"Xenophobia" has been a constant Biden theme... Within moments [of President Trump's "travel ban" last January] ... Biden went on the attack. "This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysterical xenophobia and fear mongering to lead the way instead of science," he said. There was nothing "xenophobic" about Trump's travel ban. It was imposed on arrivals from the country where the disease first appeared. The ban, therefore, saved lives, and it would have saved even more if it had been stricter, announced sooner, and had been more rigorously enforced.... [If Biden] had been president then, the disease would almost certainly have spread faster in America. He was, during the campaign, against all such travel prohibitions.

Now, Biden is supporting another Chinese propaganda campaign.... The Chinese regime, which to this day uses geographical names for strains of virus, has been trying to ban any identification of China with the pandemic. Biden, with his executive order [rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO)], is doing Beijing's work as Chinese leaders try to deflect blame.

This decision was especially hideous because WHO was complicit in China's deliberate spread of the disease. WHO disseminated Beijing's position that the coronavirus was not readily contagious even though the organization's senior doctors knew it was highly transmissible. Moreover, WHO championed the Chinese campaign against travel bans. Americans died because of these and other indefensible actions on the part of WHO, and now Biden will go back to legitimizing and supporting that organization.

So far, Biden has taken steps that certainly encourage Beijing. His rejoining the Paris Agreement, his cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, and his repeal of the ban on Chinese equipment in the American electrical grid, among others, favor, directly or indirectly, Beijing. Also of great concern is the failure of Commerce Secretary nominee Gina Raimondo to confirm that Huawei Technologies will remain on the department's Entity List.

But what does the term "minority" mean in a democracy based on equal citizenship for all? The term minority denotes "less-ness" compared to the "more-ness" of another entity. However, how could one regard some citizens of a democratic state as "less" than other fellow citizens?

[T]he United States is about "We the People," not "We the Minorities". Democracy is a melting pot, not a salad bar.

America... started as a space for settlers from England but was put on the way of becoming a nation by "founding fathers": Their "one nation under God" had the distinction of being the first constitutional democracy. Its motto became: Government of the People, by the People, for the People.

To pretend that this or that Cabinet minister was chosen because of his or her skin color, religious faith or other "minority" attribution is certainly not a compliment. If the choice is based not on the individual's competence but on salad-bar considerations, it cannot be justified on democratic grounds. If, on the other hand, such considerations played no part in the choice, why make such a song-and-dance about "rainbowism" and progressive representation?

[F]ortunately, many members of the new Washington team have impressive academic and practical resumes. It is in everyone's interest to hope that they will see themselves not as figures in a game of ethnic tokenism but the servants of the American demos at a difficult time.