The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Barack needs to attack affirmative action

Re: Barack needs to attack affirmative action

tomtom — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:53:16 -0000

Ta-Nehisi's earlier piece on Obama ending race-based affirmative action successfully picked Beinart apart but didn't address the main issue: Is ending race-based affirmative action good politics? Is it good policy?

His latest post did touch the politics, and I agree the politics right now aren't great.

Right now Obama needs to take McCain down. He doesn't need to spend all sorts of energy persuading resentful whites he isn't just another black politician who speacializes in special pleading. Whites who are hanging on to that read on Obama are not going to be easily persuaded.

Re: Barack needs to attack affirmative action

DavidT — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:15:56 -0000

One element that would strengthen your argument on this topic is to discuss what one means by "racist" and what groups one is and isn't discussing.

I think what the New Republic author may be referring to is those who fear that electing an African-American means electing someone who believes in certain "redistributionist" policies (like affirmative action and perhaps reparations for slavery and other elements). I don't mean to suggest that such policies would be without merit, just that some "whites" have a visceral reaction against such policies / approaches and feel that way in the way that some might feel that a Jewish candidate for president would inevitably support Israel irrespective of the U.S.'s interests. Those "whites" would probably be much more likely to vote for Ward Connerly if he was the Democratic candidate than Obama (since his outspokenness against affirmative action is so central to his public image).

I agree that the explicit policy of "Affirmative Action" isn't a big issue in this election. However I think it might be wise to consider what elements of "racism" or notions that some people who might otherwise vote for a Democrat have about an African-American candidate that might be mitigated if dealt with directly (perhaps in a similar way to the notions years ago of a Catholic candidate's fealty to the pope).

Re: Barack needs to attack affirmative action

jon — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:10:41 -0000

It's interesting the logic people use for their variations and euphemisms of the obviously-wrong strategy that "Obama's top priority is to cater to racists". As you said last time, where do we begin...

Re: Barack needs to attack affirmative action

DougEFresh — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:02:04 -0000

I agree with Deborah, this cycle, AA is not even on the backburner. Admittedly, part of my perception might be because it isn't an issue in my State because voters got rid of it. But I don't hear much about it on conservative blogs or elsewhere.

Speaking strictly as a white guy, I think Obama would be better served by continuing to press his points about the importance of fatherhood and personal respondsibility rather than flipping on AA.

Re: Barack needs to attack affirmative action

benton — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:57:25 -0000

It looks like there will be a Michigan style anti affirmative action initiative on the ballot in CO, and maybe someplace else as well. Look for someone to try to use it as a wedge going forward.

Re: Barack needs to attack affirmative action

CParis — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:34:47 -0000

What Deborah said. Despite what some people might think, affirmative action is pretty much a dead issue when companies are not hiring and the people you are competing against live in India, China or Vietnam.

As for preferences in college admittance, families can't even afford to send their kids if they get in anyway.

Re: Barack needs to attack affirmative action

Deborah — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:11:48 -0000

Who the hell cares about affirmative action this election season? If people don't like his color or his "otherness" then their problem is not, I'm afraid, simply that they fear he might support affirmative action. That bogeyman is in the closet this fall.

Economics. Does the next president have a clue about what's happening with Bear-Sterns, Fannie/Freddie, Lehman and have good people to try and deal with Bush's pile'o'poo, or does he say that the problem with all this is too much government regulation? (And no, McCain cannot run on his maverick record of pushing for more regulation while simultaneously claiming that the problem is too much government regulation this week--10 years ago he wasn't a Bush clone on domestic policy, and now he is.)