Charlottesville, Again!

Just when the anniversary lamentations over last August’s alt-right invasion began to die down, you probably thought you didn’t have to read any more about Charlottesville for at least another year.

Wrong! You do. Please see my just-published piece at the James G. Martin Center, “The University of Virginia in an Uproar Again—Over a Single Faculty Hire.”

More Advice For Joe Biden

In the post immediately below, “Run, Joe, Run! Or: Where Have All The Democrats Gone?,” I offered some highly unsolicited advice to former Vice President Joe Biden, who apparently is considering seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 by running at least slightly to the right of the herd of progressives stumbling over each other in their lurch to the left . My advice: Channel Hubert Humphrey! … and other liberal Democrats who, like Humphrey, throughout their distinguished careers had supported colorblind racial equality and opposed preferential treatment based on race.

“Perhaps alone among today’s prominent Democrats,” I noted,

Mr. Biden could make such an appeal without having to change his entire tune. A few weeks after President Trump was elected, for example, Mr. Biden distanced himself from the “deplorables” mantra emanating from The Resistance by telling a Los Angeles Times interviewer that Trump voters are “all the people I grew up with. They’re their kids. And they’re not racist. They’re not sexist. But we didn’t talk to them.”

Recalling Hubert Humphrey provides a revealing reminder that the Democrats have not been talking to those voters for a long time, even before they abandoned the “Reagan Democrats” in the 1980s.

On December 11, 1972, about a month after Richard Nixon’s crushing defeat of George McGovern, Humphrey made an impressive speech on civil rights, “The Unfinished Agenda,” at the LBJ Library. “The Civil Rights Movement,” he argued, “got into trouble when more and more people were propagandized into believing that it was only an effort to give blacks a special break that was not afforded to any other group in American society.”

Whether people were “propagandized” into believing something that was not true or recognized something that was can be debated, but Humphrey’s analysis of the Democrats’ problem now sounds all too familiar.  In a similar fashion, he stated,”the Democratic Party got into trouble when its internal reforms came to be perceived, even though falsely, as establishing specific quotas that favored young people, women, and blacks over the more traditional elements of the party, particularly ethnic Americans, blue-collar workers, the elderly, and elected Democratic officials.” They were the parents and grandparents and probably great grandparents of many 2016 Trump voters.

Again, whether the perception of quotas was false can be debated. Rule 6(A)(3) of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2016 Democratic Convention, for example, states: “In the selection of each state’s at-large delegation, priority of consideration shall be given to African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and women, if such priority of consideration is needed to fulfill the affirmative action goals outlined in the state’s Delegate Selection Plan.” And those “goals” can be quite specific. As the Washington Times noted in a 2000 article, “Quotas Spoil The Party,”

in 1984 the national party asked each of its state affiliates to set “goals” for racial and ethnic representation among their delegates. The targets mirror each state’s racial and ethnic composition. For example, Washington state’s Democratic Party “goals” call for 7 percent of the state’s delegates to be Asian-American, 6.1 percent Hispanic, 2.9 percent black and 1.9 percent Native American. Many state parties have supplemented the nationally mandated racial and ethnic “goals” with quotas for other minority groups. California, New York, Ohio and Rhode Island are among the states with designated slots for gays and lesbians and Michigan sets aside spots for Arab-Americans.

Even if these “goals” are not “specific quotas,” however, Humphrey’s — and Biden’s, more than 40 years later — talking point (actually, the point about not talking to the pre-deplorables and their descendants) still stands.

 

 

Run, Joe, Run! Or: Where Have All The Democrats Gone?

[NOTE: I have expanded this discussion in the post immediately above, “More Advice For Joe Biden”] The Wall Street Journal’s Capital Journal Newsletter noted on August 10 that former Vice President Joe Biden is presumably “still mulling whether to run for president” in 2020, “but among the potential 2020 Democratic candidates, he’s already carved out […]

Forced Student Contributions

At the end of June in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees the Supreme Court ruled that “The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public- sector employees violates the First Amendment…. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable” is a form of “compelled speech” that the […]

Anti-White … Racism? Bigotry? Sarcasm?

Just as the coverup is often worse than the crime, the efforts of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outposts of the progressive elite to say that Sarah Jeong’s bigotry is not bigotry serves only to emphasize their own bigotry. Apparently no one ever told them that when you’re in a hole, […]

More On Asians v. Harvard

Recently I’ve written several times about the fascinating and potentially tide-turning case of Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard College: Harvard, Not Trump, Could Kill Affirmative Action, on Minding The Campus; Harvard Says Asians Lack Courage, Kindness, Likability, on Minding The Campus; and also Judge Kavanaugh And The Future Of Affirmative Action, here on Discriminations. If you haven’t […]

Is LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Different?

In “More Than Just Bathrooms,” Inside Higher Ed has just reported on a new study by researchers at Clark University and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst of “more than 500 transgender and gender-nonconforming undergraduates and graduate students, as well as a handful of recent graduates” to determine what “policies and accommodations” are in place […]

Judge Kavanaugh And The Future Of Affirmative Action

Babbling Brooks

Asians v. Harvard, Release 2.0

How “Diversity” Looks From Across The Pond

Sen. Diane Feinstein And The Decline Of The Democrats

Patriotism? The EIGHTH Recycling of July 4th, With A Twist

Hillary As Churchill? Hillary-ious!

Hypocrisy, Seen And Unseen

Sauce For The Hen?

Harvard’s “Diversity” Chickens Come Home To Roost