Helene and I are now enjoying the pleasures (and political annoyances) of San Francisco, house-sitting once again (we’ve done this for several summers) for an old Stanford friend of mine. (For those of you who remember and are concerned about Mosby The Wonderdog, don’t worry. To free us for house-sitting in San Francisco we have a friend serving as a live-in dog-sitter in Crozet.)
Just before leaving Charlottesville we attended a Meet & Greet with Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor in the election to be held this November. He is even more impressive in person than on TV or in his ads, and if the current trend continues (a recent poll had him ahead 51 – 37) he’ll be the next governor. Speaking of polls, the Washington Post reported on Aug. 16 that, based on its poll, McDonnell was ahead 47 – 40. Although that number was widely reported, it was based on registered voters. One had to read the article closely to see that among those the article described as “those who say they are certain to vote in November” McDonnell was ahead 54 — 39. (And one had to delve into the internals to see that “those who say they are certain to vote in November” are described only as “likely” voters.)
After the Meet & Greet McDonnell (or more likely, his staff) sent out a nice email to those who had attended to call or write if we “have any ideas or want to get involved to help us win.”
As readers of this blog know all too well, I have plenty of ideas, and insist on sharing them even without being asked. So Bob, since you did ask, here are a couple of things you could and hence should do.
First and foremost, you should pledge to introduce legislation along the lines just suggested by my friend Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, and also a Virginia voter (I never said that all my good ideas were original; in fact, many of my best ideas are borrowed):
Earlier this summer, the Arizona legislature put onto the 2010 ballot an initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban preferences and discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex in state and local employment, contracting, and education — including racial and ethnic admission preferences to state universities.
It’s not always possible for state legislatures to put constitutional amendments on the ballot, but there’s nothing to stop any state legislature from banning such discrimination by passing a simple statute. The essential language would be the same and has been adopted by four states already (California, followed by Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska).
Republicans have all too often run from embracing a measure as popular as this for fear of being called racist (for demanding official colorblindness!), but Bob seems to have the courage of his convictions. A good way to prove it would be promising to introduce, and when governor introducing, legislation to require the commonwealth to treat all its citizens without regard to their race, gender, or ethnicity.
Moreover, there would be an immediate campaign-relevant boost for taking such a stand now because the Democratic nominee, Creigh Deeds, just announced, in Charlottesville, his support for expanding discriminatory state policies. One item on his press release stated as governor he would “Increase state contracting for small, women and minority-owned (SWaM) businesses.”
He would, that is, dole out some state contracts based on the race and sex of the contractors. So, Bob, you could begin your effort to rid Virginia of state-sponsored discrimination by denouncing your opponent’s embrace of it and pledging to make sure that all state contracts are awarded on the basis only of qualifications and low bids, an approach that not only honors the core value of treating all citizens without regard to their race (a principle Democrats used to embrace way back when) but also has the great political appeal of saving taxpayer money. Why pay more for projects just because they are performed by “women and minority-owned (SWaM) businesses”?
As Roger Clegg has shrewdly observed:
… why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It’s fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either–whether it’s labeled a “set-aside,” a “quota,” or a “goal,” since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it’s generally illegal to boot….
Now, the churlish among you may think it unseemly of me to have borrowed yet another idea from Roger Clegg, but allow me to say in my defense that I’ve yet to exceed my quota of Clegg-inspired ideas for one post … mainly because I don’t believe in arbitrary and artificial quotas.
John, I hope that you wrote the letter to McConnell, and that it persuades him to make state legislative action against racial preferences a campaign issue.
Thanks for your frequent posts of Roger Clegg’s patient, persistent, reasonable, good-natured seed planting of ways to end or reduce racial preference.
Concerning the poll showing a strong McConnell lead, you didn’t mention that its respondents were not very representative of state voters. For President last year, they had voted for: McCain – 52%, Obama – 41%, Someone Else/Don’t Remember – 7%. Whereas, of course, Obama won the Virginia vote, I forget by how much.