Affirmative action probably wouldn’t change the race

In his column today, the WaPo’s Peter Beinart argues that race, in a general sense, is dogging Barack Obama, and undermining his chances at winning the White House. This is likely to get worse, Beinart argues, because race will be “central to this campaign because McCain needs it to be. He simply doesn’t have many other cards to play.”

Beinart recommends that Obama get out in front of the issue, “control the race debate,” and make a policy pronouncement on ending race-based affirmative action, replacing it with class-based affirmative action. As Beinart sees it, “even racists can be wooed,” and this would help Obama connect.

Paradoxically, [Obama’s] best shot at deracializing the campaign is to explicitly make race an issue.

He can do that with a high-profile speech — and maybe a TV ad — calling for the replacement of race-based preferences with class-based ones. That would confront head-on white fears that an Obama administration would favor minorities at whites’ expense. It would be a sharper, more dramatic, way of making the point that Obama has made ever since he took the national stage (but which some whites still refuse to believe): that he represents not racial division but national unity. […]

Race isn’t going away as a factor in American life, of course. But the defining American problem of the 21st century may not be the “color line

Buy Priligy

,” as W.E.B. Du Bois suggested about the 20th. In an age of growing multiculturalism and growing economic inequality, it may be the class line instead. By calling for a different kind of affirmative action, Obama could acknowledge that profound change — and help propel himself to the White House at the same time.

There’s a reasonable case to be made for class-based affirmative action. Indeed, Beinart’s policy argument is relatively sound.

But Beinart’s campaign strategy isn’t working for me, in large part because I think he overestimates the perceptions of racists.

Look, I have no idea how many voters are going to oppose Obama strictly on race, and how many more are going to rationalize other reasons to oppose Obama, when the animus really is driven by racism.

But I’m thinking about some of the racists that I’ve known (and even some that I’m related to) and I don’t think a policy shift on affirmative action is going to do the trick.

White, racist voters who oppose Obama do so because he’s black, not because he supports affirmative action. If you told those same white, racist voters that Obama now supports a class-based affirmative action system, most would probably respond, “Yeah, but he’s still a secret Muslim who doesn’t like the Pledge of Allegiance.”

“[E]ven racists can be wooed,” Beinart argues. Maybe, maybe not. But Obama is wooing them, with a stronger economy, a smarter foreign policy, a universal healthcare system, a cleaner environment, etc.

If a voter is prepared to put race above the interests of his/her self-interest and the strength of the country, a shift on affirmative-action policy isn’t likely to make much of a difference.

One of the difficulties in having rational conversation about race is the continual conflation of the term racist (pejorative) and racial (less so). A person isn’t racist because s/he is aware of race, or even because they are racially insecure. Many people who have little knowledge or experience with those of another race are “racially insecure”, i.e. uncertain and a little scared of the others and more comfortable about their own.

Racial insecurity can be approached and defused with familiarity and knowledge. Racism is intractable to such things and is based on believing negative stereotypes in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Most people aren’t racist and labeling them so only makes it more difficult to deal with the real issues of discrimination and disparity that exist in our society. America has a long history of racial inequality and even racial violence. But one thing that Obama has tried to bring to the fore in this cycle is the fact that we all have more in common than we do in distinctions.

America needs to confront its history of racialism, but it won’t do it by pandering to those who are racist. It can by promoting the recognition of the common values and interests that we all share and the common stake we all have in the health and well being of our society.

Please… become a little more precise in your use of the term racist. It is not helpful when it is used without thinking.

  • Steve, I would say that the truth is somewhere between your argument and Beinart’s. There are hard racists and soft racists in this country. The hard racists will vote against Obama no matter what, as you have pointed out. But there are many people out there who may feel uneasy about Obama because of his race (consciously or subconsciously,) and whose wariness about minorities in general may be tied to the affirmative action issue. If Obama advocates class-based affirmative action, it will help him, since it will take a major motivation to vote against him off the table. Remember the North Carolina Senate race that Jesse Helms won by way of the “Hands” ad? Harvey Gantt was leading in the polls until then. The voting public was obviously not comprised mainly of foaming-at-the-mouth racists (and, yes, I know about the Bradley effect– that’s another whole can of worms). It was Helms’ activation of paranoia and resentment of minorities– “They’re stealing our jobs!”– that kept the seat in the GOP column. Obama getting out in front on the issue will prevent a similar strategy on the part of the McCain camp.

  • Yes, let’s cede the debate on this issue to its most zealously irrational members. Just like we should cede the debate on Climate Change to Inhofe (sp) et al. And we should cede the torture debate to Cheney.

