Diversity In Presidential Elections

Ensuring that the new president’s political workforce reflects the diversity that has made this country strong has been a central focus of our recent presidential elections. While there is always a debate about whether a president has been successful in this regard, most take credit for hiring minorities and women to their Cabinet and to other sub-Cabinet positions as a reflection of their commitment.
Presidential success is as reliant on the quality of the executive team assembled by the president as on his own personal characteristics. In the era of the public presidency, senior political officials become the prominent faces of the new administration before the American polity.
The perception that a new president has chosen a strong team improves his chances for achieving his policy goals and managing the national agenda. If the president’s senior aides are judged by the media and key stakeholders to be knowledgeable
Changes in the process for nominating a political party’s candidates, adopted in the 1970s, which emphasize popular participation over elite control, have shifted the emphasis away from the traditional constituencies and increased the importance of connecting with voters of different genders, races, and ethnicities.
The effects of these changes on presidential appointments are apparent, but change has come about at a measured rate. After an analysis of the characteristics of Cabinet officers, it was found that fewer than 10 percent of those serving from 1970-present were women and that “African-Americans fared no better.” Even the Johnson Administration, which achieved several firsts among African-American politicians, did not have a fully integrated policy-making process.
Very few minorities or women have served in important capacities in any administration, but the disparities are