Whenever leftist identity fetishists go on about diversity and 'representation' in various settings and contexts, conservatives often offer rejoinders that focus on the importance of intellectual and ideological diversity -- factors that transcend immutable characteristics. Identitarians fixate on skin color, sexuality, and other factors that do not account for what people believe or think. They talk about building institutions that 'look like' America, but often have zero interest in -- or are, in fact, actively hostile to -- the notion of those institutions reflecting America's political or religious composition. Which brings us to this very interesting story in the New York Times, whose newsroom is increasingly dominated by woke identity warriors (including many whom hysterically argued that their paper publishing a mainstream op/ed from a Republican Senator puts them in literal physical danger):
NYT suddenly interested in intellectual diversity. How rich. pic.twitter.com/Qch0pwCaw7
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 8, 2022
In choosing her top team, Ms. Truss has created a strikingly diverse cabinet. The country also has its first female deputy prime minister. “What is extraordinary is the pace of change, how this is already normal, and this isn’t contentious,” said Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future, a research institute that focuses on immigration, integration, race and identity. “There aren’t people going around saying ‘give us our country back.’” Still, Ms. Truss’s inner circle, while progressive in its ethnic makeup, also has a hard ideological edge, which critics say makes it unlikely to pursue policy friendlier to Britain’s minority population, or for refugees arriving on the country’s shores...Indeed, some argue that the diversity among cabinet ministers gives Ms. Truss the cover to pursue even more radical approaches, such as a plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda — a policy now the responsibility of Suella Braverman, the new home secretary, whose father came to Britain from Kenya in 1968.
Amazing. The historic diversity in Britain's government doesn't fully count, you see, because all of the minorities in positions of profound power are all conservative. And if anything, the Times grouses, their varied racial and ethnic make-up will give the Prime Minister "cover" to pursue policies that are supposedly unfriendly to minorities. This is a quasi-erudite way of calling government ministers 'tokens' who lack agency. When left-leaning or left-wing government tout and showcase their diversity, it's cause for celebration. When a right-leaning government does the same, it's suspect, or even nefarious. The truth is that leftists like to talk about diversity, and they enforce such things rather ruthlessly -- but what they care about most is power. They'd take nine straight white progressive men on the Supreme Court, in a heartbeat, over nine conservatives of splendidly diverse backgrounds. Outcomes and power matter most. Period. Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron is quoted in the story, pushing back against its premise:
Recommended
“Look what’s happened to the Conservative Party,” Mr. Cameron said in an interview with The New York Times in 2019. “It used to be people like me: white, posh, male, rural southerners. It has now got a gender balance. It’s every people from every Black and minority ethnic group in the country.” Mr. Cameron rejected the contention that the ethnic and racial diversity masked a lack of class diversity. Among those he named to his cabinet, he noted in the interview, was Sajid Javid, whose Pakistani immigrant father drove a bus. “The fact that the old fusty Conservative Party is managing to produce people like that says a lot,” he said.
It's also a bit much to see a newspaper whose editorial board and stable of columnists features zero Trump supporters (74 million Americans voted for the former president in 2020) whining about an elected conservative government appointing conservative leaders. The Conservative Party in the UK won a crushing and historic election victory in 2019. In their recent leadership election, following the resignation of PM Boris Johnson, the winning candidate -- now-PM Liz Truss -- campaigned very explicitly on her conservatism. When she won, she reiterated her commitment to conservatism:
"I will deliver a bold plan to cut taxes and grow our economy"
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 5, 2022
New Tory party leader Liz Truss says she "campaigned as a Conservative, and I will govern as a Conservative" as she vows to deal with energy billshttps://t.co/EnV6ob3f6W pic.twitter.com/1qSgXDgG7f
And now, to the horror of "critics" highlighted by and very much including the New York Times, she is populating her cabinet with...conservatives. Imagine that. And as a result, we're supposed to see their remarkable diversity, (using the definition that woke leftists endlessly profess to care about) as actually rather sinister. On the identity politics front, I'll leave you with this delightful exchange in the House of Commons during Truss' first Prime Minister's Questions session. A former PM, Theresa May, teamed up with her successor to troll the leftist Labour Party on the issue of empowering women. A string of irresistibles jab that had the Tory benches roaring with approval:
I don’t know why it’s so hard for the Labour Party to find a female leader or, indeed, a leader who doesn’t come from north London? ?? #pmqs pic.twitter.com/8Z8MDj6WBX
— Darren Grimes (@darrengrimes_) September 7, 2022
Somewhere, Lady Thatcher is smiling. And I'd imagine journalists at the New York Times and elsewhere are glowering. Because when conservatives empower conservative women, it's bad for women, or whatever.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member