Let's analyze this one a bit more.
The NFL has the "Rooney Rule". When a head coaching job is open the team must interview at least one minority candidate. This increases exposure to opportunity while not forcing the team to hire anyone in particular. I am in general support of this policy. My only problem is when a team decides to go after one specific big name coach that is on the market with a proven track record (ie: Bill Parcells) and thus doesn't hold a formal interview process, we are typically going to hear from the crows about how they failed to interview a minority. Why go through the motions when everyone knows that there is a prime fish on the hook that they had their eyes on?
THE NON-EXISTENT BLACK IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
First let me as a question - "Would you put a political/ideological enemy in as your chief of staff?" If your goal is to remain in Congress the answer is clearly "Hell No!!".
Mechanically this proposed policy in the US Congress means that while Blacks will receive more interviews for Democrat Senators and Representatives, our inordinate amount of bias toward the Democrats mean that these Republican staffs will remain with less diversity.
Please be clear - I am NOT arguing "See Black people we need to diversify ideological because there are Republican jobs out there". This would be preposterous because, plain and simply this is not how things work. One doesn't fundamentally change his ideology for the want of a job. This indeed would be a "sellout". (This is also what I personally followed when it came to a "Black Presidential candidate". My lifetime of understanding and preferences could NOT be thrown away because a "Black guy" was on the ticket. You indeed could call me a "sellout" and my views conditional and arbitrary had I voted for a man and a machine about which I am so critical).
Instead the question of Black's in Republican staffs has roots in the question of "Why so few Blacks at the Republican National Convention". Both of these points show the political and ideological loyalties of Black people. Where as most Black people will argue "See Black people know that the Republican Party is hostile to our Permanent Interests and thus THEY MUST CHANGE if they want Black people to vote for them".
I reject this theory and argue the more obvious rebuttal: "With EVERY SINGLE BLACK MAJORITY DISTRICT being controlled by the Democrats....this gives us opportunity to inspect WHO'S FINGER PRINTS ARE ON THE STEERING WHEEL." In as much as their is continuing (and growing) grievances about the key government services within these districts - a prime opportunity to place a certain amount of SCRUTINY UPON OUR PREVAILING ASSUMPTIONS is open to be made.
This logic above only holds IF you assume that the population in question indeed has the objective of ACHIEVING A CERTAIN END, doing what ever THEY need to do to accomplish it.
Instead what we have is RETRENCHMENT. The more ideological homogeneous the group - the more likely all of the institutions working as operatives within the group will AGREE TO BLAME THE OTHER GUY and thus operate in a less than transparent manner.
Thus, coming back to the lack of diversity in the Republican Party - it indeed has some grounding in the fact that by SPLITTING THE BLACK VOTE - it works against the DEMOCRAT (Dr Ronald Daniels - where are you?). There is a vested interest in the present establishment to "keep the flock" behind them.
Thus I argue that
- There needs to be a separation between the clarity of the goals that we are collectively working for and the VEHICLE by which to obtain them. Such a structure allows us to make note that with the change in ground conditions, the snow mobile that we all fell in love with needs to be discarded in exchange for the jet ski. Those who "try harder" using the snow mobile will see that it doesn't float too well.
- An independent group that inspects the present movement with respect to some map. Transparency is critical to insure that any movement is working for the interests of the people rather than the third party entity which receives the advantage in the wake of an undeserved inter-twine between the two group's goals.
Thus the offense is not that there will be few Blacks in Republican Administrations - I would not plant an "ideologically enemy operative" within my ranks. Clearly the Congressional Black Caucus is fully aware of this. The offense REMAINS that there is such a cavern between the PROMISES that we as a community were given if we vote a certain way and the conditions that remain.
It is clear that in the sometimes hostile relationship between Blacks and Republicans - it is not only the Republicans that are intolerant.
In regards to "working against the interests of Black people" - I'd say that THOSE WHO ARE IN POWER over the key institutions that service the Black community has a greater claim to harming us than those who WE DON'T PROMOTE into these positions. Do you blame the quarterback that you cut from the team at the begging of the season for your loss of the game?