OP-ED: Turns Out, Republicans Love DEI and Affirmative Action

But only when it works for them

A cartogram of the 2016 election results, depicting states weighed by population rather than geographic size. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but Donald Trump won the Electoral College.

Conservatives will often rail against affirmative action programs and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, arguing that they undermine merit-based selection and perpetuate identity politics. 

They’ll be quick to criticize DEI at every opportunity, even when it does not apply. For example, following this week’s collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, some conservatives were ready to blame the tragedy on diversity hires, including Utah gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson.

Yet, it just so happens that Republicans readily endorse and thrive within a political framework that disproportionately empowers rural white voters.

The American right-wing benefits greatly from the DEI initiatives that are enshrined in the US Constitution, namely the Electoral College and the structure of the US Senate. The Electoral College, an antiquated system, allocates disproportionate weight to less populous states, where rural and predominantly white populations reside. Consequently, it magnifies the influence of these demographics in presidential elections, effectively diluting the voices of more populous and diverse regions.

Similarly, the Senate's equal representation for each state, regardless of population size, was initially intended to prevent smaller states from being overshadowed by their larger counterparts. However, it now serves to amplify the influence of rural white states, allowing the voices of a few to outweigh those of many and perpetuating a system of unequal representation.

Conservatives often justify this disproportionate representation as necessary for ensuring that a wide array of voices are heard in government. They argue that rural white voters deserve a say in shaping policy outcomes, even if they are outnumbered by their urban counterparts. However, this argument appears hypocritical when contrasted with their opposition to similar efforts aimed at broadening representation in other spheres, such as corporate boardrooms or university admissions.

Right-wingers could also argue they are merely playing with the hands they are dealt, as this is the structure of government intended by the respected constitutional framers. Yet this flies in the face of the respect and deference they pay to the Founding Fathers and their belief that a constitutional republic is the ideal form of government. 

The examples of right-wing double standards on this are numerous and implicate nearly every Republican political figure. For example, Senator Lindsey Graham has argued against Democratic efforts to abolish the Electoral College, worrying they would, “shift power away from rural states to large, blue states.” Yet he worries affirmative action is “providing benefits to one group at the expense of another, who have done nothing wrong." 

Senator Marco Rubio agrees, saying, "[The] #ElectoralCollege was [a] work of genius by [the] founders. It requires candidates for President to earn votes from various parts of [the] country. And it makes sure interests of less populated areas aren’t ignored at the expense of densely populated areas." But he’s been singing a different tune on diversity programs, saying, “Students should be judged on their merits, not the color of their skin.”

The contradictions permeate nearly every facet of the Republican Party, as the disconnect between their positions on these issues has been largely overlooked for far too long. The tendency to view matters such as the structure of government and DEI as separate and unrelated obscures the underlying inconsistencies within the party's ideology. Yet, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that these seemingly disparate stances are intertwined when looking at them through a principled lens.

Ultimately, Republicans won’t be so willing to change their minds about supporting the American system of government, because they’ve benefited from it tremendously in recent years. If not for the Electoral College, Republican candidates George W. Bush and Donald Trump would have lost their respective races in 2000 and 2016. Moreover, in recent years, control of the Senate has hung by a thread, a situation that would be much worse for Republicans if they didn’t have a built-in advantage.

The preservation of these outdated and inequitable systems has real-world consequences. The disproportionate influence of rural white voters perpetuates inequalities and hinders progress on critical issues, ultimately making us a more conservative country than we would otherwise be. As we move forward, it's imperative to consider reforms that promote genuine equity and representation for all Americans, rather than perpetuating systems that reinforce existing power imbalances.