The Candidates
Featured Archives
We have a bit of an affirmative action debate brewing in the Steele thread, so I figured now is a good time to express my thoughts on the issue. Let me just say, from the start, what I don’t support. I don’t support government based affirmative action (in hiring for government jobs). I also generally oppose what I’d term “paternalistic affirmative action”- that is, affirmative action which is based on the idea that a certain class of individuals “deserves” a hand-up due to past societal abuses. But, unlike many conservatives, I am not totally opposed to affirmative action. I reject, for instance, the idea that private colleges and universities have an obligation to admit students on the basis of “merit”. As private institutions, they have private concerns- for instance, they might rationally believe that adding minority students increases their profile, and therefore will increase their long-term bottom-line. I’m also opposed to the idea that “merit” must be narrowly quantified. Individuals from different backgrounds have different opportunities, and they must be evaluated on basis of how successfully they took advantage of the opportunities available to them. Note here, though, that race isn’t the driving factor.
But, let me get out of the realm of education and traditional hiring, and into something more relevant to us: politics. What are we to make of affirmative action in politics? Let’s start with an obvious observation: in most respects, political affirmative action would have greater consequences then, say, educational affirmative action. Selecting a Presidential nominee partly because he’s black is rather more serious then selecting a student because he’s black. But, does this necessarily argue against the practice? I think not. Politics is unique in that rarely are candidates selected purely on merit. The person with the best resume rarely runs, and still more rarely wins.
In 2000, the Republican Party selected George Bush because he was A.) the son of a past President, B.) capable of amassing a large warchest, and C.) running on a compassionate conservatism that seemed compelling in an increasingly liberal country. None of this had anything to do with his substantive qualifications. None of this suggested that Bush was the most principled conservative in the race. Politics involves a good deal of compromise, and the candidates that come out of that compromise are rarely objectively the best choices. This is even truer when applied to general elections. Romney may have made a better President then McCain, but there were probably good reasons to believe he would have made a weaker nominee.
Which brings us back to affirmative action. In some cases, someone’s race or gender can be as valuable as a compelling narrative, in terms of winning an election. Obama’s silly “hope and change” ditty would have been considerably less effective if he’d been a white man; because he was black, he was able to “transcend politics” without actually doing anything politically transcendent. This came in handy for Democrats and allowed them to elect the most liberal President in history. It’s also likely to pay dividends in cementing their party’s “openness” image. These are significant benefits and, from a liberal point of view, made his nomination worthwhile. It seems to me that, in politics, counting diversity as a “positive” is rather like counting a large warchest as a positive- the sort of purely political concession you sometimes make to further your long-term agenda. In this sense, promoting Michael Steele for RNC chairman, in part because he’s black, could conceivably be a reasonable decision.
This applies, equally well, at all levels of politics. Promoting minority or women candidates, at the local level, will help begin the gradual process of changing the GOP’s image. Promoting candidates from modest backgrounds could also help. It even extends, to a certain extent, to the blogosphere. Visitors at conservative blogs are overwhelmingly male. But, there are larger numbers of female visitors at sites with female bloggers (check the anchoress for instance). This is unsurprising. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that we practice affirmative action heavily. I am arguing that we shouldn’t shy away from it just because it violates some abstract principle; politics always involves, to greater or lesser degrees, sacrificing abstract principles to long-term aims.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
By heavily, do you mean at the presidential level?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Martha M,
Perhaps. I’m not opposed to the idea. I’ve said before that I’m more likely to support Pawlenty because he’s a young and blue-collar, whereas Republicans are stereotypically old and white-collar. I’m probably more likely to support Jindal because he’s a minority, though goodness knows I don’t need any excuse to support somebody so impressive. In my opinion you have to reach a certain threshold level in terms of experience, competence, and conservatism, before I consider supporting you: once you’re past that threshold, other factors come into play. And “identity” (race, gender, or personal background) is one of those factors.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Of course you’d favor it, Matthew E. Miller.
Kidding.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I agree, by the way.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
This is true, but on some level I feel dirty acknowledging it.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Bush in 2000 was an abysmal candidate. I honestly think that I would have been undecided for quite some time in that election. Gore-Lieberman 2000 was far more hawkish than Bush-Cheney 2000, and Bush ran with a bit of a populist streak (”When someone’s hurting, government’s got to act”) and, obviously, is quite the so-con.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Nice write up Matthew:
I think it would be appropriate for those discussing affirmative action to actually define it. Problem is, the liberals define the term completely different than I do. Since they usually control the dictionary, they can easily win the argument. Many liberals go so far as to encompass reparations with affirmative action. Here is how I define affirmative action:
Any policy with the intent to eliminate disadvantage; so long as the intent of the policy is not to create advantage.
The key part of that definition for me is the ‘not create advantage’. Reasonable people can agree or disagree as to what creates an unfair advantage, but I think most everyone should agree standards should never be decreased so as to create and unfair advantage. Doing so is just not right..
I am pro-affirmative action myself so long as that is how the term is defined.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
But, why support the person who is not the most qualified. Now – with that said (considering I think a lot of my comments in the Steele thread had a lot to do with this post) I don’t really know what makes one the “most” qualified to be RNC chairman. It is a pretty theoretical type position and qualifications are probably different from person to person.
I have no issue promoting QUALIFIED minorities and women candidates at all levels. My main concern with Steele is that it seems as though the ONLY reason he is being promoted is because of his skin color. And while we are on the subject of Affirmative Action – look how well it served Sen. McCain.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
can we admit that sarah palin was an AA pick? or does that still make me sexist.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Agree Ray #8:
All qualified candidates should be supported regardless of pigmentation of lack thereof. The true intent of any proper affirmative action should focus on eliminating disadvantages, not creating advantages.
The problem is liberals manipulate affirmative action as a tool to create advantage to their constituents. Creating advantages to one class always comes at the expense of another. It is not fair, it is not right when deployed in that manner.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
9, you are sexist for suggesting it. As for the post, I need to reflect on this post for…., like a week. Seriously.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
#8, Michael Steele ran an innovative and inventive campaign in Maryland and did well for a Republican in a tough year and in a tough state.
I don’t doubt that many people see Michael Steele and think:
“We should pick the black man because ___________.”
I volunteered for Steele so I’ve got a different perspective than many of his supporters. Steele was chairman of the MD GOP just before its best period.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
9, you are sexist for suggesting it.
You’re like a caricature of yourself sometimes.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Memio, this is an excellent post. Parliamentary systems appoint minorities and female candidates, but they do very little to move the playing field forward. As a very intelligent fpp said the other day, why are we not running candididates in all districts? That may say more, symbolically, than anything else.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:09 am
We don’t need no stinking affirmative action to beat the pants off of men.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:56 am
You rock #15!
November 18th, 2008 at 8:42 am
What you hit on here, Matthew, is the question of how to address a certain weakness that many see in the GOP: that the party is “diversity challenged,” to put it in PC-speak.
Addressing the problem will take time, and it has to be an ongoing effort to succeed. Nixon’s famed “southern strategy” of attracting Dixiecrats to the party left an older generation of African Americans and other minorities feeling alienated, and the next generation or two have found it difficult to identify with the party ever since.
Merit can’t be taken from the equation of how to select the best political leaders. But there needs to be a larger pool of prospective candidates for higher office to draw from. This will require an ongoing effort to attract minority voters and candidates at lower levels.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am
a name not mentioned all the time
CON CON
Condoleeza Rice Conservative