The Obama Watch
The Obama Meritocracy
Are we seeing the beginning of the end of quotas and set-asides?
The day after Barack Obama was elected the first black president of the United States, a Republican friend of mine who teaches in the public schools in Harlem commented that there was good news in the result. Her students could no longer claim that the system was keeping them down. Their failure or success, in other words, would henceforth be their own, not the product of a system working mysteriously outside their control. Wishful thinking?
Maybe. Or maybe the elevation of a minority to the most powerful office in the nation changes something psychologically in this country. Maybe the days of quotas and set-asides based on race and sex (what even Bill Clinton mocked as bean counting) are finally numbered.
The grievance peddlers who have spent the last 40 years carefully constructing a spoils system that handed plum positions and contracts to minorities and women have by and large been silent since Nov. 5 for good reason. With a minority not appointed — but elected — to the most powerful position in the world, the foundation of the system of handouts and set-asides so painstakingly built over the last four decades has cracked.
We don’t have to wait for Obama to take office to see the ridiculousness of racial quotas and set-asides in a world in which whites gladly elect blacks to govern them. In Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration has given a sign of what is inevitably to come.
Patrick, the first black governor of Massachusetts, promised fealty to the diversity regime. But by the old standards, he isn’t living up to the promise. Were he white, he would surely be called a racist by now. The Boston Globe reported two Fridays ago that Patrick has appointed fewer minority judges than any other governor in recent Massachusetts history.
In his first two years in office, Patrick has had the opportunity to appoint 29 judges. Of those 29 appointments, only 2 were minorities. Patrick told the Globe his effort was “not good enough.”
Patrick might have appointed so few minorities because, being black himself, he didn’t feel the pressure to disprove the racism that racial pressure groups argue rests in the hearts of every white executive. Relieved of the political pressure to make appointments based on race, he made them based on qualifications (or whatever other criteria they use in Massachusetts).
President-elect Obama so far seems to be operating under a similar presumption. He doesn’t have to prove that he isn’t racist. It is assumed. As a result, Obama’s cabinet is not significantly more “diverse” than George W. Bush’s and might wind up with fewer minority members.
If black governors and presidents wind up appointing more whites than white governors and presidents do, then the whole justification for quotas and set-asides collapses. The justification is that people select those who are like themselves. If whites select whites, blacks select blacks, and so on, then policies must be put in place to guarantee some access to power for those who look different than the people in charge, the thinking goes.
In Massachusetts, Gov. Patrick is being criticized by activists who say minorities are not “represented’ on the bench. But of course the judiciary is not a representative body. And the whole concept that office-holders must be representative of the community at-large falls apart when the dominant group in the community is out of power. In that situation, the minority executive would be prohibited from appointing a higher percentage of minorities than exists in the general population.
For example, if Deval Patrick has to appoint members of a 10-person board and he happens to personally know two highly qualified and talented blacks, he could appoint only one because the black population of Massachusetts is only 6 percent. Having 20 percent of the board membership be black would not be representative of the community at large.
So why then would it matter if the chief executive were white or black or Hispanic? If the rules hold that the racial makeup of the government (or corporation) must reflect the racial makeup of society, then it doesn’t matter which race is in charge, the appointments will be done by formula. So there is no advantage, at least as far as appointments go, to a minority group that gets one of its own into high office.
In a world in which whites elect blacks to the most powerful offices in the land, the “representation” rule actually hurts minorities by preventing a minority executive from appointing more than a token handful of qualified people he or she may personally know. Not to mention that it is absurd to suggest that a minority executive is racist against his own race if he doesn’t appoint “enough” minorities to office.
(The argument that Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s replacements in the Senate must be a black and a woman respectively shows that the people who have a vested interest in the spoils system are not going to suddenly give up. But again, the justification for that bean counting is no longer as persuasive as it once was, as Obama, Clinton, and others have shown that minorities and women don’t need extra considerations to achieve positions of power.)
All of this is not to suggest that racism or favoritism have suddenly vanished from this country or that the law no longer needs to prohibit racial and sexual discrimination. As long as ignorance and stupidity exist, racism and sexism will, too. What it does suggest is that we are seeing the beginning of the end of the racial set aside regimes. By 2042, whites will be in the minority in the United States, according to Census Bureau projections. Then what? Quotas for whites? That is absurd. But it is the inevitable result of maintaining the set-aside system. Which is why that system will eventually die. And we appear to be seeing the first death throes right now.
