You knew it was coming. The ever effective wedge issue. It worked in 2000 with abortion. It worked in 04' with gay marriage. So when personal slander doesn't work and the polls aren't budging, pull out the big gun and play the ole' reverse racism card.
Funny that this is the same Johnny B. Good who used to support affirmative action.
John McCain's comments on affirmative action led Obama to charge that he "flipped" his position.I've said it here repeatedly, and I'll say it again: affirmative action may not be fair, but it's necessary. Affirmative action is not the same as racial quotas, which aren't even legal. But of course, most people still associate AA with giving an unqualified Black the job that a white person supposedly earned.
Obama accused McCain on Sunday of flip-flopping on affirmative action after McCain said he supports a measure in Arizona that would dismantle race- and gender-based preference programs.
Obama pointed to McCain's past opposition to similar proposals, like one in Arizona in 1998 that McCain called "divisive."
But McCain didn't say at the time that he opposed the measure.
In an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked McCain if he supports a referendum on the ballot in Arizona "that would do away with affirmative action."
McCain said he backed the measure, which is described by supporters as something that will give "the people of Arizona the opportunity to end preferential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin by state or local governments."
McCain said he had not seen the details of the proposal, "but I've always opposed quotas."
Obama on Sunday said equal opportunity can't be achieved by quotas alone, but must also factor in other variables.
The really, really funny thing is that not only are white women the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action, but Johnny Mac is a well known recipient himself. Don't forget, this cat essentially got into the US Naval Academy on legacy points, which happen to be the oldest form of AA this side of pure unadulterated nepotism. You could argue that he screwed a more qualified candidate out of that slot. And you might be right, considering the fact that dude finished 894th out of his class of 899. That's right, 5th from last.
I wonder if the Conservative judges Johnny Mac hopes to elevate to the Supreme Court plan on getting rid of legacy points too. Unlikely.
None of this matters of course. All that matters is that your wedge issue is out there, giving skeptical whites one more very real reason to not pull the lever for Barry. Because who the hell wants to lose a job to an inadequate Black male in this economy?
They should just go ahead and remix the old Jesse Helms "hands" commercial, already.
Question: Do you think McCain's drive to eliminate affirmative action will be an effective wedge issue in the Fall?
Candidates oppose quotas, but offer no fix for affirmative action [CNN]
Average Email
Average FAQ
Average Bio
AB @ AOL BlackVoices
AB @ NPR
AB @ WashingtonPost
Posts
28 AverageComments™:
I don't think McCain is clever enough to use this. Now the rest of the GOP - yeah...they probably could. But I don't think John's going to know how to really use this without coming out as a total racist jerk.
This is the same man who voted against the MLK Holiday. Then had the nerve to go pandering to black folk in Selma.
@gracie b, he's already a total racist jerk! Hence his being the GOP candidate.
Once again, supporters of the Jim Crow party forget which political party started an unpopular war to free their ancestors.
Speaking of wars, with Iraq finally getting nicely sewn up by the policy Obama still opposes to this day, McCain is actually robbed of his best issue. Whether he'll turn AA into the defining issue of the campaign remains to be seen, but I don't think he'll manage it either, even if he wanted to.
I've always disagreed with you on this AB, and I don't think we'll ever really see eye to eye on it... but I think AA hurts women and minority communities more than it helps... except, you know, those minorities that don't get the benefits of it.
I don't think McCain and his supporters are dumb enough to make this an issue come fall. I think Obama's appearance this last weekend solidified his stance on it. Secondly, affirmative action was to give QUALIFIED non-whites positions--ergo, level the playing field.
Honestly, I really don't have a problem with nepotism and cronyism, the problem is that usually these fools aren't qualified for the job--they're the dunderheads of the family that can't get a job elsewhere, but they can get that gov't job because of who they know.
I think we can expect to see the phrase "affirmative action" thrown around throughout the next 99 days (thanks CNN for the countdown) and maybe some random states focusing a half commercial to it, but if McCain's camp or surrogates even think about doing a commercial like this one with Helms, all Obama's camp need to say is the name "Helms" and "McCain" in the same sentence and it's a wrap for McCain. That'd be enough fodder for Obama to burn him at the stake.
@spool 32
Is your problem with affirmative action that it doesn't "level the playing field" or is that you don't think the playing field needs leveling? Because if you have another way of leveling the playing field, PLEASE, by all means give your suggestion.
