I Agree With Eugene Robinson

The whole article is here.

Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard.

White male is an identity. It is an insanely overrepresented identity in the United States government at the federal level. Many historic rulings are testament to that (persistence of slavery, Jim Crow laws, women's lack of suffrage). That predominantly/exclusively white male courts have overcome their bias on occasion to rule in favor of the oppressed, the underrepresented, the minority, is to their credit, but those are landmark rulings because they are rare, they are exceptions (as the recent Ricci case proves the rule: white interest wins again).

For all the bitching about empathy and activism and quotas coming from white male politicians (Republicans all) you'd think we were a repressed minority. We're not. We are also not really able to represent those different than us any more than any other individual in any other group.

I'd like to think that I would do a pretty good job if given the opportunity to represent others (I have no desire to pursue that, but, hey, I'm sane), but the fact is that I could really only do a very good job of representing the real views and interests of the well educated, of scientists, of lower middle to middle class. I would do a piss poor job of representing the trust fund wealthy. I would do a horrible job of representing religious fundamentalists. I would do a crap job of representing many major corporations, and I would probably, frankly, not do the best job of representing the poor. Now I could still do a better job than most politicians (they are at the federal level far more wealthy than am I), but I lack a true appreciation for what it is like to grow up very poor, or in a crime infested area, or black, or Hispanic, or a woman.

Politicians repeatedly try and speak for those for whom they can't. I tend to believe that class and education (and probably gender) are a bigger predictor of one's point of view than race/ethnicity, but it isn't that simple. Even if those are more important in the later setting of viewpoints, physical characteristics, and racial/ethnic/gender identity are not insignificant. We see our own potential through the achievement of those with whom we identify. Our first blush ability to identify is based on appearance. As we grow, and hopefully become wiser, we come to know that appearance is not the critical component, but in those formative years, when opinions and direction are initially forming, appearance is what we have to go on, and we see our potential not in education but in people who look like us.

So while things like quotas do not necessarily produce the best immediate results, they would most likely prove successful, in the long term, at enabling all the diversity and our society to recognize their fullest potential. Of course the long term gain vs. short term, well, issues, question is not one that is easily resolved. That which would most benefit our nation two, three generations or more down the road will have a negative impact on a particular group of people: white men. So long as white men dominate the political landscape things are likely to change only very slowly. Maybe good for me, but not for any other group in the country, and probably not for the country as a whole.