Bonnie Erbe, a U.S. News and World Report columnist who claims to have covered Washington politics “since God was a baby,” argues that Obama’s election “would kill affirmative action.”
What could do more damage to the argument that African-Americans deserve racial preferences than a majority of Americans voting to put an African-American in the White House? Little, from where I sit. Of course, there will still be economic data showing African-Americans disproportionately represented among low-income Americans. But the argument racial bias is widespread in American society becomes that much more difficult to make.
Perhaps, but what if Obama himself believes that racial preferences are still needed, continues to make the argument despite its alleged difficulty, and more to the point appoints federal court judges and Supreme Court justices who, like him, do not believe the Constitution does or should provide individuals with a right to be treated “without regard” to their race or ethnicity?
In short, I would file Erbe’s hopeful prediction that Obama’s election would relegate racial preferences to the dustbin of history in the same wishful thinking file I discussed here:
The hopeful optimism of Stuart Taylor, Edward Blum, George Will, and others that Obama can lead the country to a new plateau of racial reconciliation must rest, at least at this point, on a conviction that the bi-racialism that Obama literally “embodies,” that what he is, will ultimately be more important than whatever he may believe, say, or even do.
They may be right. If he wins I certainly hope they’re right. But at this point their confidence that what Obama is will trump his long support for racial preference policies leaves me with a troubling, Clintonian observation: it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
Of course, none of this means that the mere possibility that an Obama election might make it marginally more difficult to justify racial preferences isn’t still the best reason to support him. But that possibility, in turn, doesn’t mean it’s a good enough reason.
Even if Obama is elected, the argument would be that we still need affirmative action for Latinos, women, Pacific Islanders, Hmong, American Indians, etc. until one of each group is elected President.
The primary emphasis of AA today is not about Black Americans. It is more about which ethnic/racial group holds political power and demands that more of “their” people get preferences. Just look at how the University of California is considering lowering minimum GPA for admission to 2.8, in response to incessant demands from the Latino Caucus in the CA legislature.
I suspect that liberals will dance around the issue of Obama becoming president as an anomaly, then push for more race/gender preferences. Obama, regardless of what he’s saying now , will agree and the piling-on will continue.
Look for him to patch things up with “spiritual adviser” Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the inauguration. Wright will eventually become head of the EEOC.
If Obama wins, then the affirma-Nazis will say it doesn’t matter anyway, after all, he is “white with black stripes,” not the other way around…
Also, the reason why affirma-Nazis want preferences isn’t because they level the playing field, correct for past discrimination, etc. They want preferences because they simply want to “get some.” You can even see it when they get their quota position and they end up cheating, lying, stealing, etc.