About the Author
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is @Drewhampshire.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Andrew Cline
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/16/the-obama-meritocracy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
frost| 12.16.08 @ 9:53AM
Excellent observations.
Mary| 12.16.08 @ 12:31PM
I think something else the election of Obama might help bring about is a slackening of A-A's fealty to one party.
It's easy for me to understand why blacks lean so heavily Dem: Harold Ickes lost a kidney fighting for the Civil Rights of blacks. It's hard for me to dislike him, though he can be a dislikable character, because I always return to what he lost in the battle.
If you read Malcolm X's (as I have re-read) his Ballot or Bullet speech, you can read the simple (not simple minded) words of a man who loved his people. Truly loved them and wanted liberty for them. That speech is a conservative speech.
If Malcolm X were alive today I don't think he would be a democrat or a leftist.
What he wanted for his people was the unfettered ability to undo the damage that had been done. He wanted to re-masculate his brothers. He knew what that would mean for the "little platoon."
Just before the election, a commenter at the Contentions blog wrote that he thought much of what Malcolm X wrote was not all that different from what our Founding Fathers wrote.
Whatever our sins, as someone wrote a long time ago, the Bill of Rights proved so powerful, it eventuated as undeniable self-rebuke.
I think that if A-A's feel that they've finally arrived, a new and liberating outlook is not only possible but probable.
As a conservative I feel no desire to pursue or court the Hispanic vote. This is an immigrant group that has had advantages all others did not. First among them being all necessary forms and documents being written in their own language.
But as a conservative I would very much welcome hot pursuit of the black vote. They belong in the Republican party!
jr| 12.16.08 @ 5:33PM
I agree with the author that many of the arguments about being a minority and not having the benefits that are argued belong only to the whites. However, do not believe that Obama will loosen the strings on lending or govenment programs that continue the giveaway that started with FDR and got a huge boost with LBJ. He just isn't. It will not be sudden, it will be like a cancer that doesn't hurt until you are just about finished. Obama and his leftist pals are not ordinary politicians, they are seasoned and grew up in the streets scratching for the leftist cause. It will not be pretty and the real American dream will be toast.
Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 6:50PM
malcolm x was not a conservative! i read his book, the Autobiography of malcolm x- he was a radical! crazier than anybody who blogs here. a whack-job
but then you could say OJ Simpson is a conservative, too. we can say anything we want.
Abbe| 12.16.08 @ 9:28PM
The Hispanic People of the United of America
Hello UNITED Hello
"is an immigrant group that has had advantages all others did not"
Yes indigenous People the Hispanic people visit
Texas
DaveS| 12.16.08 @ 9:34PM
In a word, yes - it IS wishful thinking. But some proof the country is not racist can more recently be seen in the ascendancy examples of M. Jordan, O. Winfrey, etc. A through-and-through racist society would not have passed a 14th Amendment or suffered 600,000 wartime dead between 1861 and 1865.
Abbe| 12.16.08 @ 9:37PM
Perhaps the greenback had much to do with
the war as private property and it's definition
Ken| 12.17.08 @ 2:02AM
I dont know that Malcolm X could be considered a Conservative. He espoused very radical views and wasn't above pushing the envelope. However, I do agree that he loved his people and clearly advocated personal responsibility and accountability. The last thing he wanted was his people to be beholden to "The Man". The thing was, however, that he wanted to take over from the Man "by any means necessary" and put his people in charge.
But talk about racism will never end, this country is too race conscious.
Just this week, we heard reports about the lack of black coaches in college football, as if there was some great conspiracy to keep blacks off the sidelines. What is forgotten is that the NBA, NFL and MLB(I dont think we'll see a black head coach in the NHL anytime soon) all have procedures in place to make sure minority candidates get the opportunity to at least interview for an opening. But, when a qualified black coach or manager is not hired, it's still racism. That's the sort of thing that has to stop, playing the race card whenever something doesn't go your way.
The funny thing to all of this, the talk of Malcolm X and affirmative action and quotas and all that, when this country beats its chest for having the guts to elect a black president and for many it was the only reason to vote for him, I cant help but think of probably the greatest speech ever given.
