Kwame Kilpatrick, 2006: “There will be affirmative action here today. There will be affirmative action here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in our state forever.”
First of all, isn’t the whole point of affirmative action to move our society to the point where affirmation action is no longer necessary? Even strong supporters of affirmative action shouldn’t want it to be around “forever,” should they? And anyway, if you’re going to defend a policy which is supposed to fight discrimination, but which is perceived by many as perpetuating discrimination, channeling George Wallace doesn’t seem like the best idea. Indeed, defending affirmative action by echoing a famous pro-segregation speech is about as effective as defending Joe Lieberman by calling him an elephant.
Ah, well, maybe Kilpatrick’s judgment is off because he’s upset about the Red Wings.
Now Wallace was for all practical purposes the Governor of Alabama from 1962 until 1986…
Once, when a law prevented him from succeeding himself he ran his wife Lerline in his place and she won by a landslide… He’s most famous as the belligerent racist voice of the segregationist South… Standing in the doorways of schools and waging a political war against a Federal Government that he decried as hypocritical…
And Wallace had started out as a lawyer and a judge with a very progressive and humanitarian track record for a man of his time. But he lost his first bid for governor in 1958 by hedging on the race issue, against a man who spoke out against integration… Wallace ran again in ‘62 as a staunch segregationist and won big, and for the next decade spoke out loudly… He accused Kennedy and King of being communists. He was constantly on national news, representing the “good” people of Alabama…
Ironically, in 1971, after a particularly racially charged campaign, Wallace began backpedaling, and he opened up Alabama politics to minorities at a rate faster than most Northern states or the Federal Government. And Wallace spent the rest of his life trying to explain away his racist past, and in 1982 won his last term in office with over 90% of the black vote…
And George Wallace died back in ‘98 and he’s in Hell now, not because he’s a racist… His track record as a judge and his late-life quest for redemption make a good argument for his being, at worst, no worse than most white men of his generation, North or South… But because of his blind ambition and his hunger for votes, he turned a blind eye to the suffering of Black America. And he became a pawn in the fight against the Civil Rights cause… Fortunately for him, the Devil is also a Southerner…
Proponents of affirmative don’t even bother to argue that the individuals benefiting from affirmative action have suffered from discrimination in, say, education. Not the Cosby Kids who go to the top-tier universities. This is the whole basis for “diversity”: a means of perpetuating the racial spoils system when affirmative action had long outlived its need.
Only partially, yank. I’m rather more strongly opposed to racial and gender based affirmative action than just about anyone I know, but I do recognize that among those who support diversity, there are certainly individuals who sincerely believe that education and culture suffer so much by having participants be primarily from one gender or ethnic background that it justifies having different standards for different groups, as that still achieves the greater good. You don’t have to accept that argument to recognize that it exists, and thus the whole basis for calls for diversity is not the maintainence of a “spoils system”. That may well be part of it, or even the whole of it for some of the supporters, but it isn’t all of it for the movement as a whole.
While William’s heart will always be in his homeland, figuratively, the rest of him was in 4 or more pieces, displayed various places around the country as an example to others who might consider almost-conquering England !
The Alabama-Georgia state line is the time zone line from Eastern(GA) to Central(AL). When Wallace apologized for his past sins and was re-elected in the eighties there was a funny cartoon in the paper here.
The scene was Interstate 20 westbound out of Georgia. The sign said
Welcome to Alabama, the Beautiful
George Wallace, Governor
You are entering the Central Time Zone
Please set your watch back 20 years
Mike: I’d have more respect for the line of argument that you touch on if it weren’t so tied up in the two worst premises of “identity politics”: that the interests of a group are best (or only) represented by members of that group, and that there is a set of beliefs that accompanies every minority group. By this rationale, the Bush family is not one of the great promoters of minority advancement at the highest chambers of government (Thomas, Powell, Rice, Estrada, Brown, Gonzales) but yet another elite white family with a plantation mentality. And Cubans arebn’t “really” Hispanics because they vote Republican, and sometimes–horrors–they’re black, neither fish nor fowl.
My point is that diversity is a canard. Bring up Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams–no, you’re told, they don’t count.
My problem isn’t with you refuting the argument you’re targeting, yank. It’s with the use of the absolute, in the way that I almost always object to such things. I find the statements as made to be indicative of the same sort of mentality for which Brendan and I routinely criticize vocal elements of the Left: mainly, not recognizing that people can legitimately disagree with you on political issues for valid reasons. Note that you don’t have to agree with those reasons or those viewpoints to recognize that they are valid; to pick a topic that comes up frequently on this site, while I find his arguments on the subject unpersuasive, I do recognize that David has a legitimate disagreement with me on the subject of abortion–just because I think he’s wrong doesn’t mean that I find his reasons invalid or illegitimate. I have nothing against you attacking any given argument. I do object to blanket statements about the motivations of everyone who holds a given policy position.
