Race Critics: Capitol Hill Is Too White

I have worked a few years in the past on Capitol Hill. Not for a Congressman, but for trade associations. I was always impressed by the quality of the vast majority of staffers of either party. Even if I disagreed with their position, or they with mine, they were smart, articulate, good looking(male and female), often had humor, and knew the geography, history and culture of the United States. Almost(not all) of them were white, unless they worked for a black congressman or woman.

In my opinion, having dealt with many black young people since my years in political and lobbying work, most black college graduates would not have the qualifications necessary to deal as part of the House-Senate apparatus with the public, representatives of a vast variety of interests, and read and understand complex legislation and legislative reports. Black colleges like Howard or Morgan State are a joke compared with the hundreds of rigorous private and public colleges which supply the Hill, the members and the commmitte staffs with bright young talent. Remember, black colleges average dropout rates of 50% or more, and blacks drop out of majority white colleges at a much higher rate than whites. Genuinely qualified black college graduates are in huge demand; many go to Wall St or lucrative positions in law or business. The Hill is prestigious but starting salaries often are below 75 grand, a pittance for the few real black college grads from real schools, not slave schools like Tuskeegee.

And yes, these staffers, some amazingly young, write said legislation and reports under the control of the Member or committee chair for whom they worked.

BTW, black members of Congress (all Democrat), in the House when I worked up on the Hill, had practically all black staffers(who were smart but utterly indifferent to white concerns).

I just thought a little historical perspective would be helpful.

This is so typical hypocrite liberal Democrat or Rockefeller Republican — preach affirmative action to everyone else, but when your work has to be done, and your office has to be done, hire quality (i.e. white) staffers.

The wording is a giveaway.
How many black members have WHITE chiefs of staff?
A case of the finest ale on “none”.

“Given such poor numbers, let’s acknowledge that there is something broken about the process,” said Citigroup lobbyist Paul Thornell, a former aide to Al Gore and former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. He added that there are “few intentional strategies in place to promote minorities.”

Hey,
just ask Sotomayor’s clerks! (Maybe “Latina wisdom” doesn’t extend to vital underlings?)

The solution, say critics of the status quo: fully embrace the so-called “Rooney rule,” named after Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney. The rule requires that NFL teams interview at least one minority prospect when filling head coaching jobs.

Really? So they won’t be complaining when the proportion of “minority” staffers remains the same in a few years time, even with mandatory minority interviews?

This is how it will start - they will later “propose” mandatory employment of at least one “minority” staffer, from which they will move on to demanding “proportional” employment of minorities.

“I don’t think that’s because there is a lack of African-Americans or people of color wanting to work on Capitol Hill,” Paul Brathwaite, executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus told Newsday three years ago.

It’s funny that the same white Democrats and Republicans advocating the racial dispossession of whites in the U.S. will probably never see their children or grandchildren take political office, as the “minorities” whose interests their fathers and grandfathers so greatly advanced and pandered vote for “people who look like them” and staff other “people who look like them”.

It will never be enough for these people until all white people are jobless and unemployable, just like the Boers of South Africa!

Here is a novel idea, hire the best person for the job. And apparently they did and that is why the staff is majority white!

“There’s not enough racial diversity among the congressional staff on Capitol Hill and activists want corrective action.”

How utterly laughable; the Congress critters who demand that we all bask in the “strengths” and “enrichments” of diversity, humbly deprive themselves of it?

Perhaps, they should all be forced into some sensitivity training and whatnot?

As always, God help us all!

“Capitol Hill is Too White”

I’ve often wondered with these “racial equality complaints”, what the criteria will be to determine when this blissfull state of “balance” between the races has finally come about?

The “Rooney Rule” is just a push to get the foot in the door. Many whites might say, ‘sure, interviewing a few blacks is a reasonable request’. But it won’t end there. Once they get the interviews, they’ll question why blacks aren’t being hired. Inch by inch. Step by step. It’s a losing game.

By the way, I’m offended that Harlem is too black. I think that needs to change.

“Congressmen must hire more non-white staffers.”

Yesh, like Jeb Bush did in Florida. His requirement for staffers was that they be black. Nothing else.

So when you got a letter from his office that sounded like it came from the third grade it was understandably an attempt to give blacks a chance to get out from all the oppression they have been enduring.

