If people didn’t know already, Obama elected his third Asian American to his cabinet. Commerce Secretary-designate Gary Locke can be best known amongst our population as the first Asian American elected governor of a state (Washington). However, my celebratory mood was short-lived as soon as I read this article:
“Locke’s China work complicates bid.”
What the freak, so it’s an “ethics issue” if Locke is elected as Secretary because of his ties to China?? It seems like the wounds of the 1996 Clinton finance scandal have not healed completely. This pisses me off:
“Yet if he’s confirmed as commerce secretary, Chinese trade issues – including some with direct impact on the companies he went to bat for – are likely to be high on the agenda for Locke, who is the first Chinese-American governor.”
I can understand why there’s this heightened sensitivity to potential corruption for Secretary nominations due to the huge blundering of the former cabinet appointees and their ridiculous tax mishaps, but I’m fed up with the idea that Asian Americans can’t be trusted into political positions merely because we’re perceived as foreigners.
Would such suspicion of loyalty to America occur if the person nominated were not Asian American? That’s messed up.
The article posted is poorly written, but can you enlighten me about why Locke would be a good Commerce Secratary? (I do admit there weren’t any statements in the article that are worthy of proving the author’s point, that there are ethical issues, other than the fact that Locke wanted to make an exception to the rules for a Chinese bank which wanted to do business in Washington state)
I honestly don’t know much about him other than the fact that he was a governor of Washington. Yes, it’s great that we are having another AA in making public policy decisions, but it would be best if Hardboiled gives us a DIRECT IMPRESSION that there are reasons other than racial background that we should be celebrating his position. (the fact that he has extensive knowledge and experience of US businesses investing in China, for example, could be justifiable. You see the point I’m getting?)
The point isn’t so much that he is potentially UNqualified, but the furor around how he may be potentially dangerous as a Secretary because of his “Asian ties.” It brings up the depiction again of Asian Americans as disloyal or spies for Asian countries, instead of AMERICANS.
I have no doubt that Gary Locke is qualified, since Obama wouldn’t choose someone incompetent for this position given the importance of being Commerce Secretary during this economic time. But why do minorities have to have ADDITIONAL proof to show that they are just as qualified as a potential white candidate? The reason why we celebrate it is because this sort of descriptive representation is necessary in order to advance and try to demolish the glass ceiling that blocks many Asians from higher level positions.