@spool, I just don't get you, man. I can't even believe you posted the words, "supporters of the Jim Crow party" on this blog. Let me ask you, do you see your words as being just a teency bit racist? Just wondering.
I have to say yes to your answer. you are so correct. if things don't go right, pull out the old race card (something white folks seem to pull out more than anything...)
during harsh economic times, it is easier to find someone or something to blame especially those who are politically powerless.
it is easy to blame immigrants and black people for taking jobs and to blame the state of the economy on.
@ gracie
I'm sorry, I just can't see how they'd pass this one up. Both candidates have had pretty consistent views on this issue during the campaign season (although McCain once was for AA). So it's certainly fair game. You know Obama won't bring it up. But the GOP minions can certainly run these sorts of ads on a statewide level and put the issue out there. I'm sure house Negroes like Ward Connerly would be willing to assist.
@ spool
Man, you've seriously gotta let go of that Jim Crow nonsense.
Secondly, affirmative action was to give QUALIFIED non-whites positions--ergo, level the playing field.
Wrong, AA was established to give QUALIFIED non-whites and women of all races an equal shot. White women are it's biggest recipients, which is no surprise since they're the single biggest demographic in the US.
I'd love to hear you respond to the questions posed by others here.
I don't think McCain is talented enough to use the difference in opinion over affirmative action effectively.
He doesn't appear to have the visceral glee in using racism shared by people like Thurmond or Helms.
His subordinates and supporters certainly do though but I doubt they will be able to hit Obama with this. Obama has already said that he doesn't believe his daughters will need AA and that AA is not as important as improving schools earlier.
Failing some catastrophic mistake by Obama in the next few months, the GOP's only chance is to make all out attacks on Obama's character and history. A huge part of that will be race. McCain won't lead that but he won't stop it either.
Long Post Alert
@shady:
That's wishful thinking, or willful ignorance. McCain is within 5pts in every reputable poll, in a nation where GOP votes are historically underestimated in polling. He's within striking distance, and I'd argue Obama has already made a catastrophic mistake with his incomprehensible opposition to the Surge even in hindsight. Futures traders agree; Obama's "stock" has taken a hit since his trip overseas. We could argue that, but but McCain is well within range to win this election. Desperation isn't a factor at all.
@ebw:
No more or less so than the "he's a racist, therefore he must be the GOP candidate" comment you made just above it.
It's going to take some more time to purge all the racist assholes from the Republican party power structure. They're dying slowly (Thurmond, Helms), or getting marginalized (Lott), but it's taking a while. Regardless of this, it has historically been the Republican Party who supported, defended, fought, bled, and died for black people in this country, not the Democrats. Frankly I'm sick to death of people tossing out "GOP = racist" and thinking they can get a free pass; I'm gonna check you on that shit every time. 35 years of a segregationist southern Democrat-turned Republican minority does not invalidate the century and a half before it, and should not cancel out numbers like 12,401 - that'd be the number of Union dead and wounded in a single day in at Anteitam, where McClellan turned back the Confederate Army and gave Lincoln the breathing space to issue his most famous Proclamation just 6 days later.
@uppity:
I believe in and support efforts to create equality of opportunity. I'm not sure what "levelling the playing field" actually means to people, so I prefer a more exact term. To answer your question, I don't think Affirmative Action accomplishes the goal most people hope it will, and that it can be socially counterproductive in ways that perpetuate the very thing its supporters claim they hope to remedy. Yes I think there's still ground to cover to create true equality of opportunity, and in reality we won't ever get 100% there. I believe that to get as close as possible, we must move away from race-based attempts to remedy this and start to look at socio-economic solutions. We should be targetting systematically failed economic areas, multigenerational single-parent families, and other social / economic segments that we already know contribute to "disenfranchisement". I'd much rather see people who succeeded at a "failed" highschool be given preferential treatment in college admission than trying to base these things on race or gender.
I don't believe that everyone's outcome should be equal. Not only is that goal impossible, it's also destructive to the society. There are better ways of offering better tools to people so they have the opportunity to succeed than looking at their race or gender.
Most importantly, I think it's hypocritical to use the term "equal rights" when what AA does is grant special discriminatory rights to a segment of the population. No one can seriously argue for equal rights and AA at the same time, the ideas are mutually exclusive. It's no different than women who argue they should be allowed to join combat infantry divisions but still be exempted from Selective Service.
