In 1998 Republican Presidential contender John McCain drew howls from conservatives when he opposed Senator Mitch McConnell's federal transportation bill that would have replaced race- and gender-contracting set-asides with ones designed to help small businesses no matter the race or gender of the owner. But it was a Senate vote, and McCain's vote passed way under the media and public's radar scope. Most importantly for McCain, it was not a presidential election year. So McCain didn't really gain or lose a whole lot by voting to keep racial preferences in place, at least at the federal level.
A decade later things are different, much different. McCain has deftly shifted gears and urges a "yes" vote on Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative on the Arizona ballot in November. McCain bets that this time pummeling affirmative action will do far more good than bad for his campaign. It's a smart bet. A big opponent of Connerly's barnstorming state campaigns to dump affirmative action, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary candidly admits that the only way to beat back these initiatives is to keep them off ballots. That didn't happen in California in 1996, in Washington in 1998 and in Michigan in 2006.
The anti-affirmative action initiatives won by solid even crushing margins in all three states. In the process, they galvanized public opinion, stirred subtle white resentment even anger against anything that smacked of racial preferences, and sent a big message that pushing affirmative action was a politically losing proposition. Michigan proved that. The two GOP candidates for governor and the Senate in the state opposed Connerly's initiative. Both lost. But even more important the measure did not stir a mad dash by blacks, women, and Latinos to the barricades in Washington and Michigan to defeat the initiative. The lesson from the GOP candidate's defeat and the relatively mild backlash to the initiative wasn't lost on McCain.
At one point Connerly talked about taking his anti-affirmative action initiative fight to more than a dozen states. That hasn't happened. But the number of states where Connerly dumped the initiative on the ballot isn't important. What is important is the timing for placing the initiative on a state ballot and the states chosen to put it. Three states were picked for November. Nebraska is one. It's a solid Red state, and almost certainly the initiative will win big there. election year or not. The other two states, Colorado and Arizona, are much more important. Democrats think that Colorado could for the first time in recent presidential bouts be in play for Obama. They think the same thing about McCain's home state of Arizona. That's mostly due to the big jump in the number of Hispanic and younger voters in these states. The Connerly initiative is just the thing to counter that by creating a mini wedge issue in both states that energizes conservatives too rush the polls to back the initiative and stick around long enough to back McCain.
That's one political plus, but it's not the only one. McCain can have it both ways on the issue. He can insist that he still strongly backs equal opportunity and just as strongly opposes discrimination. He can then make the standard anti-affirmative action pitch that he backs the Connerly initiative precisely because it strikes a blow against discrimination, namely racial preferences. And after all, isn't everyone, and that even includes more than a few blacks, Latinos and especially Asians, against anything that smacks of racial unfairness?
There's more still. Democratic rival Barack Obama appears to agree with McCain on this point. At first glance that seems a wild stretch. Connerly says Obama cut radio ads in 2006 hammering his Michigan anti-affirmative action initiative, and unabashedly saying that if it passed it would hurt women and minorities in getting jobs and in education. And he will oppose Connerly's initiatives.
But just as McCain wobbled in 1998 in opposing McConnell's anti-affirmative action bill when it wasn't a presidential election year. 2006 wasn't a presidential election year either when Obama passionately defended affirmative action. 2008 is. He's slightly wobbling on affirmative actions just as McCain did.
He has repositioned himself as a centrist Democrat and now flatly says he's against quotas. That's an easy call, since courts have repeatedly slapped down any affirmative action programs that mandate specific numbers of women or minorities be hired or admitted to colleges. But Obama wobbled even more when he says that the affirmative action measures should not be applied without taking into individual needs, and they should be applied to poor whites. The caution and even shading on how he speaks of affirmative action is a far cry from the ringing endorsement he gave to affirmative action for women and minorities.
It's no real surprise. McCain aims to make Connerly's initiative a political win-win for him. Obama aims to make sure that it's not a total lose-lose for him.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Ward Conneley who was a receipient of AA feels like many Republicans that since they got thiers it's time to shut the barn doors.
The Greatest Generation who became middle and upper middle class in this country gave birth to children who forgot how the U.S. Government saved their parents and grand parents. They forgot that they live in the land of plenty because centuries of slave labor and the indentured servants system gave way to upward mobility. That upward mobility came about because of unionization and government assistance.
The fifties saw a boom in many ways because government laws and taxation built our infrastructure and helped us achieve what most countries only dreamed of.
Ward and others who are blind to the gifts their government is constitutionally bound to give them feel that government is not the answer. Sorry folks, we do not live in a color blind society with equal pay and gender equality. Given the choice of 10 applicants with the majority of them being the same color as the employer, the employer will choose one that looks like him or her unless there is overwhelming reason not to. That life.
