Biden Cabinet Confirmation Live Thread ***hearings, votes, etc.***

[brucejoel99]

6.8% of the total U.S. population is AAPI. There are 25 members of the Biden Cabinet: 2 of said members - the VP & the USTR (who's a member of the Cabinet as it's currently constituted because, yes, Cabinet-level counts) are AAPI, meaning 8% of the Biden Cabinet is AAPI. Biden pledged to appoint a Cabinet that "looked like America." What's the issue here?

Neither the US trade Rep nor the VP is a cabinet secretary as Duckworth is defining the term.

Narrowly defining the term in order to suit an incorrect narrative ought to be her problem, not Joe Biden's.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

6.8% of the total U.S. population is AAPI. There are 25 members of the Biden Cabinet: 2 of said members - the VP & the USTR (who's a member of the Cabinet as it's currently constituted because, yes, Cabinet-level counts) are AAPI, meaning 8% of the Biden Cabinet is AAPI. Biden pledged to appoint a Cabinet that "looked like America." What's the issue here?

Neither the US trade Rep nor the VP is a cabinet secretary as Duckworth is defining the term.

Narrowly defining the term in order to suit an incorrect narrative ought to be her problem, not Joe Biden's.

Apparently according to her if it's not someone who has the word "secretary" in their job title, the AAPI community won't get or appreciate that it's a high ranking official...

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Narrowly defining the term in order to suit an incorrect narrative ought to be her problem, not Joe Biden's.

The VP isn't a Cabinet Secretary. Neither is the USTR, which a "Cabinet-level" position.

However, "Cabinet-level" changes frequently based on who is the President. Trump had the CIA Director as a "Cabinet-level" position but Biden doesn't. Biden elevated the US Ambassador to the UN back to a "Cabinet-level" position after Trump removed it from "Cabinet-level" status in 2018. Bush 43 removed the SBA from being a "Cabinet-level" position after it was in that rank in the Clinton administration - Obama elevated back in 2012.

"The Cabinet" is formally the VP and the heads of the 15 federal executive departments that are ranked in the presidential order of succession. USTR is neither the head of a federal executive department OR in the presidential order of succession.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Apparently according to her if it's not someone who has the word "secretary" in their job title, the AAPI community won't get or appreciate that it's a high ranking official...

That's not what she said.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1374444638006747142
This is a very valid point.

[brucejoel99]

Narrowly defining the term in order to suit an incorrect narrative ought to be her problem, not Joe Biden's.

The VP isn't a Cabinet Secretary. Neither is the USTR, which a "Cabinet-level" position.

However, "Cabinet-level" changes frequently based on who is the President. Trump had the CIA Director as a "Cabinet-level" position but Biden doesn't. Biden elevated the US Ambassador to the UN back to a "Cabinet-level" position after Trump removed it from "Cabinet-level" status in 2018. Bush 43 removed the SBA from being a "Cabinet-level" position after it was in that rank in the Clinton administration - Obama elevated back in 2012.

"The Cabinet" is formally the VP and the heads of the 15 federal executive departments that are ranked in the presidential order of succession. USTR is neither the head of a federal executive department OR in the presidential order of succession.

I mean, if we're gonna get technical here, then that's wrong in that "the Cabinet" is an informal term that's not formally defined in any meaningful sense & so the definition of it as well as what constitutes it is the prerogative of the incumbent President, who - in this case - has deemed his "Cabinet" to include Cabinet-level officials such as the USTR. If Sen. Duckworth wants to make this an argument about the heads of the federal executive departments or about the presidential line of succession, then she's free to do so, but (aside from the fact that even that would still constitute an equally erroneous argument, given that the closest number to 6.8% of either of those totalities would still equate to just 1, which would be satisfied even without the USTR's inclusion) if she's talking about "the Cabinet," then the simple fact of the matter here is that Biden promised a Cabinet that "looked like America," & unless we're just gonna disagree on how literal math works, the claim that he failed to do so with the Cabinet that he formed per his prerogative to decide who does & doesn't count as a member of his Cabinet just can't be credibly made.