@AB
I don't think that quote in italics is mine but your correction to it is right, that's what AA was established to do. I don't really know whether or not it worked when it was started (though it certainly got more women and minorities into the workforce and into college), but:
1. Today, we should move to programs that target disadvantaged people, and stop looking at their skin color and gender, and
2: Regardless of why it was established, it's still inherently inconsistent with our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. The Government should never base any action it takes toward the People on their race, color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. It should punish those who discriminate, not attempt to even the outcome by granting special rights to some segments of the population.
@spool
I don't always agree with you but I believe that was an excellent defense of your position. It's very difficult to measure how deep AA is rooted in the businsess culture. I don't know if I am here because of AA or not. I tend to think not because I got grilled like hell on the interview and I had to take a test....but I don't know.
@spool again
I do agree with you that we have to remove this GOP = "racist" idea. There are just as many racists and bigots on both sides of the fence.
In Georgia, the current Govenor is the first Republican Govenor in over 130 years. I know someone will bring up the Republican platform of racism in the 1960's. Bring it.
In the 1970's when Boston began busing black kids to white schools do you think those people were racist? Of course they were. We're they majority Democrat? Absolutely. That same issue played out in RED states the same way they played out in blue states.
Bottom line: White folks have not liked being around black folks for many years. Political affiliations are not going to change that.
@AB
I believe you italicized my comment and understood it from spool32 P.O.V.
My bad however, I guess since we were talking about the RACIAL aspects of affirmative action, I decided to leave off the gender ramifications surrounding it. However, you are absolutely correct, you cannot discuss affirmative action without taking into consideration both race and gender.
But, I think my point still stands, affirmative action programs were not designed to give unqualified people jobs over that of qualified people. Now whether or not that happens in the work place, I don't know. This internship is about the only place that was white, and I was hired, and yes I have my "token" black moments, but all in all my platform for hiring was to bring diversity and my own cultural experiences, and they seemed open to it. I also had my own agenda, I wanted to know how white folk think, act, socialize and are acculturated--yes, I was being Undercover Brother.
I'm saying all of that to say that not unless I've totally missed the boat on this one (and it's possible, and it would be showing my age) what's wrong with giving qualified people the job over another equally qualified in an attempt to have a diversified workplace?
Now college is a whole 'nother issue for me--personally at least.
JLL
You normally piss me the hell off Spool but that was probably the best response I've seen you make on AB.com.
Because trust and believe, I was not checking for you AT ALL.
Kudos.
@uppity:
There's nothing inherently wrong (or inherently right) with cultural diversity... but I don't believe it's the government's job to mandate. If the employer values a diverse workforce, that's his own business... as long as he's not discriminating against people based on their race or gender, he shouldn't be expected or required to discriminate in favor of them either.
@ Spool32
There's nothing inherently wrong (or inherently right) with cultural diversity... but I don't believe it's the government's job to mandate. If the employer values a diverse workforce, that's his own business... as long as he's not discriminating against people based on their race or gender, he shouldn't be expected or required to discriminate in favor of them either.
If there wasn't such a piss poor history of employers actually doing this, the gov't wouldn't have to step in. But reality is, people's general tendency is to be most comfortable around those who look like them. There IS indeed something inherently wrong about that. To think that people would naturally just hire out of the kindness of their hearts is naive, and maybe even a bit delusional. There have been enough studies and lawsuits to back up this assertion.
I do NOT necessarily agree with AA in terms of education however. That's more objective and easier to quantify than whether or not a person is "qualified" for a job, which is something FAR harder to gauge.
@AB:
You're dead right, and anti-discrimination enforcement in the workforce is sometimes a damned hard thing to do successfully. I don't know how much better government needs to be about enforcement, but I suspect there's a lot of room for improvement. However, I still maintain that the challenge of enforcing anti-discrimination laws doesn't justify a corresponding pro-discrimination mandate. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The best outcome would be to help people in the beginning through education and other programs aimed at people who start behind the line, so that those who can excel have the opportunity to do so. Those who succeed when given that opportunity should be valuable to employers, who hire them because it's profitable. Free market WIN.
That's obviously not a 100% attainable goal either, but it's what we should be striving for and the closer we get the better. What we should want is everyone getting an equal chance to succeed, not everyone getting equal success.
@AB and spool32
Well then the question is what needs to happen in order to stop discrimination at the workplace? Clearly what was working before wasn't worth it. I heard Ward Connelly's crazy ass this morning headed into work, made me late saying "we don't need affirmative action, that's why we had the Civil Rights Bill."
