AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2009 > February > 06
Friday, February 6, 2009
Should race or gender have a major role in Senate appointments?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
Note: Andrea Sarvady’s response was posted a bit late Friday because of technical problems.
My colleague is right — “awkward questions” abound when it comes to race and gender picks, for both appointments and elections. Yet I can’t help but notice that it’s only Democrats who have raised her ire on this topic. If we’re going to tackle thorny issues of diversity in politics, we should first acknowledge that concerns about tokenism are highly subjective. In general, the more the candidate in question has views that vary from your own, the more you may question their selection for high office. Republicans wondered how much of Hillary Clinton’s popularity had to do with her gender; Democrats wondered the same about Sarah Palin. Republicans wonder how much President Obama’s rise had to do with affirmative action; Democrats are now thinking the same thing about Michael Steele’s sudden ascent in the GOP.
The truth is that we can only speculate why Governors Blagojevich and Paterson selected Roland Burris and Kirsten Gillibrand for these plum seats (which they’ll probably only hold for two years; the re-election rate for appointed senators is under 40 percent). With the Blagojevich pick in particular, it’s seems sort of silly to wonder about tokenism when so many of the discredited governor’s decisions are suspect.
Roland Burris’s lack of legislative experience could be a problem, but I can’t help but wonder if we’ll hear the same concerns about New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch’s recent selection. Picked as part of a bipartisan trade that would allow Judd Gregg to leave his Senate seat without losing it to a Democrat, in comes J. Bonnie Newman, a woman and a Republican—bingo! Still, let’s give both Sens. Burris and Newman a fair shake; I’m not sure that “unforgiving policy problems” aren’t better served by at least some fresh eyes to the process.
Burris may well earn his place in the Senate. Newman has actually promised not to run for re-election in 2010, but her short time as a legislator may be productive—she’s an independent thinker whose common sense just might transcend pressure from both parties. And who knows? Maybe someday there’ll be enough folks of various ethnicities and both genders in politics that we won’t find ourselves so caught up in these partisan musings. In the meantime, let’s keep an eye on these “golden-ticket” appointees—and an even keener look inward, at our own political biases.
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
These days, we should be able to tackle awkward questions about diversity. In particular: were the governors who appointed two replacement senators feeling too much pressure to meet identical diversity profiles? Doesn’t it seem awfully coincidental that Sen. Barack Obama’s replacement is a black man and Sen. Hillary Clinton’s replacement is a white woman? Granted, I’m glad that the Senate did not lose diversity. And diversity should be one of the many factors considered for appointments. The sensitive question, though, is whether the governors did a comprehensive review of all available candidates or whether race or gender was an implicit prerequisite.
With no other African American in the Senate, Illinois Gov. Blagojevich must have already felt immense pressure to find a black replacement for Obama - and after Blago’s disgrace for allegedly trying to “sell the seat,” such a pick probably also seemed politically bulletproof. Roland Burris was an elected state comptroller and attorney general years ago, but has no legislative experience. I used to work in the Senate, and it is almost impossible to explain how complex and fast-moving every hour is. Senators must have immense leadership, smarts, management skills and - above all - the legislative experience and gravitas to represent their constituents’ viewpoints well. The demanding process of running for Senate tends to weed out anyone without all those traits. Burris may turn out to have them all. But without legislative experience, how can anyone know that? With all candidates to choose from, shouldn’t an ideal appointee be a seasoned legislator?
In New York, Gov. David Patterson reportedly preferred a woman for the seat. And surely Caroline Kennedy wouldn’t have been remotely considered a reasonable contender if she wasn’t a woman. Patterson’s eventual appointee, Kirsten Gillibrand, has a strong educational background but just two years’ legislative experience — and lacks anything approaching the resume of more senior legislators, or New York Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo, who also served in President Clinton’s cabinet. Gillibrand even worked for Cuomo for a year.
Today’s unforgiving policy problems are often a matter of life and death and allow no margin for learning curve. Time may show the new appointees to be excellent senators. But unfortunately they seem like candidates picked more for race and gender than experience, which puts their constituents at a disadvantage.