That they were completely unable to understand any aspect of anything complicated that you might be addressing didn’t really matter to old Jeb. I mean, after all, it wasn’t HIS problems that were being dealt with.

It’s like government run healthcare. The Congress refuses to participate in it, but they insist that we do.

Note the name of each congress person supporting this.

Challenge them when they run for office.

Print their quotes in the ads for re-election.

Let the white voters whose votes they need to be re-elected decide.

My guess, it would be enough to unseat EVERY SINGLE one of these racists if the oppossing candidate made this an issue.

Write an article calling for “internal diversity”

Require that if the candidate is black, that they interview an asian first for the head staff position.

Does anyone think the staffers who happen to be White, were simply picked by skin-color alone?
Or is the more likely explaination that they were their through hard work, intelligence, and working their way up the ladder.
The bottom line is the staffer has to help the candidate get work done.
They are there to do a job and dont need to meet any requirement to be of a certain race to satisy “racists” ( I mean “critics” as the article said.)
Note - if you were to say “I want more white representing inner city areas”, like Washington DC for example * when was the last time Washington,DC had a WHITE mayor? *
would the media call you a “critic” or would they call you a “racist” ?

It must be understood that the demand for black self-interest comes from blacks and white liberals that are really self-hating and anti-white.
The demand that “Everyone disregard their own racial self-interest” only came from a past generation of white’s that are no longer living, aren’t in power and if we ignore them there will be no back lash against us.

Imagine a country that was 90% black and 10% latino.
Say white’s came as immigrants in sufficent numbers such that
the new numbers were 80% black 10% latino and 10% White.
Would Whites in that country then form a White Caucus to make sure that the representation in the Congress was “more diverse” {read more white in this case} ?
Would Black’s deny qualified blacks in this country their chance to be head of staff simply for being black?
Or would they say that each is an individual applying for an individual position as an individual and not part of some type of quota?

“Congressmen must hire more non-white staffers.”

Interesting.

What if I were to say that China needs to hire more Whites or that Mexico has too many Hispanic bureaucrats or that some african country has too many black presidents (dictators). I just bet that these non-White countries would get right down to business and corect these injustices…

/sarc off.

I completely agree. I am disgusted that the racist Democratic Party would have such a low percentage of blacks in positions of power. About 20% of the people who vote Democrat are African-American yet blacks are woefully under-represented. IT’S SHAMEFUL!

The Republican Party, however, deserves a lot of credit. Their percentage of blacks is exactly proportional to the percentage of blacks that vote Republican.

A simple question—
Name ONE “black run” municipality (city, town or village) that is successful, attracts people of ALL races and is a good place to live.
Cannot be done.

It’s like government run healthcare. The Congress refuses to participate in it, but they insist that we do.

It’s typical of everything Congress or Senate does, they are exempt apparently from ANYTHING they FORCE the citizens into.

The fairly obviously reason for this is that Congressmen hire their staff out of their own district, rather than from the heavily black DC area. So some Congressman from Montana is not going to be likely to have a black staff member. Likewise, I seriously doubt Maxine Waters has any white staff members.

Sounds like more race hustling to me. Of course, no one ever mentions how far quality will fall or expenses will rise if/when race quotas are imposed.

I used to work for a member of Congress, and we made a concerted effort a few years ago to find a black mid-level staffer. After a parade of interviews of clearly sub-standard individuals, we finally found a black woman who really did seem like she could do a good job. We offered it to her. Unfortunately, she choose a better position with greater responsibility and opportuntity for advancement working for a Senator.

The problem is there are too few competent blacks. And the ones who are competent command very high salaries and move up quickly.

So…after months of trying, we gave up and hired a white person.

Are WE ever going to tell these people (blacks) enough is enough already, YOU are 13.5% of the population, where did you get the idea that 50% is YOUR share? blacks are not the only (minority) as they call themselves and I feel that once the 13.5% level is reached (in all fairness) they need to step back and allow others to step in. By the way WHITE people are a relatively small percentage of The World Population , it just seems as if there are more White People because Much of Human Accomplishment come back to their brains, efforts and abilities..