It may even be true that the majority of people who call for the need for diversity would make the arguments you’re putting in their mouths, and thus you have some basis for dismissing their views. But it’s just not the case that all would do so, and thus I have issues with your use of the phrase “the whole basis”, when it’s only part–and how large a part is immaterial to the objection I’m raising, as even a single conscientious individual who makes an argument that there’s a true need for racial and gender diversity and who doesn’t dismiss individuals who don’t conform to standard notions of identity politics would negate your statement that the entire basis for calls for diversity is an attempting at maintaining a racial spoils system.
Put it this way: I’ll concede that there are compelling arguments to be made in favor of diversity for its own sake, thought I’d disagree with them. My college sits in “Northside,” aka Houston’s ghetto. We’re about to hire a black professor. I can’t but think that this is, on balance, a good thing, and I don’t know (or care) if the woman voted for Lyndon LaRouche.
On the other hand, she’s the best for the job. If i could find a Nordic to do her job better, I’d push for the Nordic.
I object to those who would push for this many X thises for Y many thats. And if I seem a bit absolute, it is not me; in the academic environment everything need be subjugated to race, to identity.
No, yank; you seem absolute because you are speaking in absolutes, not as an inevitable result of your profession. I’m in academia myself, and I have the same objections to holding people to different standards based upon categories of their birth, but I’m still pretty good about refraining from words like all, none, never, always, whole, entire, etc. when they aren’t really justified. Still, your concession is really what I was after–the recognition that there are arguments to be made for the opposition that are sincere and earnest, even if you think they’re wrong.
Affirmative action is like communism- -the state is supposed to whither away, but instead it becomes a totalitarian, all consuming monolithic structure that eventually collapses from its own weight. Affirmative action has reached critical mass and is coming apart–take a look at Ray Nagin and his affirmative action fueled administration. Great idea to empower the formerly disadvantaged, yeah, until it winds up getting bunches of folks killed because competency wasn’t part of the affirmative action formula.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:54:28 pm
It appears that George Wallace was ahead of his time.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:56:33 pm
Whoo! This means I know I have something on the ballot in November that I care about.
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:22:04 pm
Now Wallace was for all practical purposes the Governor of Alabama from 1962 until 1986…
Once, when a law prevented him from succeeding himself he ran his wife Lerline in his place and she won by a landslide… He’s most famous as the belligerent racist voice of the segregationist South… Standing in the doorways of schools and waging a political war against a Federal Government that he decried as hypocritical…
And Wallace had started out as a lawyer and a judge with a very progressive and humanitarian track record for a man of his time. But he lost his first bid for governor in 1958 by hedging on the race issue, against a man who spoke out against integration… Wallace ran again in ‘62 as a staunch segregationist and won big, and for the next decade spoke out loudly… He accused Kennedy and King of being communists. He was constantly on national news, representing the “good” people of Alabama…
Ironically, in 1971, after a particularly racially charged campaign, Wallace began backpedaling, and he opened up Alabama politics to minorities at a rate faster than most Northern states or the Federal Government. And Wallace spent the rest of his life trying to explain away his racist past, and in 1982 won his last term in office with over 90% of the black vote…
And George Wallace died back in ‘98 and he’s in Hell now, not because he’s a racist… His track record as a judge and his late-life quest for redemption make a good argument for his being, at worst, no worse than most white men of his generation, North or South… But because of his blind ambition and his hunger for votes, he turned a blind eye to the suffering of Black America. And he became a pawn in the fight against the Civil Rights cause… Fortunately for him, the Devil is also a Southerner…
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:53:24 pm
Proponents of affirmative don’t even bother to argue that the individuals benefiting from affirmative action have suffered from discrimination in, say, education. Not the Cosby Kids who go to the top-tier universities. This is the whole basis for “diversity”: a means of perpetuating the racial spoils system when affirmative action had long outlived its need.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:04:43 pm
Only partially, yank. I’m rather more strongly opposed to racial and gender based affirmative action than just about anyone I know, but I do recognize that among those who support diversity, there are certainly individuals who sincerely believe that education and culture suffer so much by having participants be primarily from one gender or ethnic background that it justifies having different standards for different groups, as that still achieves the greater good. You don’t have to accept that argument to recognize that it exists, and thus the whole basis for calls for diversity is not the maintainence of a “spoils system”. That may well be part of it, or even the whole of it for some of the supporters, but it isn’t all of it for the movement as a whole.