[emailking]

He should probably appoint somebody somewhere that meets his original pledge when possible and maybe tell her that, but I don't think she should block existing appointments.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

This is how we get Attorney General Young Kim outlawing homosexuality, isn’t it?

[VAR]

#Girlboss Mazie Hirono joins Duckworth in blocking Biden’s cabinet nominees:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/23/980464690/sens-duckworth-hirono-will-block-biden-nominees-over-lack-of-aapi-representation

[GeneralMacArthur]

6.8% of the total U.S. population is AAPI. There are 25 members of the Biden Cabinet: 2 of said members - the VP & the USTR (who's a member of the Cabinet as it's currently constituted because, yes, Cabinet-level counts) - are AAPI, meaning 8% of the Biden Cabinet is AAPI. Biden pledged to appoint a Cabinet that "looked like America." What's the issue here?

I saw this thread and the first thing I did was Google "aapi % of population" because I was going to make this exact post.

Biden pledged to try and build a diverse cabinet, and he has done so.  That is what counts.  Whether some particular group or sub-group or sub-sub-group or small slice of America is under or over-represented in this particular small sample is not really that important.

Here in Seattle there's a thing called the "Black Brilliance Project" where we basically handed millions of dollars to our local SJW creatives purely for the sake of saying "we spent money promoting underrepresented communities."  The internals of the project itself are like peak SJW.  Here is a direct quote from the Seattle Times article that reads like an SNL parody of Seattle activism:

The seven people on the steering committee would have to, among them, meet nearly a dozen different criteria: At least one member must have been incarcerated, one must have been homeless, have disabilities, be trans, nonbinary or gender nonconforming, be a Black woman, be an older adult, be from the African diaspora. At least two of seven members must be youth and at least one must be appointed by the Duwamish Tribe."

I mean, is this what we want?  Is this really what we mean by "diversity"?  Creating an endless list of boxes that must be ticked and sub-groups that must be represented?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Apparently according to her if it's not someone who has the word "secretary" in their job title, the AAPI community won't get or appreciate that it's a high ranking official...

That's not what she said.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1374444638006747142
This is a very valid point.

It's not a valid point.  Black people are 14% of the United States.  Just having 1/15 Cabinet-level officials be Black would not be something to be proud of if you are talking about matching their proportion of the population.  But AAPI are like 6% of the population.  1/15 is about 7%.  So yes, having one AAPI would be the same as their proportion of the overall U.S. population, and you are perfectly justified pointing to that one person and saying "This AAPI woman is 7% of our Cabinet and we're very proud of her."  But Biden actually has 2/15 because Katherine Tai is the USTR.

And in the parent Tweet, it's even sillier.  Duckworth complains that AAPI were promised USTR and OMB Director would be AAPI.  USTR is, in fact, AAPI.  Neera Tanden was nominated for OMB, but her nomination was killed by Sen. Manchin.  Unless Biden should go pick some other AAPI woman for that position specifically to fulfill that "pledge", she should be directing her anger at Manchin.

[brucejoel99]

Apparently according to her if it's not someone who has the word "secretary" in their job title, the AAPI community won't get or appreciate that it's a high ranking official...

That's not what she said.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1374444638006747142
This is a very valid point.

It's not a valid point.  Black people are 14% of the United States.  Just having 1/15 Cabinet-level officials be Black would not be something to be proud of if you are talking about matching their proportion of the population.  But AAPI are like 6% of the population.  1/15 is about 7%.  So yes, having one AAPI would be the same as their proportion of the overall U.S. population, and you are perfectly justified pointing to that one person and saying "This AAPI woman is 7% of our Cabinet and we're very proud of her."  But Biden actually has 2/15 because Katherine Tai is the USTR.

*25 if Tai's included

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

*snip*

Bringing up the fact that Asians make up "6.8% of the population" is irrelevant. Until very recently, White men made up 90-100% of the Cabinet - way larger than their population percentage. The first wave of Asian immigration to the U.S. happened in the 1850s and it took until 2000 to have the first Asian Cabinet Secretary (Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta).

