Change for change sake does not solve problems.

Reasons to agree:

1. It depends on if change is worth settling for someone who is less experienced, or wants to do the wrong things with the country. You have to measure how inexperienced or wrong they are, to see if the change is worth doing the wrong thing, or having a guy run things that won't do as well. For instance if you are in the middle of a war, it might be worth having a guy who was a POW and understands what the solders would be going through, even if the other candidates would help make underrepresented minorities feel more included. Or let’s pretend that we are facing stiff competition from China, and India. Perhaps in these circumstances we should actually pick a guy who has worked in the marketplace. Or if we are in a time of war, maybe we should pick a Governor who has ran things, instead of just a senator who has very little foreign policy experience.

Reasons to disagree:

1. Change for change's sake does solve problems, when one of the problems is that there has been no change. All of our presidents have been white, protestant, old men. It’s not that what they did was bad, BECAUSE they were white, old, protestant, or men. It’s just that involving other people would help.
2. Lets imagine a situation where the minorities have less experience than the old white guy. Perhaps they won’t need experience, because the fact that they are minorities, might give them an example in the foreign relations department.