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:55:09 pm
DBT, yeah. George Wallace was a lot different after he was shot.
A shame about his brother though. Poor William. ;)
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:40:37 pm
yeah
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:41:17 pm
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:04:16 pm
Naughty Becky !
While William’s heart will always be in his homeland, figuratively, the rest of him was in 4 or more pieces, displayed various places around the country as an example to others who might consider almost-conquering England !
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:32:40 pm
Wow. Absurdly idiotic quotes seem to be coming fast and furious these days.
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:42:18 pm
The Alabama-Georgia state line is the time zone line from Eastern(GA) to Central(AL). When Wallace apologized for his past sins and was re-elected in the eighties there was a funny cartoon in the paper here.
The scene was Interstate 20 westbound out of Georgia. The sign said
Welcome to Alabama, the Beautiful
George Wallace, Governor
You are entering the Central Time Zone
Please set your watch back 20 years
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:59:26 pm
Mike: I’d have more respect for the line of argument that you touch on if it weren’t so tied up in the two worst premises of “identity politics”: that the interests of a group are best (or only) represented by members of that group, and that there is a set of beliefs that accompanies every minority group. By this rationale, the Bush family is not one of the great promoters of minority advancement at the highest chambers of government (Thomas, Powell, Rice, Estrada, Brown, Gonzales) but yet another elite white family with a plantation mentality. And Cubans arebn’t “really” Hispanics because they vote Republican, and sometimes–horrors–they’re black, neither fish nor fowl.
My point is that diversity is a canard. Bring up Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams–no, you’re told, they don’t count.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:09:24 am
My problem isn’t with you refuting the argument you’re targeting, yank. It’s with the use of the absolute, in the way that I almost always object to such things. I find the statements as made to be indicative of the same sort of mentality for which Brendan and I routinely criticize vocal elements of the Left: mainly, not recognizing that people can legitimately disagree with you on political issues for valid reasons. Note that you don’t have to agree with those reasons or those viewpoints to recognize that they are valid; to pick a topic that comes up frequently on this site, while I find his arguments on the subject unpersuasive, I do recognize that David has a legitimate disagreement with me on the subject of abortion–just because I think he’s wrong doesn’t mean that I find his reasons invalid or illegitimate. I have nothing against you attacking any given argument. I do object to blanket statements about the motivations of everyone who holds a given policy position.
It may even be true that the majority of people who call for the need for diversity would make the arguments you’re putting in their mouths, and thus you have some basis for dismissing their views. But it’s just not the case that all would do so, and thus I have issues with your use of the phrase “the whole basis”, when it’s only part–and how large a part is immaterial to the objection I’m raising, as even a single conscientious individual who makes an argument that there’s a true need for racial and gender diversity and who doesn’t dismiss individuals who don’t conform to standard notions of identity politics would negate your statement that the entire basis for calls for diversity is an attempting at maintaining a racial spoils system.
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:52:04 am
Put it this way: I’ll concede that there are compelling arguments to be made in favor of diversity for its own sake, thought I’d disagree with them. My college sits in “Northside,” aka Houston’s ghetto. We’re about to hire a black professor. I can’t but think that this is, on balance, a good thing, and I don’t know (or care) if the woman voted for Lyndon LaRouche.
On the other hand, she’s the best for the job. If i could find a Nordic to do her job better, I’d push for the Nordic.
I object to those who would push for this many X thises for Y many thats. And if I seem a bit absolute, it is not me; in the academic environment everything need be subjugated to race, to identity.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:31:12 am
No, yank; you seem absolute because you are speaking in absolutes, not as an inevitable result of your profession. I’m in academia myself, and I have the same objections to holding people to different standards based upon categories of their birth, but I’m still pretty good about refraining from words like all, none, never, always, whole, entire, etc. when they aren’t really justified. Still, your concession is really what I was after–the recognition that there are arguments to be made for the opposition that are sincere and earnest, even if you think they’re wrong.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:07:31 am
And, Mike, the last word goes to you. Been a pleasure.
May 3rd, 2006 at 5:46:09 pm
Affirmative action is like communism- -the state is supposed to whither away, but instead it becomes a totalitarian, all consuming monolithic structure that eventually collapses from its own weight. Affirmative action has reached critical mass and is coming apart–take a look at Ray Nagin and his affirmative action fueled administration. Great idea to empower the formerly disadvantaged, yeah, until it winds up getting bunches of folks killed because competency wasn’t part of the affirmative action formula.