Also, having more than 1 Asian person as a Cabinet Secretary is a perfectly justifiable demand - Obama literally had 3 (Locke, Chu and Shinseki). Furthermore, it's not like Duckworth/Hirono are saying to just appoint random Asians. There are a plethora of qualified Asian people who could fill many high-ranking governmental roles.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

*snip*

Duckworth made a VERY valid point. Full stop.

Anyways, view my post above.

[brucejoel99]

*snip*

Bringing up the fact that Asians make up "6.8% of the population" is irrelevant. Until very recently, White men made up 90-100% of the Cabinet - way larger than their population percentage. The first wave of Asian immigration to the U.S. happened in the 1850s and it took until 2000 to have the first Asian Cabinet Secretary (Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta).

Also, having more than 1 Asian person as a Cabinet Secretary is a perfectly justifiable demand - Obama literally had 3 (Locke, Chu and Shinseki). Furthermore, it's not like Duckworth/Hirono are saying to just appoint random Asians. There are a plethora of qualified Asian people who could fill many high-ranking governmental roles.

Not when Biden - again - literally pledged to nominate a Cabinet that "looked like America," a pledge he clearly fulfilled.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Apparently according to her if it's not someone who has the word "secretary" in their job title, the AAPI community won't get or appreciate that it's a high ranking official...

That's not what she said.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1374444638006747142
This is a very valid point.

Hirono at the very least seemed to articulate exactly what I said:

"What I said was, I shared the position that AAPI community has that there hasn't been a significant number of AAPIs at the Cabinet level," Hirono said. "I realize that we have Katherine Tai, but I don't think the trade representative is what the community understands as a Cabinet level."


https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/politics/duckworth-hirono-aapi-nominees/index.html

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Not when Biden - again - literally pledged to nominate a Cabinet that "looked like America," a pledge he clearly fulfilled.

And yet he couldn't appoint a single Asian Cabinet Secretary? Even Trump had one (Elaine Chao - corrupt as she is), Bush 43 had two (Chao and Mineta). Biden has ZERO. That's called regression.

You can come up with any explanation/excuse or whatever but the fact still remains: Biden SHOULD have appointed an Asian Cabinet Secretary.

[brucejoel99]

Not when Biden - again - literally pledged to nominate a Cabinet that "looked like America," a pledge he clearly fulfilled.

And yet he couldn't appoint a single Asian Cabinet Secretary? Even Trump had one (Elaine Chao - corrupt as she is), Bush 43 had two (Chao and Mineta). Biden has ZERO. That's called regression.

You can come up with any explanation/excuse or whatever but the fact still remains: Biden SHOULD have appointed an Asian Cabinet Secretary.

If you're just gonna make this conversation go round & round in circles, then it's not a conversation worth being had.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If you're just gonna make this conversation go round & round in circles, then it's not a conversation worth being had.

But it's literally a fact. USTR =/= Cabinet Secretary. VP =/= Cabinet Secretary.

But whatever, I'll leave it at that, we've had this convo a few times now. We're not going to agree with each other on this topic. So yeah, let's agree to disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[South Dakota Democrat]

If you're just gonna make this conversation go round & round in circles, then it's not a conversation worth being had.

But it's literally a fact. USTR =/= Cabinet Secretary. VP =/= Cabinet Secretary.

But whatever, I'll leave it at that, we've had this convo a few times now. We're not going to agree with each other on this topic. So yeah, let's agree to disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the premise of your point is correct,  though, what does Duckworth expect Biden to do about it now? All of the cabinet secretaries have been confirmed. Why didn't she do this earlier?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Biden is the first president since Bush 41 to not have an Asian Cabinet Secretary. Also, neither Tai nor Harris are "Cabinet Secretaries". "Cabinet Secretary" = head of a federal government agency/department.

Unilaterally opposing all Biden nominees is probably the wrong move but I don't disagree with Duckworth's message. Also, saying "What about Kamala? She's the VP!" is tokenism. That's like how some white people told us (Black people) that "racism is over" because "Obama is/was president".

how is demanding a nominee of a particular race not itself tokenism??

