Obsessing over the “first (fill in the blank)” whatever …

Who decided that becoming “the first” whatever was so important?

Maybe it’s the “everybody gets a trophy” mentality run amuck. Whatever it is, it’s stupid to be electing or appointing anyone simply for the superficial reason that they would “be the first” of their kind to hold such a position.

That’s just as dumb as rejecting a supremely qualified person simply because they would “be the first” of their kind in that job.

That’s discrimination, and that’s against the law.  But apparently it’s okay – no, to be applauded – to give a job to someone just because they would “be the first” whatever to get it. 

There’s no doubt that Obama got a big boost in his first campaign largely because he would “be the first African-American U.S. President.”  Well, that, and also because Republicans were way too busy eating their own in the primaries to field a reasonable alternative.

He certainly didn’t have any qualifications for the job first time around.  He didn’t have any relevant experience.  But he was a young, articulate – if geography challenged – African-American, running against another in a long line of white guys.

He won the next election partly because of the reverse – people didn’t want to vote against the first African-American U.S. President, plus Republicans stayed home in droves. 

Now we have Eric Holder – the first African-American U.S. Attorney General. Not a great AG – some say among the worst we’ve had – but hey, he’s still the first African-American AG.

Obama’s nominated Loretta Lynch to take Holder’s place, which would make her – wait for it – the first female U.S. Attorney General, who by chance also happens to be African American, making her a two-fer in the “first” category.  She could become the first female African-American U.S. Attorney General if the hearings on her nomination go well. Bonus points. 

Ms. Lynch may in fact be eminently qualified for the job.  I suspect she is. Still, I feel sorry that her qualifications will get lost in the hype to “be the first.” 

It's true that there was another female Attorney General before Lynch (Janet Reno); sadly she was simply an ordinary, white, albeit tall female Attorney General so she won't be as well remembered in the history books as Lynch.   

This obsession with being “the first” whatever seems to be a uniquely Democrat phenomenon.  

They revel in Thurgood Marshall being the first African-American Supreme Court Justice, and appointed of course by a Democrat. But they conveniently bypass Sandra Day O’Conner, the first female Supreme Court Justice, who was appointed by a Republican. They made a big deal out of the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor by a Democrat as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, even though a Republican President – George H.W. Bush – first put her on U.S. District Court.

BTW, when Thurgood Marshall left the bench in 1991, his replacement – Clarence Thomas, also an African American – took his place, after being nominated by a Republican. Thomas became only the second African-American Supreme Court Justice in history.  Nobody cares about that. 

I guess we’re all waiting for the first female African-American Supreme Court Justice.  Or maybe the first female Hispanic African-American Supreme Court Justice. 

Or perhaps the first handicapped, transgendered, biracial Supreme Court Justice who is the offspring of illegal immigrants from Central America and Africa, and a practicing phrenologist, as well as an expert at fly fishing and collecting lamp finials.   

I mean seriously, where does it end?  And what does any of that have to do with the job?   

Just because someone is “the first” doesn’t mean that trumps every other requirement.  It may be interesting; it may even be historic, which of course it is because it’s “the first.” But is it relevant?  Most times, probably not, yet that doesn’t stop the hype.

Recently, Tom Wolf appointed a transgendered person to be Physician General of Pennsylvania, which was hyped as “the first” of its kind.  Dr. Rachel Levine, the appointee, appears to be very qualified for the position; however the headlines were about Wolf appointing a transgendered person.  I suspect her sexual status has very little bearing on her apparent skills as a physician and leader.   

When the governor of Oregon resigned in a scandal, Secretary of State Kate Brown became the new governor. But almost immediately, she was tagged in the national news as “the first” openly bisexual governor in U.S. history.  Forget that she’s had a long and successful career in Oregon politics, the media only seems to care that she’s bisexual. To me, that diminishes Kate Brown’s accomplishments, which are many, for the record, even if you disagree with her politics.    

Then there are those who hope to succeed solely because they would be “the first.”

Hillary is preparing to run on a single-issue platform – she would be the first female U.S. President.  Honestly, she’s got nothing else to pin her hopes on.  Her track record as a U.S. Senator is pretty thin, except for being a defense hawk and supporting the Gulf Wars, which she wants everyone to forget.  Her tenure as Secretary of State is almost comical, from the screw up of the “restart button” translation to bumping her head causing her to miss hearings and wear Junior Soprano style sunglasses – not a legacy to hype. Finally, her traditional Clintonian aversion to the truth, and incessant money-grubbing – what’s not to like, right?       

But if she did win, she would become the first female U.S. President.  So there’s that.

That’s about it, however.

For me, that’s not enough.

I’m so past worshipping “the first” of anything, whether that’s the first contestant on DWTS with a prosthetic leg or the first transgendered full-blooded Navajo zither-playing headliner in Vegas.  If you draw definitions tight enough there’s always a way to be “the first” of whatever.   

I’m the first person to ever write this blog in precisely this way.  See? 

So enough with “the first” nonsense. 

Anybody can play that game. It doesn’t make being ”first” more important than qualifications.  

And despite the novelty of a DWTS contestant with a prosthetic leg, that didn't help them win the competition did it? That's because it's judged on merit, not empathy. There's a lesson there.  

Enough already.