Now, for the most part you're right spool, we should start in the beginning with education, but yet again, as AB said, education is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Prior to Katrina, you had 90% of NOPS that should have been taken over by the state government because of abysmal test scores. PLEASE tell me how one can make a level playing field for a school that is producing a 3.8 GPA as valedictorian, but getting a 15 on the ACT? Do we simply close the door on the millions of students that find themselves in that situation?
I remember the whole Univ. of Mich. debacle a few years back and learning about the different points assigned to various high school's that go into admissions calculations. I guess on the other side of college, its kinda easy for me to say, college isn't quite the big deal that we make it out to be. I mean, once you get into college, it's SOLELY up to the individual to stay there or not. If someone dropped out at a private school, I'm convinced that they were just as likely to drop out at the local state college.
And trust me, there are some DUNDERHEADS in college. I mean, folks argue about affirmative action, what about these friggin grade inflations. For older people, there was the 4.0 scale: 4 was an A, 3 was a B, 2 was a C and D was worth one credit. Then we had to add pluses and minuses, and then honors classes and AP classes, hell, I graduated with people on a 6.0 scale!!! But those that took regular classes only had 4.0 classes. So you possibly have kids who are qualified to get into college competing for spots against equally as qualified kids, but who think that they are some superstar because they graduated with a 5.3 GPA and then holler foul when they THINK that they got their spot taken.
Actually, I just realised, that's half the problem. Affirmative action's main problem is perception: too many white folks PERCEIVE that they are better than the black and Latinos that are working in a position that they PERCEIVED that they were ENTITLED to.
Yup, it all goes back to white privilege.
JLL
"Actually, I just realised, that's half the problem. Affirmative action's main problem is perception: too many white folks PERCEIVE that they are better than the black and Latinos that are working in a position that they PERCEIVED that they were ENTITLED to.
Yup, it all goes back to white privilege."
Amen!!! I was coming in here to say just that. You said it better than I could, uppity.
Actually, I just realised, that's half the problem. Affirmative action's main problem is perception: too many white folks PERCEIVE that they are better than the black and Latinos that are working in a position that they PERCEIVED that they were ENTITLED to.
Yup, it all goes back to white privilege.
Chuuuuuuccchhhh! Preeeacccchh! Tabernacle!
Sigh.
At least for myself and other principled Conservatives who agree with me, the issue has nothing to do with perception, entitlement, or privilege. It has to do with a desire to see a system that aims for equality in the opportunity, not equality in the results.
I'm not sure what to do to increase enforcement in the workplace... the Law of Unintended Consequences looms large here. Certainly, explaining away objections to AA by claiming those who object are just whining 'cause they got beat is not really useful, and certainly not on-point for anything I've written today.
spool32 said...
" @shady:
That's wishful thinking, or willful ignorance. McCain is within 5pts in every reputable poll, in a nation where GOP votes are historically underestimated in polling. He's within striking distance, and I'd argue Obama has already made a catastrophic mistake with his incomprehensible opposition to the Surge even in hindsight. Futures traders agree; Obama's "stock" has taken a hit since his trip overseas. We could argue that, but but McCain is well within range to win this election. Desperation isn't a factor at all."
I don't think it's wishful thinking or willful ignorance at all. There are only 100 days left until the election. The last numbers I saw (Gallup) had Obama up by 8 or 9 percentage points.
His overseas trip did not have the impact that McCain thought it might. Perhaps McCain will think twice before goading Obama into doing something again...
Obama's opposition to the escalation in Iraq is really not going to matter that much politically because the Iraqi Prime Minister endorsed Obama's withdrawal timeline.
This made McCain's position even more ridiculous. Even McCain had to eat crow today and endorse a 16 month timeline for withdrawal.
With the notable exception of Dukakis, usually the person who is leading with this amount of time left in the race wins.
Obama is a special case and will likely bring out a fair number of new voters with very strong feelings for or against him. So anything is possible. But the Republican brand is dirt now. There's very little that McCain can run on.
Obama has proven to be a much more skilled politician than either McCain or Clinton expected.
So as I said McCain's best chance is to attack (or have his surrogates) attack Obama's character, race and associations.
Obama is taller, younger, better looking, and appears to have better judgment. So far Obama has successfully resisted the right wing attempt at framing him as some sort of Unamerican Angry Black Muslim. Those attacks hurt but they have not defined him yet.
Unless McCain gets very aggressive and very nasty quickly or Obama gets too casual or makes some horrible mistake, it will be tough for McCain to win. Anything is possible though...
Blogger spool32 said...
Sigh.
