By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
January 1, 2001
Watching George W. Bush put together his cabinet reminds me of his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention in Philadelphia in August of 2000 in which he basically told his peers of the baby boom generation that they needed to begin taking responsibility for the deplorable culture they have created for their children and grow up. He said:
"Big government is not the answer. But the alternative to bureaucracy is not indifference. A hundred years from now, this must not be remembered as an age rich in possessions and poor in ideals.
"Instead, we must usher in an era of responsibility.
"My generation tested limits -- and our country, in some ways, is better for it. ...We have discovered that who we are is more important than what we have. And we know we must renew our values to restore our country.
"This is the vision of America's founders."
"In a responsibility era, each of us has important tasks -- work that only we can do. Each of us is responsible ... to love and guide our children, and help a neighbor in need. Synagogues, churches and mosques are responsible ... not only to worship but to serve. Corporations are responsible ... to treat their workers fairly, and leave the air and waters clean. Our nation's leaders are responsible ... to confront problems, not pass them on to others.
"And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, a president himself must be responsible."
Responsibility appears to be the hallmark of the people George W.Bush has selected for his top advisors and Cabinet secretaries. His first appointments appear to be clearly designed to create a "responsibility era" in Washington. From his first appointment, Retired General Colin Powell, as Secretary of State, to his most recent appointments, Gov. Tommy Thompson, Health and Human Services, he has chosen people who have already DEMONSTRATED considerable responsibility and competence. Other appointments in top spots include: Condolezza Rice, National Security Advisor, Rod Paige, Secretary of Education, Gale Norton, Secretary of Interior, Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, Tony Principi, Veterans Administration, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Paul O'Neill, Secretary of Treasury, Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel, Mel Martinez, Housing and Urban Development, Sen. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Gov. Christine Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency, Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce.
Those keeping score on such things will also notice that these fourteen top posts are filled with a diverse group. Three of them are black. Four of them are female. Two of them are Hispanic. In short, a majority of George W.'s stop advisors are minorities. However, he has not made even a public mention of diversity being a goal in choosing his cabinet. He has made competence and responsibility his goal in choosing a cabinet.
Diversity, according to Dallin H. Oaks, a former justice of the Utah Supreme Court and now a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a condition, not a goal. In the January issue of the Church's magazine "Ensign" he noted:
"Jesus did not pray that His followers would become 'diverse.' He prayed that they would be 'one.'"Since diversity is a condition, a method or a short-term objective, not an ultimate goal- whenever diversity is urged it is appropriate to ask, 'What kind of diversity?' or 'Diversity in furtherance of what goal?' This is especially important in our policy debates, which should be conducted not in terms of slogans but in terms of the goals we seek and the methods or shorter-term objectives that will achieve them. Diversity for its own sake is meaningless and can clearly be shown to lead to unacceptable results.
"For example, if diversity is the underlying goal for a neighborhood, does this mean we should seek to assure that the neighborhood includes thieves and pedophiles, slaughterhouses and water hazards?"
And, therein lies the reason why we have witnessed a sharp drop in the quality of life and the cohesiveness of our culture in recent years, especially the past eight years. We have confused conditions with goals.
Elder Oaks also noted that there are few concepts that have more potential to mislead than the idea that choice is an ultimate goal. Choice also is a method:
"I have been fascinated with how cleverly those who sought and now defend legalized abortion on demand have moved the issue away from a debate on the moral, ethical and medical pros and cons of legal restrictions on abortion and focused the debate on the slogan or issue of choice. The slogans or sound bite 'pro-choice' has had an almost magical effect in justifying abortion and neutralizing opposition to."
"Pro-Choice" has made it appear to many that women can abort their babies without consequences. In fact, National Abortion Rights leader Kate Michelman is outraged that President Elect Bush has nominated Gov. Tommy Thompson for Housing and Human Services Secretary and Sen. John Ashcroft as Attorney General. In a perfect example of using choice as a "goal" Michelman states on the NARAL website:
"The Attorney General and the HHS secretary are the two most important cabinet positions when it comes to protecting women's reproductive rights. Bush's nomination of the virulently anti-choice Ashcroft and Thompson to these key positions is a clear indicator of his intent to do away with a woman's right to choose. It also starkly demonstrates that Bush's rhetoric of inclusion does not apply when women's reproductive rights are at stake."
What nonsense! I said when the slogan "a woman's right to choose" first came up, thirty-five years ago, that every woman already HAD the right to choose to control her own body and she needed to exercise that right before she jumped in bed with a man she wasn't married to. However, after she had made the choice to have sex indiscriminately, and other bodies were involved in the situation, the body of an unborn baby and the body of the father of the unborn baby, that the consequences of her bad choice could not be avoided merely by killing the baby.
There are no reproductive rights at stake in President Elect Bush's choices. Women have the right to choose to continue to make the kinds of bad choices Kate Michelman has espoused for years. Millions of women who have had abortions privately realize that their choice of having sex indiscriminately and outside the bound of marriage have caused them much private misery. Throughout the world today, due to the confused thinking of women like Kate Michelman, millions of women are reaching the end of their child bearing years - without having a child and often without ever marrying. They often find their precious slogans about "reproductive rights" have been eliminated by disease or simply by the passage of time.
Thirty-five years of sloganeering about "choice" and "diversity" have not helped women make choices that would lead to happier, healthier lives or improved the education or the lives of youth who have diversity in their classrooms but very little learning in the diversity.
Bush's goal of bringing responsibility and competence to Washington, D.C. appears to be ready to launch in Washington this month. Expect those who wanted a continuation of the Clinton-Gore era of irresponsibility to complain loudly.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription