Is affirmative action the anchor holding blacks in the Democratic Party?
In a post from last week, Scott Wickham sounds some themes appropriate for the moment.
There are clear policy choices in this election that will affect lives of the majority of black Americans, in this election the republican party, Bush in particular, has more to offer us than the democrats. Unfortunately we will not be able to benefit from them unless we vote for Bush in 2004. Bush has stood by his supporters again and again, those who don't support him get ignored. The majority of black America can not afford to be ignored by the government.Directly above that post is another that seems to explain this, yet doesn't.
There is ONE reason that is always brought up to condemn Bush when I suggest that blacks should vote for Bush. That is of course his stand against affirmative action. Bush like the majority of Americans don't support affirmative action. I am sure I and many of my friends have benefited from it, so I personally support it.Okay, so maybe I'm a typical ignorant white guy who doesn't understand black America, but is affirmative action the crux of all the negativity against the Republican Party? Is part of that because even rational people who disagree with it feel necessary to support it because they have been helped by it? Somebody please comment and try to get whitey here to understand.Unfortunately its an idea who's time has past.
Comments
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner."
The problem with modern democracy is that people no longer think they should vote for what's right or what's best for all, but only what's best for themselves.
Sometimes being a person of integrity means doing what's right even when it hurts.
Posted by: Christina martin | June 30, 2004 01:33 PM
Christina, do you really think the people of the 19th century weren't voting "only what's best for themselves"?
Posted by: Chris | June 30, 2004 01:44 PM
Help for the typical "white" guy: human nature drives one group to dominate (or attempt to dominate) another in order to control finite resources. Pick any group (or label) of people..rich/poor, "blk"/"wht/"red"/"yellow", priviliged/unpriviliged, and you will find conflicts over resources such as land, money, educational opportunites, etc.
Posted by: Merrill | June 30, 2004 02:51 PM
Merrill, if we accept your premise, would not the country benefit a great deal more if we all began considering ourselves "Americans" first and foremost, instead of "rich/poor, "blk"/"wht/"red"/"yellow", priviliged/unpriviliged" - the labels you suggest? That way all Americans would be working toward the success of the country, instead of a small section of the whole working just for themselves.
Using the same argument, therefore, it would seem to me that someone who identify themselves strictly by any one of the groups you enumerate is doing not only themselves and the group they identify with a huge disservice, but the entire country.
Remember... it's "E Pluribus Unum" not "E Unum Pluribus."
Posted by: Steve | June 30, 2004 03:56 PM
Merrill, I sort of know what you are saying, it could be said that all of human history revolves around the idea of people, individually or collectively, competing for resources. The part about "dominance" works in my model, but we can not assume that only one element is striving for that "dominance", as you say they are all competing in the "conflicts", though not all win. And, imo, it is a natural order of things. For civilized society today, again imo, it is important to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to compete, it is correct to preserve the playing field, but not to order the outcome. And it is in regard to how "affirmative action" tries to determine the outcome without supporting the competition that causes a negative impact on everyone.
Posted by: Richard | June 30, 2004 06:12 PM