that are of varying ethnicities and genders just because—even if there are no policy differences.
Let’s be clear (for the one idiot who reads this and invariably comes to the conclusion that I hate minorities and women), I’m truly glad that we live in an age in which women and minorities can achieve what they were unable to achieve years ago. However, I am not glad that we have swung so far in the opposite direction as to base our votes entirely, or even a little bit, on gender or race. Basing your vote on cosmetics rather than policy is how dangerous leaders are elected. Just ask any Obama voter.
I’d like to see a world in which we celebrate our cultural advancement, but don’t use that advancement as an excuse to shut off our brains when we go to the polls.