Many people seem to take issue with the reality that the US hasnt had a female president and has a predominantly male congress. But, is this really a problem? Absolutely not, but it does expose another disturbing issue. As a country we seem to hold some conflicting values. Namely equality and diversity. The common view is that more of the latter is better because it condemns oppression, but youll see that this isnt a very reliable conclusion. Equality and diversity do, in fact, conflict, and it is the former that we ought to embrace. For instance, consider what equality truly claims. Under equality, a 100% male congress is just as effective as a 100% female congress is just as effective as a completely gay, handicapped, et cetera congress, and any combination thereof would also do an equally fine job (or perhaps equally shitty, you know, being politics and all). Equality claims that your group affiliation doesnt affect what you can contribute. Conversely, diversity holds that 100% of any one group is bad, which implies that each groups contribution cannot be equal, which further implies that one group can feasibly have more to contribute. I dont agree with those implications, and I have a distinct feeling that I am not alone in this opinion. The composition of our legislature isnt important, but its consistency (or rather, its dis-consistency) is. If we vote solely on the merit, ideals, and character of our candidates, then it follows that there wont be any sort of consistency in our congressional demographic. This isnt the case, however. Our elected government offices have been consistently dominated my straight, able-bodied, white, males for years, but the problem doesnt lie at all in that specific demographic. Instead, the problem lies in its consistent prominence. In fact, a congress accurately reflecting our populous would probably signify the greater problems of ramped segregation combined with highly prejudice voting habits across the entire country. In short, the consistency of our congressional demographic is what signifies the oppression of certain groups. Now, if we are oppressing certain groups, then we are doing it either legally or socially. But, as far as Im aware there are many laws preventing discrimination and none promoting it, so we can rule legal oppression out. How does social oppression work in a democracy, though? Well, either we arent voting for candidates of certain groups, or candidates from those groups are choosing not to run. Considering the latter, defeatism could cause such a trend, but our votes would ultimately encourage that attitude. So, either our voting habits are oppressing certain groups or our voting habits are oppressing certain groups. Hmm, thats going to be hard to tease out. Anyway, the fact that our votes are to blame implies that we are either lazy about our voting or the majority of our country is misogynist or otherwise persistently discriminatory. First of all, the latter is ridiculous because any misogynist voters would surely be canceled out by the feminist voters. To reason that there is more of one than the other is a chauvinistic statement in and of itself. Therefore, we must be lazy in our voting practices. The problem that we run into in trying to elect a strong leader is that we have trouble judging candidates based solely on their ideals instead of their persona and mannerisms. We internalize the fact that men are physically stronger and foolishly conclude in our subconscious that the person who best acts and looks the part (a man) must fill the part. Indeed this is a tricky situation to correct because of the deep self-reflection it requires. Electing candidates in a fair, just manner would require abandoning our usual judgmental, fickle, and materialistic ways long enough to make a rational decision, which admittedly is asking quite a lot. It takes a great deal of focus to ignore the social habits that have become increasingly engrained in each of us since we were young. Ultimately, the problem of our congresss consistent demographic has two solutions, each coinciding with its own value. If we value equality, then we must abandon the weight we give diversity by accepting the irrelevance of our legislatures demographic, by making a more conscious effort to elect candidates impartially based entirely on their ideals, merit, and character, and by ensuring that everyone actually casts a vote. However, if we value diversity, then we must only elect candidates who belong to a group not already represented in congress. In my opinion, the former will be much harder, but it will eventually lead to the more perfect union we set out to create so many years ago by serving to unify our ever dividing and diversifying house.
Posted on: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 23:25:04 +0000