History repeats itself as a tragedy, Karl Marx once wrote, and then as a farce. Last week, a reporter asked President George W. Bush if Harriet E. Miers was the "most qualified" person to sit on the Supreme Court. Bush responded simply and directly: "Yes."

Fourteen years ago, Bush's father faced similar questions about his own Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas. "He is the best qualified," the first President Bush said.

Both claims are farcical, of course. And they're tragic, too, because they hide the real reasons that Thomas and Miers were nominated: race and gender. Affirmative action now inflects every aspect of our politics and society, including the Supreme Court itself.

That would be fine, if this practice promoted only those minority candidates with the skills and background to perform their jobs. But in some circumstances, affirmative action elevates people into positions of power that they simply don't deserve.

And if you don't believe that, take a look at Thomas. Like John Roberts, the recently confirmed Chief Justice, Thomas did serve briefly as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. But Roberts compiled a wealth of relevant experience before that, including several dozen arguments before the Supreme Court, while Thomas' own legal career lacked the same luster.

That's why two members of the American Bar Association committee on judges found Thomas "unqualified." Since 1969, no Supreme Court nominee had been confirmed with even one vote of "unqualified" from the ABA.

Surely, though, Thomas was more qualified than Miers. She has spent most of her career in private practice, becoming the first female president of the Texas state bar association. She was also elected — for a single term — to the Dallas City Council. These are all admirable achievements, of course, but they hardly qualify you to sit on the highest court of the land.

So why was she nominated? Thus far, most answers have focused — reasonably enough — on her faithful service to George W. Bush. Miers assumed a variety of roles during Bush's governorship in Texas and again in Washington, most recently as White House counsel. She is a good soldier and a loyal friend. And this president seems to value loyalty and friendship above everything else.

That's a fine explanation, so far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. For his entire political career, Bush has surrounded himself with staunchly devoted aides. So why this aide, at this particular time?

Because she's a woman, that's why.

When Thurgood Marshall stepped down from the Supreme Court, the first President Bush resolved to replace him with another African-American, Clarence Thomas. And now that Sandra Day O'Connor has retired, Bush's son wants a woman in her seat. Call it the Affirmative Action Supreme Court: No matter what the court might decide about using race and gender to achieve "diversity" and "balance," its very composition reflects this practice.

Nobody will say that out loud right now. Many Republicans have denounced affirmative action, of course, so they can't very well acknowledge that President Bush is using it to shape the Supreme Court. And most Democrats support affirmative action, to correct for past wrongs, so they can't bring themselves to admit that it might lead to the promotion of unqualified people in the present.

Let's be clear here: Affirmative action has helped elevate some brilliant and talented people who might otherwise have remained invisible because of their race or gender. But it has also led to the advancement of some very weak and unqualified people, who were selected only for their race or gender. We'll never have an honest debate about affirmative action until we can acknowledge the difference.

Jonathan Zimmerman is the author of Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools (Harvard University Press). If you would like to respond to this Slant, or have one of your own (750 words), e-mail duane@citypaper.net