When Dr. King said that his dream was for a country in which his kids could grow up and be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, it always gives me goosebumps. How can anyone disagree with that? Yet it seems that our illustrious new president to be is cashing in on being black and that we should all be congratulated for hiring him.
I dont, however, hear anyone talking about his character.
Mary| 12.17.08 @ 9:51AM
Ken-
I think towards the end of Malcolm X's life his views were changing. I think he was finding Islam, or at least its purveyors, fraudulent.
In his autobiography Haley wrote of an event at which MX was speaking. His speech contained a lot of anti-white talk. And, IIRC, a white girl who was there asked him what she could do to help change his mind or to help make amends and he told her, "nothing."
It's been many years since I read Haley's book, and, again, IIRC, his father was murdered, his mother became despondent and his siblings were scattered. I understood his hatred.
I have a friend who knew a reporter who hounded MX. Apparently, MX kept blowing him off but finally took a call from him. I don't know if it's true -while I trust the truthfulness of my friend, I never knew the reporter- but the reporter put the question to him in '64: who would you vote for? My friend says that MX begrudgingly admitted Barry Goldwater. Again, it could be nothing but farce. But it's an interesting take to contemplate.
Admittedly, it's just a guess on my part, but I bet age would have mellowed his radical views and being that he understood correctly what defined a sound foundation, he would have leaned heavily to the libertarian side. I don't think he was a man pleased by a static intellect.
I'm not an expert on the man's life, but based on what I do know, I think he was an honest man. And I can't help but respect that and him.
I think this is such a poignant picture:
http://tinyurl.com/59p3un
TruthMan| 12.18.08 @ 11:29PM
If Malcolm X were alive today, he'd be dead.
Interloper| 1.14.09 @ 12:00PM
Talking about straw men, Andrew Cline's article consists of an entire town of straw people.
Taking issues chronologically:
• The success of a person of color or woman here or there does not mean that the group as a whole is being treated equitably. There have always been success stories, such as Benjamin Banneker or Amelia Earhart. However, the groups' status remained lower than that of the white men. African-Americans still trail white Americans in every major indicia from infant mortality to morbidity. Much of the difference is rooted in a lack of inherited education, wealth and status rooted in slavery and discrimination.
• Cline's assumption that white judges are appointed based on their qualifications and non-white judges based on something else is racist in itself.
• "If black governors and presidents wind up appointing more whites than white governors and presidents do, then the whole justification for quotas and set-asides collapses." Ridiculous. Appointments turn on who is available to fill a position. As long as white men are the major benefactors of upper class status, professional education, and connections, then the population to choose from is stacked in white men's favor.
• A minority politician should be free to appoint a disproportion of qualified minorities to positions, just as he is free to appoint a disproportion of qualified white men. That would be the absence of racism, not what Cline is positing.
• President-elect Obama and Hillary Clinton are rare. Despite the increase in minority politicians and public officials since the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (which John McCain voted against), they are still far out of proportion to the minority population. The same is true of women politicians and public officials. Black officeholders, invariably Democrats, are largely concentrated in the local government in the South, where they wield nominal influence because the power structure is dominated by white Republicans.
• Disproportionate representation, which Cline clearly does not understand, does not mean that people in general must be accounted for proportionately. It means that discrimination should not be the factor that explains a disproportion. An example under Title VII is that in a population in which 20 percent of high school graduates are black, and a job requires only a high school degree, one would expect around 20 percent of hires to be black unless there is an explanation that has nothing to do with discrimination. If most black graduates choose to join the military or go to college, that would explain a disproportion.
I realize this site does not attract many thoughtful readers. But, the level of the writing is really inexcusable. A person with next to no understanding of the issues should not be writing about this topic at all.
Duffy| 3.25.09 @ 12:44AM
I enjoyed this article (even though Interloper insults my intelligence). I am interested in Interloper's background. Unfortunately, it isnt possible to discover it. Interloper, I suspect, may have roots in the "struggle"; however, I doubt he actually struggles today.
links of london jewellery | 9.10.09 @ 10:26PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！
kierlop| 4.24.10 @ 8:41PM
thanks you very much for your information
materi penjaskes
dunia pewayangan
jacky | 3.21.11 @ 3:48AM
I have to agree.................................!