Not a symbol of much of anything

Kelefa Sanneh at The New Yorker find fault with the reactions of left and right to the appointment of Senator Tim Scott:

In his essay, Reed also claimed that Scott’s conservative political agenda was “utterly at odds with the preferences of most black Americans.” In response, Brennan, at the National Review, found various polls purporting to show that African-Americans actually support various conservative policies. There’s no need to rely on polls and wishful thinking, though: in 2014, when South Carolina holds its special election, black voters in the state will get a chance to decide whether Scott shares their priorities or not. If they vote against him, he may well carry the state, regardless. (South Carolina is about sixty-six per cent white.) In that case, the Republican Party might find that it has diversified its congressional delegation without significantly diversifying its electorate. 

That situation—the existence of black Republicans who don’t attract significant black support—isn’t necessarily evidence of extraordinary political cynicism. Equally, though, left-leaning commentators aren’t necessarily “noxious” for pointing out the difference between getting Republicans to vote for a black candidate and getting blacks to vote for a Republican candidate. If Democrats believe that racial diversity is important, shouldn’t they want the Republican caucus to be more diverse, too? Shouldn’t Scott’s appointment be cause for celebration among liberals, even if he doesn’t share their political agenda? And if Republicans want to break racial barriers, then shouldn’t Scott’s appointment remind them how far they have to go? If it makes sense for Republicans to be proud to have a black senator in their party, then wouldn’t it also make sense for them to be bothered by the relative absence of black voters?