P.C. Hits D.C.

Change can be good. We elected Bill Clinton in great part due to our belief that there would be change.

In the last several weeks, however, the president-elect has emphasized some changes that are not in America's best interests.

The Arkansas Governor has expounded upon his goal to make his administration a diverse one. But diversity shouldn't be the primary goal of the White House--quality should be.

Clinton has said that he wants to create the best administration he can. But, in essence, by his commitment to "diversity," he's saying that he will create the most politically correct one.

We most often think of political correctness as a philosophy by which we can't offend others and must be infinitely aware of others' sensibilities. This awareness has also come to be the ideal of an all-inclusive world over the last few years. Everyone must be included, whether or not he or she is qualified or needed.

When this thinking applies to White House staff appointments, what we have to look forward to is a White House that is not necessarily staffed by the most qualified people. Most of us expect a diverse and inclusive White House, but we shouldn't be willing to lower our standards to ensure one.

Clinton and the media have placed diversity, not necessarily quality, as a top priority in choosing those who are to serve this country. And the country, complacent in this age of political correctness, accepts this.

Taken at close view, this idea doesn't work out to a good plan of government.

President-elect Clinton wants his government to reflect the demographics of the country.

Should the Celtics draft a 5'8", 50-year-old guy like my father to play forward just because he represents and important demographic group? Of course not. While the Celtics may not be able to create policy for a majority of Americans, they are still a representative group in the United States that people watch closely and identify with. The Celtics can't play well with people who aren't talented enough to contribute to the team. The government should work on the same principle.

Bill Clinton needs to select people who will work best for the American team. They shouldn't have to meet any criterion but merit for these jobs. And yet, in today's selection process, it is acceptable for Clinton to select not the best people for the job, but the best people in certain minority groups.

And the media agrees. A recent New York Times article reported that the Clinton transition team was having problems finding a qualified woman to appoint for a particular position they had in mind. The article advised the president-elect that if he couldn't find even a remotely qualified minority for the job, then it would be fine to appoint the best person for the job.

Why the qualifiers? We don't need diversity for diversity's sake.

Different points of view are important but now more than ever we need the best people in Washington and cannot accept having people running the country regardless of their ability.

This is not to say that there aren't qualified minority candidates for these positions. If the best people for the jobs are minorities, give them the jobs. But give it to them because they are the best, not because they are minorities.

Clinton and his team claim to be in touch with the American people. If this is true, then they should be aware of all the qualified candidates in the country, and they can pick the best of those available. Their vision is supposed to be inclusive in itself, and they should trust it.

The ideal inclusive vision is very close to the vision of the first European settlers who came to this continent hoping only for a chance to earn a better life through their own efforts. They wanted no handouts and expected no entitlements. That spirit has made our country great. America is built on the idea of providing equal opportunity, not a guarantee of equality.

Bill Clinton is cheating this vision by trying too hard to create a diverse government before a good government. He shouldn't guarantee that his administration will provide such equality. Instead, he should promise to get the best people for the job.

You may think that Ross Perot is a loon. Even so, he was willing to do something for this country, and we can learn from his bid for the presidency.

He was willing to include people from any background or party affiliation on his staff if they were the best in their field. He wanted Americans to hold hands and work together. Clinton should do the same.

We cannot give up having the best group of leaders for a politically correct "best diverse" group. Why doesn't the government just find the best people?