Resource Analysis 3 - Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice

       In her written analysis Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Lusane examines race and foreign policy in the New American Century as well as the legacies and global perspectives of Powell and Rice, two African-American political powerhouses that greatly contributed to US foreign policy under Bush’s presidency. According to Lusane, there has been a vast transformation in the perception of the global community of the foreign policy politics of black America. While there are a number of variables contributing to this development, “it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a central factor shaping much of the world’s view of black America is the ubiquitous images of former Secretaris of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice” (13). In fact, “large majority sectors of the black community have expressed intense disagreement with central and peripheral elements of President George W.H. Bush’s foreign policies and, for many, this is linked to a feeling of a sense of betrayal by Powell and Rice” (14). Due to their firm focus on remaining loyal to Bush, Lusane argues that both Powell and Rice have ignored the global black community of which they are a part.

            Regarding women’s rights, not much is different as Lusane describes Rice’s drive for gender equality as somewhat inferior than her loyalties to Bush and his push for peace in the Middle East. Under Bush, “the strategy of wooing women away from the Democratic Party includes the projection of its high-profile female appointees to foster an image of gender inclusion” (9). This political use of gender included Rice who repeatedly contends that, like race, gender was not and is not a factor in how she is treated and engaged. In fact, she argues that she not only has been accepted on relatively equal terms with her white male counterparts, but that “the discussion of gender bias degrades her achievements” (9). In retrospect, this denial of gender bias also coincides with Rice’s view on gender equality as she has raised many disputes over affirmative action, a movement that she does not agree with or support much to the astonishment and fury of many women across the nation. She states, “I am the chief academic officer now, and I am telling you that, in principle, I do not believe in, and in fact will not apply, affirmative action at the time of tenure” (77). Despite the potential influence Rice could have had on the push for women’s rights due to her high-ranking political position, Rice rejects “degrading” gender biases, refuses to support affirmative action, and chooses to follow President Bush’s lead in whatever circumstance arises, making it clear where her true loyalties lie.