    Yes, that ought to make everyone happy.

  • I agree with Beinart`s general point, that by ignoring white fears of a black president however unpleasant the issue simply won`t go away ,but Obama has already parly faced this issue squarely in his speech in Philadelpha in March ,when he `sympathised` with white`s fear and anger even if their logic or rationality is rather suspect. As he said in that speech….

    ‘that anger is not always productive… . But the anger is real; it is powerful,” Obama said. “And to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”

    While asking all Americans to sympathize with blacks, Obama said he understood the anger that some whites feel over affirmative action or “when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced”.

  • Racists can’t be wooed. They are irrational to the core. But the issue can be addressed in a more subtle way.

    Racism is a subset of xenophobia. The smears against Obama haven’t been directly about his blackness. They have been about his alleged foreignness – allegiances to Kenya, to Islam, to Farrakhan, to an unfamiliar form of Christianity (Rev. Wright). Many white racists speak admiringly of such black luminaries as Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas because they are perceived by xenophobes as part of “us,” not part of “them.”

    Educating American voters about Obama’s essential American-ness will help to blunt this species of smears. But in any case Obama is running against the wind for being a black man in America.

  • I’m not sure I understand what “class based affirmative action” even means. We give scholarships based on income. Welfare, medicaid, heating assistance, etc. Is the idea here that companies and universities would have to accept X number of poor people to their rolls? It seems to me that the reason for affirmative action is that people who are visually different are disadvantaged merely because of their looks or obvious disabilities (deafness, etc.). The disadvantage poor people have is money and lack of opportunities that derive from that lack.

  • This might not be a popular comment but if Obama wins, George Bush should get some credit due to his appointments of Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice as his secretaries of State. They broke a glass ceiling of their own and showed a lot of Americans that African Americans can hold high administrative office (we’ll leave competency out of it for the sake of this discussion).

    Nice pics of the Obamas’ vacation over at HuffPo

    Things like that help.

  • “…a shift on affirmative-action policy isn’t likely to make much of a difference….”

    Yeah, but it is still a good idea and though it may not change the racist mind at least it cannot be thrown in his face that affirmative action is based on race. I love the approach, it certainly would do no harm and is actually the way affirmative action should be referenced.

    It is a matter of class and not race. Poverty is not discriminatory.

  • If he hasnt eased white fears yet he never will.
    The entire country knows Obama, they know his story
    They are either going to vote for him because of his policies or vote against him becasue of his race

    This affirmative action dance seems like a cheap ploy to prove that Obama real isnt “that black ” and that is insulting to African Americans

  • As a general rule, when White people give Black people advice about race, it is better off ignored. Additionally, when Peter Beinart gives anyone advice about anything, it is better off ignored. Remember Beinart being the guy brow-beating Democrats to back the Iraq war because they don’t want to be seen as anti-war? This guy is the liberal Bill Kristol. Both have no idea what they are talking about and both are wrong almost all of the time.

  • The best way to sell Obama to a racist is to tell them “Hey, look at the example he would set for his people. He’s clean cut. He talks just like a white guy. He’s smart and he doesn’t wear his pants around his knees. He will give his people a role model who isn’t a hip-hop criminal, a dumb basketball player, or a loudmouth idiot like Jesse Jackson. Are you going to get a cleaner cut black guy at the national level?”

    It makes em think. (sort of)

    Note that this is not how I think, but it is how they think. IMO.

  • Have to agree with Bubba. Not only is Beinart wrong, but this “idea” is just the same crap he and the New Republican have been pushing for years. That he has chosen to hype it now that we have a black nominee just goes to highlight his cynicism — and the irrelevance to which he and TNR have sunk in this post-DLC era.

  • I am also not exactly sure what “class-based” affirmative action means. What I *do* know is that we could, for the purposes of university admissions, increase the bias of your high school ranking or otherwise try to take into account the crappy inner-city high school one went to. This would have largely the same effect without being race-based, and some independents might be pleased. Is this “class-based?” Doesn’t sound like it. Plus it is not easily applied to finding jobs.

    One of the biggest problems, obviously, is the crappy inner-city schools: no matter how many kids you take from there, a large percentage simply won’t be ready for college. And the statistics tend to back this up – there is a significant college drop-out rate for candidates that benefitted from affirmative action.

  • Look, I have no idea how many voters are going to oppose Obama strictly on race, and how many more are going to rationalize other reasons to oppose Obama, when the animus really is driven by racism.

