On the misuses of "First"

Every day is filled with “firsts”: the first plate of pasta you’ve eaten this week; the first time you woke up at 6 am without setting the alarm; the first time you paid to watch a British mystery series on Amazon. None of these firsts is important – but they are firsts!

So it is with politics. Jen Psaki, Biden’s press secretary, today tweeted that the administration’s nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tandi, would be the “1st Asian American woman to lead OMB…”

My question is: So what? What difference does it make to how effectively OMB is run that its director is a man or a woman, black or white, Asian American or Native American? Now, maybe it does make a difference, but that’s a factual matter, requiring empirical evidence. We should not simply assume that the OMB will perform better or worse because of the gender, race, or ethnicity of its director.

And what should we make of Psaki’s touting Tandi, if confirmed, as THE FIRST Asian American woman to hold that position? Two women have held that position before – Alice Rivlin (1994-1996) and Sylvia Burwell (2013-2014) – though neither was of Asian descent. Both of Tandi’s parents immigrated to the U.S. from India. In what way does Tandi’s being the first Asian American, or, more specifically, the first Indian-American to head OMB make any difference? Is she more qualified for the job or more likely to be successful in the job because of her ethnic heritage? Is it important that the OMB be led by a person from any particular ethnic community? Is Tandi’s being Asian American a legitimate reason to favor her nomination for the position?

Some firsts are important. Some truly are of historical significance. Some firsts make a positive difference and are therefore deserving of our attention and support. If there are reasons why Neera Tandi’s gender and ethnicity are of importance to the job she seeks, then let’s hear what those reasons are. Otherwise, this is an empty “first.”