At least for myself and other principled Conservatives who agree with me, the issue has nothing to do with perception, entitlement, or privilege. It has to do with a desire to see a system that aims for equality in the opportunity, not equality in the results."
AA is necessary to even attempt to ensure equality of opportunity. It doesn't guarantee equal opportunity or equal results.
So many times perceptions mean everything. I have seen myself in the workplace where certain people are hired and promoted because they are white. Some of them could do the job; others couldn't. But they all got an opportunity that often times was very hard to get for Black people, especially Black males.
It used to be that the excuse was qualifications-Blacks didn't have the college degree, the masters, the MBA, the CPA, etc. Now that that's no longer the case it's become more a question of comfort levels and trust.
I've seen situations where a white person who is finishing up a bachelor's degree from a fly-by-night school gets promoted to management before a Black person with advanced degrees.
Because the US tends to be very socially segregated many whites do not have the opportunity or desire to build that comfort level with Blacks. Most jobs are not even filled through open recruitment. They're filled via people's networks. If Black people aren't in those networks it really doesn't matter what education, experience or qualifications a Black individual might have. He or she is going to run up against some walls.
AA is about opening up those networks so that everyone can compete.
@spool, obviously, I was being sarcastic about the GOP candidate thing.*rolling eyes*
But I was serious about the Jim crow thing. and McCain...give me one good reason why Mccain voted against the MLK holiday.
And those comments about white privilege are dead on.
"I'm not sure what to do to increase enforcement in the workplace... the Law of Unintended Consequences looms large here. Certainly, explaining away objections to AA by claiming those who object are just whining 'cause they got beat is not really useful, and certainly not on-point for anything I've written today."
spool, I really believe that your points about improving education and opportunity for all disadvantaged people were well-received AND quite on-point. However, if you deny that a huge factor in the white backlash against AA has to do with the sentiment that *they* are taking jobs away from us, then you are the one being willfully ignorant right now.
The fact that most people think AA=racial quotas points to that white privilege and entitlement. The fact that far too many people feel that any person of color with a great job took that spot from some hypothetically more qualified white person points to this. The fact that folks who see people of color in higher education and feel personally slighted, automatically assuming that *they* were, in fact, the better qualified candidate without knowing ANYTHING about the class's collective qualifications points to this.
I'm glad that you don't subscribe to these feelings of entitlement. But in a way, you are showing how much you do. No one refuted *your* arguments with white privilege. We merely agreed that WAY too many people are upset about it because they feel inherently better qualified than, say, a black man. I don't recall that being aimed at you, but the way you responded as though it were reflects your own privilege.
Its the year 2500.. "We still need afirmative action. We dont have enough black starship captains"
Good lord.
It is time to end it.
To answer your question, its not going to be an effective wedge isssue. Energy is a better one and on that front the GOP has a winner.
@ill:
Yeah,I thought a lot before replying, because I sensed that people weren't aiming at me, and I agree that there probably is a "white privilege" component. I can tell you that I've never heard anybody privately tell me that because they were white, they deserved a job they didn't get. I'm approaching a more overall idea behind this, but it'll have to turn over in my head for a few days or so, while I organize my thoughts... I sense another internal discontinuity here, but I want to think it through before I say anything.
I just wanted to emphasize that while there are plenty of bad reasons to oppose AA, there are also legitimate, non-racist ones.
@ebw:
My apologies for missing the sarcasm... it sure sounded serious to me.
Rather than trying to prove a negative, how about you explain to me how saying "Democrats were the Jim Crow Party" is a racist statement? Seems to me it's a simple fact.
@shady:
Look again. Obama got a 9pt bump for one day, he's back down to within 4. McCain hasn't endorsed a 16month timeline either, and he certainly hasn't eaten any crow on the matter.. Obama was and remains dead wrong on the surge and his artificial timeline. Moreover, al Maleki is playing to his base, and none of his coalition partners agree with him (including the Iraqi VP and every Iraqi general). If Obama had his way, Americans would be gone already, and none of the current success would have happened.
You forgot both Gore and Kerry, who both led during the summer and both lost in squeakers. In fact, if you flip it around.. the only Democrat in the last 20 years who has won with a lead at this point is Clinton. All the rest have lost. Even Clinton didn't get more than 43% of the vote in his first election.
I think it's going to be close, and close on substance.
@spool
"I just wanted to emphasize that while there are plenty of bad reasons to oppose AA, there are also legitimate, non-racist ones."
Agreed.
Post a Comment