Does DEI promote the best and brightest, allowing for the greatest strength through 'diversity'? Or is it a quota system that reduces individuals to group identity for redistribution of social goods?

The DNC spent last week doubling down on DEI in their annual meeting, not catching the whiff of failure and backlash from the electorate. Give them credit, though -- they applied those standards to themselves as well as proposing to apply them everywhere else. Did they ever! 

In fact, the DNC took DEI so seriously that their committee scolded members for not voting to elect a sufficient number of "non-binary" vice chairs in the first rounds of their officer elections. To ensure a DEI outcome, the DNC changed the rules of the election in middle of the process, offering a demonstration of what DEI policies actually do (via Instapundit):

I can't believe what I just listened to. The DNC Leader interrupted the party election to tell members that not enough non-binary candidates have been elected, so they MUST now vote for one.

"With the results of the previous four elections, our elected officers are currently two… pic.twitter.com/8CelMVzyE6

— George (@BehizyTweets) February 1, 2025

"With the results of the previous four elections, our elected officers are currently two male and two female. In order to be gender balanced, we must elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender."

And Democrats wonder why America didn't vote for them.

Er ... huh? It's damned near impossible to decipher these instructions, even if it's clear what the DNC is demanding: they want to cook the next couple of rounds to elect someone to meet their quota. Glenn Greenwald rightly calls it a self-parody:

Democratic Party officials have been so immersed in this warped mentality and cartoonish HR jargon for so long that they have completely lost the ability to perceive how bizarre and gross it sounds to people who aren't drowning in it[.]

This may even bury the lead a bit. At this point, DNC voters had chosen four of what appears to be seven officers, and not one of them was "non-binary." The DNC had to intervene to get one (s)elected at that point. Doesn't that make the DNC transphobic?

Put that aside, though, for the larger lesson. This exposes DEI practices for what they are: outcome-based quotas. It wasn't enough for the DNC to have "non-binary" candidates on the election slate; the only way to satisfy their DEI policies was to have one win, and so they intervened in an attempt to corrupt the election process to ensure that outcome. And this is exactly how American voters experience DEI policies everywhere they are applied -- which is why they have become so unpopular after just a few years of that experience. 

"Diversity is our strength" is a DEI slogan, and a particularly stupid slogan at that, as Pete Hegseth remarked last week. Quotas and election tampering are DEI realities. And if anyone at all doubted that, voters can simply recall how Kamala Harris became Vice President in the first place, and then how she ended up on the top of the Democrat ticket in July. It wasn't about competing to see who could do the job, but all about virtue-signaling in the most vacuous way possible with the highest stakes for the party on the line. 

Clearly, the DNC didn't learn that lesson from the election.

That's not the only lesson they failed to learn. One of the presumably non-non-binary slots on the list got taken by David Hogg. DNC voters elected Hogg as one of its vice chairs, for doing ... what, exactly?

Former student-turned-gun-control activist David Hogg, 24, was among three people elected to the position Saturday during a meeting in National Harbor, Md., just outside of Washington, DC, to elect the DNC’s next suite of leaders. ...

“It’s time we stop surrendering, go on offense, and take the fight to Donald Trump,” he added on X. “We need to show [the public] who we are again, to rid our party of its judgmental attitudes, and do the work to win back every group we lost this year.”

And what pray tell has Hogg done in that regard? Hogg is mainly a Twitter/X troll on gun control, when he's not trying to organize pillow manufacturing and failing spectacularly at it. His entire schtick is "judgmental attitudes." The DNC and RNC are national orgs that support state- and local-based party orgs in networking, recruiting, and fundraising; what is Hogg's CV on those tasks? Is the DNC electing him to support its constituent orgs, or is it electing him for more virtue-signaling to the radical Left that led them into their 2024 box canyon in the first place?

Oh, let's not always see the same hands. Readers here know the answer. Democrat leaders obviously do not.