Which is more damaging to our country: allowing a candidate’s personal relationships (nepotism) or self-identity (affirmative action) to influence the POTUS’ delegation of individuals to political, bureaucratic, and government positions?

Reading between the lines, you can probably guess the implied question, so I’ll just state it upfront.

Which is worse for America: Trump assigning political positions based on loyalty / family (e.g. Kushner, Ivanka, Don Jr., Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, etc.) or Biden assigning political positions based on identity / diversity (e.g. “nominate a woman of color to the Supreme Court”, the role Kamala Harris’ racial/sexual identity played in selecting her as his VP, etc.)?

Some related questions:

  • From 0 to 100%, how influential do you think nepotism / affirmative action was in Trump’s / Biden’s decision making when delegating political positions?
  • Should either be explicitly illegal or otherwise regulated? Why or why not? If so, how might we best go about implementing regulation?
  • Are there any benefits to relying (partially or primarily) on nepotism / affirmative action when selecting people for positions of power?
  • In a perfect world, how should the perfect POTUS go about delegating and assigning individuals to political and government positions? In other words, what are the ideal criteria to be evaluated when delegating?

Disclaimer — I’m contrasting “nepotism” with “affirmative action” on the basis that they “both are factors that may influence the POTUS’ decisions when delegating responsibilities”; I am not claiming one is superior / inferior to the other, nor am I asserting these are equivalent in their extent/impact, or that these are the only factors that may negatively impact our country in this context.

submitted by /u/Option2401
[link] [comments]