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If the premise of your point is correct,  though, what does Duckworth expect Biden to do about it now? All of the cabinet secretaries have been confirmed. Why didn't she do this earlier?

Duckworth & Hirono want Biden to appoint some Asians to high-level governmental positions (like OMB, Deputy Cabinet positions, etc).

Also, like I mentioned earlier, lack of AAPI representation was pointed out to Biden BEFORE he finalized his Cabinet. The Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and Black Caucus (known as the Tri-Caucus) released a statement to Biden on December 19th urging him to appoint an Asian Cabinet Secretary. Then, 100 Congress members sent a letter to Biden on December 29th urging him to appoint an AAPI Cabinet Secretary.


Here is the link to the statement: https://capac-chu.house.gov/press-release/tri-caucus-leaders-urge-president-elect-biden-nominate-aapi-cabinet-secretary

The letter: https://capac-chu.house.gov/press-release/over-100-members-congress-call-aapi-cabinet-secretary-president-biden%E2%80%99s-administration

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

how is demanding a nominee of a particular race not itself tokenism??

Because Duckworth/Hirono are calling out the lack of representation. Also, they're not calling for random Asian people to be appointed but qualified people. Furthermore, Duckworth/Hirono didn't say that they would only vote for Asian nominees.

[South Dakota Democrat]

If the premise of your point is correct,  though, what does Duckworth expect Biden to do about it now? All of the cabinet secretaries have been confirmed. Why didn't she do this earlier?

Duckworth & Hirono want Biden to appoint some Asians to high-level governmental positions (like OMB, Deputy Cabinet positions, etc).

Also, like I mentioned earlier, lack of AAPI representation was pointed out to Biden BEFORE he finalized his Cabinet. The Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and Black Caucus (known as the Tri-Caucus) released a statement to Biden on December 19th urging him to appoint an Asian Cabinet Secretary. Then, 100 Congress members sent a letter to Biden on December 29th urging him to appoint an AAPI Cabinet Secretary.


Here is the link to the statement: https://capac-chu.house.gov/press-release/tri-caucus-leaders-urge-president-elect-biden-nominate-aapi-cabinet-secretary

The letter: https://capac-chu.house.gov/press-release/over-100-members-congress-call-aapi-cabinet-secretary-president-biden%E2%80%99s-administration

Okay, but if your premise is that the VP and Cabinet level officials don't count,  then why would appointing more people of AAPI background to other positions that still aren't Cabinet secretaries be good enough?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Okay, but if your premise is that the VP and Cabinet level officials don't count,  then why would appointing more people of AAPI background to other positions that still aren't Cabinet secretaries be good enough?

Because it's still important to have diverse representation in high-level government positions outside of the Cabinet.

Also, I said that the VP and USTR aren't Cabinet Secretaries not that they aren't important, in general.

[brucejoel99]

If you're just gonna make this conversation go round & round in circles, then it's not a conversation worth being had.

But it's literally a fact. USTR =/= Cabinet Secretary. VP =/= Cabinet Secretary.

But whatever, I'll leave it at that, we've had this convo a few times now. We're not going to agree with each other on this topic. So yeah, let's agree to disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For the umpteenth freaking time: just because the words "Secretary" or "Attorney General" may not appear in their titles, that doesn't mean that they're not considered members of the Cabinet. Biden appointed a requisite number of AAPI individuals to his Cabinet - which consists of 25 members, per his prerogative, & not just the 15 statutory federal dept. heads - that made it "look like America," which is what he pledged to do. If the response to him literally upholding his pledge is to say "that's not good enough, because it's actually only the words "Secretary" or "Attorney General" that matter now," then that's just goal-post moving that's disingenuous at best & the outright planting of a false narrative at worst.

Anyway, I'll actually leave it at that, because you & I both know that you're probably not gonna end up agreeing with a single word of what I just said, even though I believe (& it seems as if other posters also agree with me in believing) that to not agree means to declare that you disagree with what the literal basic reality of the situation is, but I digress.