Gee, I think South Central L.A. is too black - what’cha gonna do about THAT??? I think people on the Hill want competence, not color. They choose the best and the brightest, and that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Blacks comprise about 15%, maybe 17%, of the population at large - and I would imagine that they are represented in about those percentages on the Hill. And what about Hispanics and Asians??? Are THEY represented on the Hallowed Hill?? What are their percentages in the general population? And how is it that only blacks are complaining? Is that because it’s what they do best, rather than producing anything valuable to the country?

It’s funny that someone associate with the Congressional Black Caucus—a group that refuses to admit Whites—has the nerve to lecture us on “inclusiveness” or whatever the term for this nonsense may be.

Under represented as compared to what? The racial demographics of Washington D.C.?

We have Blacks building our cars in Detroit and the product turned out is directly proportional to their input.

Do we really need Blacks completely running our country.

This is the only President in my long memory wherein I have disagreed with him over absolutely everything, both economically and internationally.

In my opinion, as often stated here, this country will be in full fledged depression this time next year. And, now the second prediction: before this term is out we will be in another major WAR!

The four Marx brothers still live but with different names: “Backtracking” Barrack, “Helicopter” Ben, “Loose” Larry, and of course,”Clueless” Timmy.

Blacks are a luxury that Whites can no longer afford!

Remember Barrack looks good in a Bill Blass suit and can read a teleprompter well. He went to Harvard Law School [in a fashion] and is suppose to be brilliant. I didn’t go to Harvard, don’t wear Bill Blass, and have never read a teleprompter in my life. Moreover I have never had, nor would I ever want to have, a relationship with any woman named Oprah. That said, thirty minutes of a question and answering session with me would seem to him to have lasted thirty days.

Boy do I have some questions for him and he could bring his three brothers along for moral support [and to hold his hand as well].

MoMo

“’Given such poor numbers, let’s acknowledge that there is something broken about the process,’ said Citigroup lobbyist Paul Thornell”

This is a verbal method worth studying. To make a claim harder to refute, embed it as a presupposition. (“Do you still beat your wife?”) The “numbers” aren’t “poor” as long as hiring is based on merit, but objecting to the speaker’s implicit assumption seems like taking a detour. The sole purpose of this statement may be to allege that the numbers are poor and we all know it, and have that claim go unquestioned.

I think Africa is too black, so they could use more blonde Swedes. I think China is too Chinese, so they could use a bunch of Middle Eastern Muslims. I think Mexico is too Mexican, so they could use a bunch of Pakistanis. I mean, it’s all about ‘diversity’, right?

Suprises me that people like this get all worked up about a “social construct” that they supposedly hate in the first place. Never mind that they can so quickly make a racial identification and come up with hard numbers. So my question is: How do these people make a “racial identification?” Maybe they can help us with the concept of “race.”

I call for every Democrat Congressperson to hire an ALL black staff. They should lead the way. After a few years of missing votes, proposing unconsitutional or improperly formed legislation, they will lose their hold on power for a generation or two. I think that would be a great boon to American society.

There’s no such thing as “too white”.

There’s not enough racial diversity among the congressional staff on Capitol Hill and activists want corrective action.

Personally, I’m sick of hearing about the need for more “diversity.” All this means is get rid of whitey and replace all whites with everything that is non-white. Unfortunately, too many white people have been brainwashed into thinking the same way and are for more “diversity.” When will they ever get it that whites are being displaced to their own detriment……Diversity=adversity for whites.

Too White? Lol, this is 2009, not 1809. Capitol Hill hasn’t been openly racialist since before the War of Northern Aggression. Since then, it has been a long, downward slope of cowardice, intellectual dishonesty, and political correctness. Even in the early 1920’s when congress passed the restrictive immigration laws, very few of the representatives who supported the legislation openly cited racialist concerns as a primary factor in their decision-making process. A few did, but most were already nervous about being seen as ‘racists’ or as ‘Nordic supremacists’. This was back in the 1920’s; how ridiculous is it to criticize Capitol Hill on ‘race issues’ in 2009?

To be sure, there were a few isolated individuals after the WNA who held racialist viewpoints/doctrines and weren’t afraid to openly express them (Teddy Roosevelt would probably fall into this category), but generally speaking it hasn’t been since before the WNA that Capitol Hill has had anything resembling a pro-Nordish government body. Certainly not after WWI, that’s for sure.