There's little doubt that Karl Rove prides himself on the image of inclusion that he has created for the Bush Administration. Indeed, you need look no further than Colin and Condi (fodder for an entire article unto themselves) for proof positive that the GOP is all about inclusion, acceptance and diversity. Quite a heavy burden to rest on the shoulders of two individuals. In reality, however, the celebration of Republican inclusiveness might be a touch premature.

Back in February of 2003, MSNBC reported that, following speculation of an imminent Supreme Court vacancy, there was talk that the person selected to fill that vacancy might likely be California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

"Brown is a conservative African-American who’s ruled against affirmative action and abortion rights. Her nomination would let Bush add the court’s third woman and second African-American in one swoop."

Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues cases before the court, believes Brown could even get the nod for chief justice. "An African-American female nominee is not going to be filibustered," he says. She doesn't have a record that will stop Democrats in their tracks. And after months of bitter Senate fights over nominations to lower courts, that could have an appeal all its own.

This came on the heels of a planned filibuster against Migual Estrada, Bush's nominee for US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He is now one of Bush’s top candidates for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is Estrada suited for such a position? Let's ask his boss:

"Paul Bender, Mr. Estrada's supervisor at the Solicitor General's office and now an Arizona State University professor, is cited in the Washington Post as being "worried [that Estrada's personal] views would spill into rulings if Mr. Estrada is asked to decide matters involving defendants' rights, affirmative action and other controversial subjects ... 'I think Estrada lacks the judgment and he is too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge'."

Ahhhh. With a resounding recommendation like that, I don't see how Bush could possibly avoid nominating Estrada.

Anyway, as is typical of a situation involving token nominations, the demographic that the person supposedly represents is leading the charge AGAINST his confirmation. Indeed, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Opposes Miguel Estrada:

"They are opposing his nomination because both his judicial record and his temperament fall short of professional standards. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, while not outright opposing Estrada, has expressed "grave concerns" about his ability to be fair and impartial."

So here we have Brown, an anti-affirmative action African-American and an anti-choice women coupled with Estrada, an anti-affirmative action Hispanic and anti-choice ideologue. Neither Brown nor Estrada represent the majority of the demographic from which they originate and yet it is because of their status as ethnic minorities that the administration finds them so politically valuable. Like it or not, the characteristics of both Brown and Estrada fall well within the strategic guidelines of that proud GOP tradition -- Tokenism.

Truth about tokenism.

No doubt, conservatives will feign outrage at charges of tokenism. It’s their only defense against a pitiful, desperate, and unfortunately effective tactic. Regardless, their defensiveness only highlights their vulnerability on the issue.

Being the party of intolerance, greed, hate and exclusion, the GOP has only the cosmetic ability to convince people that they are the open-armed, open-minded, compassionate conservatives that they so laughably proclaim themselves to be. This makes tokenism a necessary evil in their eyes. They appoint ethnic minorities and women who are intended to lure in others from their demographics even while legislating against the proclaimed best interests of these demographics.

Republicans claim that by appointing ethnic minorities and women, they are "proving" that they are inclusive. They never mention, and even attempt to conceal the fact that these appointments think like ultraconservative, old, white men. In addition, they insist that the sheer number of women and minority appointees in the administration and the courts precludes any charges of tokenism. This was the point attempting to be made by the April, 2001 Business Week article, "A Long Way from Tokenism":

"The ensemble that is the Bush Administration is positively teeming with African American talent. There are the highly visible choices, of course: Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Education Secretary Roderick Paige. But what's less well known is that Bush has since appointed six more African Americans to crucial posts just below Cabinet rank, making his the only Republican Administration to have blacks in significant numbers."

Of course, either on purpose or through ignorance, they missed the point completely. Nevertheless, this seems to be the logic used by the administration -- that because they have many tokens on board, they are somehow no longer tokens.

Okay, so maybe it's a matter of semantics. What is a token?

By definition, "tokens" fall into one of two categories:

1) Those who are representative of the demographic that they are supposed to represent, but exist in extremely small numbers within the group being analyzed. If these people were a significant percentage of the group, then they would no longer be considered tokens.

And...

2) Those who are non-representative of the demographic that they are supposed to represent. With this type, it doesn't matter how many there are within the group. They are still tokens because they do not offer the diversity that their tokenism was intended to conceal.

Republican tokens tend to be of the second type. So regardless of how many of these tokens they have, the fact that they are still tokens remains unchanged. However, the audacity of their attempt to conceal that tokenism increases exponentially.