    I have lost some good friends over racism during this election. I knew they were Republicans- one hardcore and one a leaner- but I had never heard anything racist from them until they both said, “I would never vote for a n_____.” They are no longer friends and I explained why- I have no time in this short life for racists. There are a lot of very racist people who just never express it. They are very quiet about it. There will be a lot of people who do not vote for Obama because of race. They won’t talk about it or admit it, but it is happening.

    I do not think any dialogue on Affirmative Action is going to change much.

  • The question here is how many voters are not [hard] racists who will find some reason to vote against Obama and use it to influence others, and how many are really [soft] racists or racially insecure who can be persuaded that “Continuing affirmative action for the Black Middle Class is no longer necessary” (something Jim Webb doesn’t agree with by the way) but that “redefining affirmative action based on class is necessary”.

    Really, isn’t it better to simply ask them why they are still scared by a wealthy, educated, intelligence, family values African American. And when are they going to accept that we are a multi-racial country.

  • I think there is a much STRONGER case for race-based affirmative action than for a ‘back door’ version purportedly based on ‘class.’ (Which the haters will still read as ‘race;’ only this way — in their minds — you ‘sneak in Hispanics, who are all illegal immigrants anyway.’)

    I will continue to support RACE-based affirmative action until I see some of the following changes:

    Tests which send out two applicants, one white and one black, with the identical resumes report that the blacks are hired at least 75% as often as the whites;

    Schools in different areas of the same city or county, one black and one white, receive equal funding, equal facilities, equally new textbooks — and teachers who are given their choice of asignments choose black-area schools 75% as often as they choose the white ones;

    Police response time, for reports of the same crimes, are equal in black and white neighborhoods, regardless of ‘class’;

    A test is run in ten different high rise office buildings in ten different cities, where messengers of different races but the same age are sent in, the elevator surveillance tapes are watched, and the reactions of the passengers are the same. (To rule out ‘class’ have the black messengers well dressed and the white ones be dressed sloppily.)

    Obama might, wisely have discussed the ‘roots of white anger’ but how about the ‘roots of black anger’ the fact that probably most families have stories of relatives who had college degrees and could only get jobs as porters or orderlies, of cops arresting people for ‘driving while black’ etc. And the examples of police racism in very recent times are easy to recount.

    For newcomers, btw, I’m a 62-year old white man who lived through the civil rights revolution. Yes I know things have changed greatly — but still not enough — and memories of old wounds don’t go away so easily.

  • Go Prup – great post!

    I am a 60 year old white male, who grew up in a very small Illinois town. I have strong prejustices based upon race – therefore I must be a ‘racist’!

    Growing up, the nearest black family lived probably close to 20 miles away. I never met a black person, face to face, until I went to college. Including my 10 years in the Army, I have found blacks to be ‘good or bad’ in essentially the porportion as whites. My many friends, largely based upon my military years, include Puerto Ricans, natives of Guam, Germans, Italians, Mexicans, Jordanians, ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’. My prejudices and racism are not toward blacks.

    I grew up in the 50’s with relatives who were vehemently anti-Japanese. A 1st cousin of my mother died during the Bataan Death March. An uncle fought in the Korean War. I endured 21 months in the Republic of South Viet Nam. My life experiences have combined to leave me with a deep-seated dislike & disrespect for all Asians – although some are worse than others.

    I make every efforts to assure that my feelings are never expressed or acted upon in the presence of asians, but I could never live on the West Coast or any city with a large population of asians. I acknowledge that I am not a perfect person.

    GTTim – You can never have too many friends. My friends include persons of many races and nationalities who have strong prejudices against other races and nationalities. To write them off solely because of prejudices narrows your number of friends and additional perspectives on life. If ethnocentrism is ‘the inabilty to preceive of any other ethnicity in other than your ethnicity’, then you must be a sociocentrist!

    A better choice might be to expose those persons to actions or dialog that expands their perspective.

  • Obama’s no liberal, but he carries the mantle for no other reason than his association with “color” and “minority interests,” which are defacto regarded as “liberal” interests.

    I suggested all over the place right at the beginning of this that Obama’s candidacy wouldn’t be an unalloyed plus for so-called ‘minority/human interests.’ I guessed then that he would be forced to eschew interest in ‘fairness,’ or ‘equitability,’ or any other idea that makes it seem that that’s what WHITE folks haven’t been…It does not strike me as particularly paradoxical that he would be called upon to actually reject, and work to diminish minority “entitlements,’ just to prove to whites that he could be “fair” to all…

    Of course, that means throwing “minorities” to the sharks…

  • Comments are closed.