That way some young black guy who could use help still has a chance as does a woman....However, now that dirt-poor white guy in lets say Appalachia will finally get some help, also.
Fair enough?
"Affirmative action" is probably the greatest insult that was ever heaped upon anyone. It's one thing if a clueless employer makes a bigoted decision; quite another if a Government does, and imposes that criteria upon everyone in the country as a Matter of Law.
How exactly is a man or woman supposed to feel if they must harbor the thought that "you got the job, not because you were thought to be the best candidate, but because " 'you are' XXX."
In the days when it was still actually legal to list "color" on an employment application, quite a few of my friends checked "White." As one of them put it: "I told 'em that they had 'two for the price of one.'" He knew that if he was called in to the interview when thought to be White, he was not being selected "simply" because his skin was Chocolate Brown in hue.
"Very smart," I thought ...
When asked about 'Affirmative Action', Obama said, "I'm for it but it needs tweeking. It should be based on economic need. A wealthier African-American should NOT get opportunities over a poorer white."..........How can you disagree with that answer? Thats going to bring alot of those Kentucky and West Virginia folks who voted v. Obama on board.
And by the way, I say this as a 'libertarian', not a Obama worker.
This utter contradiction will be played on 527s throughtout Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska as they vote and will be brought up in the debates. On a debate stage it will totally tangle Obama in his own contradictions. Especially with the country watching, this will totally amplify the race issue.
A company of 100 employees has 10 open top-level positions open for advancement. Out of the 100 employees, 10 are black. It turns out that the top 10 qualifiers are the 10 black employees. Under the merit system, all 10 (the ONLY 10) blacks should be advanced. Now, just what do you think the reaction would be from the 90 white employees? After all, there is no longer an AA program in place. Does anyone really think our corporations are "progressive" enough to advance the only 10 blacks, or would the worry about the expected 'backlash'? After reading these blogs and paying attention to the racial overtones of Obama's campaign, I believe the latter will be the deciding factor of advancement - NOT "merit"! If you agree then you also must agree that it's premature to end AA now!
The moment that you introduced skin-color (an irrelevant decision-variable) into the equation ... the moment that you codified that irrelevant variable INTO THE LAW ... you doomed the entire decision making process.
You said, "by law(!) you must consider not-only the persons' qualifications, but also their skin color. If you do not make a decision that includes the 'right' (i.e. according-to-me) number of 'dark skinned people,' it will be presumed that you must have Discriminated Against Dark-Skinned People and you will therefore be forced to change your decision."
Maybe such rules were created with the very best of intentions. But they were Wrong Rules. They are "Jim Crow Laws" just as surely, only in-reverse. They are "exquisitely condescending."
Anyone should be allowed to raise an objection, and to have it be heard, if they think that an inappropriate decision-variable was introduced in a decision against them. But "two wrongs never make a right." Having a particular amount of melanin in your skin is neither a handicap nor a privilege.
What a freaking joke for you to equate the two. Affirmative Action isn't as horrible as you put it out there to be, it is a goal for employers or college admissions boards to meet. It is a tool to encourage inclusion. If no black people apply for a position or to a college there is no law forcing employers to go out and find some to meet a quota. They don't have to pick a mediocre black candidate over a superior white candidate. To say otherwise is promoting a lie.
The whole furor over AA is a nothing but political tool used by conservatives to drive the wedge between the races deeper and to stoke hate. Looks like it works unfortunately.
Seniors had better put on their glasses and hearing aids. We've seen what George W. has meant to our Economy. Wait till seniors (and by default, boomers/millennials who have to buttress them) see what John McCain (lifelong Government dole) has in store for you -- us -- our children! Republicans only believe in safety nets for corporations, banks and politicians. Everyone else, you are on your own.
Hypocrites!
Turn the page on this nonsense, America.
yet politically ingenious...
and I called this the moment Afirmative Action was mentioned in the same breath as McCain.
the saddest part of all is that it has POVEN to work, time and again.
NEVER MIND the country is in the toilet
NEVER MIND next years defict will set another record
NEVER MIND we are still at war with TWO countries
NEVER MIND we should only be at war with ONE country
NEVER MIND we are paying $4.00 for gasoline, with food costs going up to boot
NEVER MIND we are losing our jobs
NEVER MIND we are losing our homes
There is a proposal to to do away with Affirmative Action in Arizona... let's get out and vote for THAT.
Those are NOT red states.
The fact is Affirmative Action is wildly unpopular everywhere. It's poorly designed excluding poor white males who are equally disadvantaged, and after 30+ years it can't be shown to have made any difference in improving the lot of the poor black people it was designed to help.
It needs to be replaced.
We are far from winning the war on inequality. The fact that there are so many poor white people in this country is a testament to stunted conservative economics. They had their chance and blew it.