Republican's strategy is simple: Groom right-wing minority candidates to serve as poster children for Republican compassionate inclusion. They set out only one requirement… that the candidate be opposed to all things that have traditionally been in the best interest of their demographic. Women must be anti-choice. Ethnic minorities must be anti-affirmative action. Everyone must be of a socially conservative ideology -- one that nearly always favors white men. Oh, yeah, and it certainly helps if the candidate speaks out against the NAACP and insists that minorities "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and when it comes to any mention of slavery or oppression, well…"just get over it!"

To illustrate how desperate the GOP is to cover-up their abominable record of exclusion, we need look no further than the party conventions and elections of the last 5 years.

Recall the 2004 Republican National Convention. The Headline speakers were Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giulianni, John McCain, Michael Bloomberg, and George Pataki -- all gay tolerant and (excepting McCain) pro-choice. There was little sign of conservative voices such as John Ashcroft, Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert.

In 2000, Slate described the diversity of the 2000 GOP convention speaker line-up thusly:

"Last night's speakers... those who uttered more than a sentence and weren't just musical entertainers... consisted of seven blacks, six Hispanics, four Jews, an Asian, five white women, and three white, Christian men. That's three white, Christian men out of 26. And all three were obligatory: the presidential nominee, the speaker of the House, and the Senate majority leader. They were the tokens."

[…]

"If volume alone doesn't convince you, there are other criteria for distinguishing tokenism from substantial outreach. Was the evening's subject matter the same old suburban Republicanism? No, it was the urban struggles of disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics."

This is textbook Republican Tokenism. It's all about show. It's all about talk. But, when it comes down to actually working for the demographic that the tokens supposedly represent, this is the response you get…"You need look no further than Rice and Powell to see that the GOP is the true party of inclusion."

Nevertheless, contrast this convention with reality. How many African-Americans were elected into the GOP as a result of the 2002 election cycle? Zero! When J. C. Watts retired at the end of 2003, how many African-American Republicans were left in Congress? Zero.…ZERO!

Speaking of JC Watts, lets take a look at his record. Was he the glittering light in the GOP tomb fighting tooth and nail for African-American interests? HA! What a joke! The NAACP gave Watts an "F" in the 107th congressional scorecard. When the only black, Republican member of congress receives an "F" from the NAACP, you know the party has no meaningful interest in reaching out to anyone who runs counter to the Trent Lott legacy.

Also note Clarence Thomas -- who benefited from affirmative action at Yale and then quickly dismissed the policy for anyone else. Motto: “Ladders are for pulling up behind you.”

And how about Condi Rice – the (supposed) force behind Bush's push against U. Michigan' s affirmative action policy:

"National security adviser Condoleezza Rice took a rare central role in a domestic debate within the White House and helped persuade President Bush to publicly condemn race-conscious admissions policies at the University of Michigan, administration officials said yesterday."

Indeed, Republicans have done some pretty dopey things to "prove" their inclusiveness -- clumsy acts that inevitably backfire. Arriana Huffington recounts:

"It was not in any of the news stories about the election of Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson, but there was also a co-chair elected at the RNC winter meeting. Committee bylaws require the election of "a chairman and a co-chairman of the opposite sex." Why then, you may wonder, didn't anybody notice? Because the co-chair is not really a co-chair -- that is, an equal partner -- but a ceremonial post filled by a woman. As someone at the RNC put it, 'she does whatever the chairman has no interest in doing.'"

Okay, so then there is Colin Powell. Perhaps he qualifies as one of the rare "type one" tokens, (one that actually has an interest in what happens to his represented demographic). Though he bows as a lapdog far too often to his rulers, He has proven to be a legitimate moderating force in the Bush administration…and…he supports affirmative action.

And there you can see his politically strategic value to the administration. Any legitimacy that the administration has exists only because of Powell. Despite the fact that Powell was constantly at odds with the rest of the administration, the Bush Administration has to keep him on board. To let him go mid-term would have been political suicide. In any event, the administration brought Powell on as a high profile, Karl-Rove-inspired token to quell critics and gain legitimacy.

Civil rights activist and legendary singer Harry Belafonte is not quite so kind in his appraisal of Powell:

"There's an old saying, in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master...exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

[…]

"What Colin Powell serves is to give the illusion that the Bush cabinet is a diverse cabinet, made up of people of color...when in fact none of that is what is true."

The bottom line is that tokenism is alive and well in the GOP -- a strategy designed to hide the motives of an administration and a party nourished by bigotry, greed, hatred and exclusion.

See Also: Tactic: Choose as Your Spokesperson, a Representative From Your Weakest Demographic

Race :: Tactics | Link