Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Are The Drives For "Diversity" And "Unity" Mutually Exclusive?

As I was listening to a C-SPAN radio presentation yesterday (ironically as I was in a 'farmer's market' in which people from seemingly every part of the world were seen shopping) I listened to an interesting presentation about the need to get more female elected officials in this nation because of the consciousness and problem solving skills that they bring to the table.

The key point that caught my attention was that this group was said to be non-partisan and non-ideological.  They argued that women, regardless of their ideology and party affiliation bring certain attributes and sensibilities with them.  They even argued that women, where possible, should vacate their personal interests in party and ideology and should chose to promote a woman in to power even if they have to "cross the isle" to do so.

I can agree that it is possible for a woman voter who is a moderate to promote the "female-ness" of a given candidate over their divergent party and agree to support her IF ONLY there is not much of a gap between the voter and the candidate's ideology.   Add an extreme gap and it just is not likely.   We have already seen this to be the case in reference to conservative Republican Herman Cain and the balance of the Black Progressive oriented press.  The attacks on Cain took place long before any Black person had a chance to vote for him.  This for Black people would be in the "general election", not the Republican primary.

The call for "Group Unity" is typically made as a means of leveraging the strength of bringing individuals together to fight against a larger "adversary" on a particular battle field.

The call for "Inter-group" Diversity" is a call for the more powerful force on that playing field to yield what ever "Group Unity" that they had applied (via just means or not) to achieve their present advantage.  The group seeking to make an entrance into their circle of power asks them to yield to afford them opportunity.

Diversity and Unity Cannot Stand On Their Own

My most virulent differences with those who I am most inclined to debate with is not from their call for "unity" or "diversity".   The problem is that they do so, often, without acceptance of the more fundamental platforms of "Adherence to certain foundational principles" and, as importantly, yielding to a TRANSPARENT body which measures the effectiveness of their strategy, with the hopes of applying course correction if the "corrective feedback" indicates the requirement.

To yield your knowledge of what is "right and wrong", "what is working and what is not" because you want UNITY or DIVERSITY is the acceptance of a "self-lie" BECAUSE you want UNITY with the GROUP.

As such that same "group power" has the POWER to accept a lie about itself IF this "congregational acceptances" affords it the opportunity to avoid self-indictment.

As such the founding principles can never be allowed to be trumped by the call for UNITY and DIVERSITY.  This only benefits the incumbent regime who holds the megaphone.

No comments: