Barack Obama once admitted that he had benefited from affirmative action programs.
If you, however, dare to say that he benefited from affirmative action programs, you are going to be accused of being a racist.
The election campaign is gearing up, and one of its least savory sides is the implication that if you do not believe that Obama is a great president and a towering intellect, even to the point of being too smart for the job, then you must be a racist.
How can you prove to the world that you are not a racist? You can vote for Obama.
It’s a form of psychological manipulation. It worked before, so why wouldn‘t its practitioners try it again?
But that is not the salient point about affirmative action programs. For that we turn to Mickey Kaus, who probably leans more left than right, and who certainly does not come to us from the political fringes. Link here.
Posting about the controversy, Kaus wrote: “The biggest problem with race preferences is that they taint the achievements, not just of those who benefit from them, but of everyone in the beneficiary group–even those who would have gotten into the college or gotten the job, etc., without the preference. That is an unfairness Obama may acutely feel. Race preferences are a big reason blacks feel they have to be twice as good as everyone else to measure up in society’s eyes–which is a powerful argument for ending the preferences.”
In all fairness, I believe that this argument was first proposed by Shelby Steele in his book: The Content of Our Character.