Progressivism is giving the concept of First… a bad name.
In light of the history of race relations in America, Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was a legitimate big deal: First black President of the United States was a phrase with which to conjure. But that wasn’t enough for progressives. No, they had to go an extra dozen miles, canonizing Obama as a secular saint, a black messiah, the “Lightbringer” whose presence at the center of American politics would heal a broken nation, purge it of its retrograde vices, and lead it toward a radiant future.
It must be said that Barack Obama himself was more than receptive to that message.
But the Lightbringer never really lived up to the hype. Obama turned out to be just another politician, albeit one with exceptionally sharp trouser creases. He was articulate, but you could seldom remember what he’d just said. He was smart, but not wise. His casual arrogance of tone and manner did not wear well. And his successor was Donald J. Trump. Than that I need say no more.
Don’t get me wrong—I’ve got nothing against First… in principle. When a pathbreaking, nontraditional first appears naturally, the results can be impressive, as numerous examples attest. But naturally emerging firsts aren’t always celebrated. Sometimes, like Margaret Thatcher, they’re controversial, contrarian, even revolutionary figures. The Establishment tends not to welcome the rise of people like that.
What the Establishment much prefers is a first whom the Establishment itself has vetted and nominated. Barack Obama’s rise was facilitated by a white progressive establishment that was delighted to discover a presidential candidate who was just like white progressives—except that he happened to be black. What counted most was his resemblance to them in everything but skin color. He was no Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton; white progressives could relate to the Lightbringer. He was the Acceptable Black Presidential Candidate. And Obama was no fool. He knew this, and only his vanity prevented him from pushing back against their condescension.
So it should come as no surprise that the string of progressive-sponsored firsts who followed Barack Obama have been average to mediocre and sometimes embarrassing. By and large, they were picked because they checked one or more diversity boxes. Talent, merit, and achievement were, if not completely disregarded, given short shrift. That, for instance, is how we wound up with a vice president whose laziness, ineptitude and unlikability defy parody.
The Firsts Hall of Shame’s latest inductee is the soon-to-be former Mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, who just finished third in the Democratic mayoral primary election. Lightfoot earned plaudits as the first black female lesbian to be elected mayor of the Windy City—and to hear them tell it, the progressives who cheered her ascent never suspected that she was actually a dud.
“Everybody’s strength is their weakness,” opined Democratic political strategist David Alexrod after Lightfoot’s humiliating crash and burn. “Her strength is she’s a very pugilistic person. She’s fought for everything she’s gotten in her life—often against great barriers. But she favors the clenched fist over the outstretched hand. And when you’re mayor, you need both.” Do tell, Dave. Is it really the case that no one noticed this about Lightfoot until she became mayor? Sure they did—but it seemed unimportant, stacked up against first black female lesbian.
In most walks of life, a first who proves to be a dud simply gets shelved or fades into obscurity. Outside the department or the building, no one’s paying attention and in a large organization a place—some place—can be found for most anybody. But when you’re the first vice president of black/Indian ethnicity or the first gay Secretary of Transportation, people do pay attention. And if you screw up, that’s fodder for a news cycle—maybe several news cycles.
Though everybody makes mistakes, progressive-sponsored firsts labor under a unique disadvantage. They’ve been praised to the skies on the assumption that a politically correct DNA profile equals excellence. But that’s magical thinking, buttressed with dubious claims that women or gay men or BIPOCs bring a “unique perspective” to constitutional questions, economics, foreign policy, etc. The truth is that what matters in most cases are facts, evidence, and results. A “woman’s perspective” that results in the bankruptcy of a business or the failure of a political campaign is obviously no asset.
Fortunately for the firsts of progressivism, they have a ready-made excuse for their shortcomings or failures. Hillary Clinton, for instance, blamed her embarrassing 2016 loss to Donald Trump on sexism. And Lori Lighfoot? In the runup to the primary, Lightfoot was complaining that “I am a black woman—let’s not forget. Certain folks, frankly, don’t support us in leadership roles.” And after finishing third, when asked if she feels she was treated unfairly by the media, the voters of Chicago, etc., she replied: “I’m a black woman in America. Of course.”
Of course. Lori Lightfoot’s loss couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with the fact that she was a lousy mayor…