Obama’s Presidency and the End of Affirmative Action?


Michigan Affirmative ActionFor many of us, Barack Obama’s presidency has been anything but an occasion for rejoicing.  From its beginnings to the present, and particularly during the last couple of months with the eruption of one scandal after the other, it has been like a dark cloud hanging over the nation’s head.

Still, this dark cloud does indeed have a silver lining.

Five years ago, Obama and his supporters (on both the left and right) assured the country that his election promised to alleviate interracial tensions.  Most people bought this line.  Some of us, though, knew that it was just that—a line.   Moreover, we knew that not only would race relations not improve, they would actually worsen as the usual suspects in the Racism Industrial Complex (RIC), ever fearful that a black president would undermine their heretofore tried and true narrative of perpetual white oppression and black suffering, accelerated their cries of “racism.”

On the other hand, some of us also knew that RIC agents’ fears were not unfounded.  For however frequently and loudly they screamed “racism,” the presence of a black president—and a black president with the name of Barack Hussein Obama, to boot—could very well, eventually, suck the life out of their template.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken last week suggests that maybe, just maybe, this is beginning to occur.

The poll found that the public’s support for affirmative action is at an all-time low. 

Forty-five percent of respondents maintain that this race-centered preferential treatment policy is still necessary in order to protect racial minorities.  But, for the first time, an equal number of people think that it is unjust inasmuch as it discriminates against whites.

The significance of this can’t be overstated.  Two decades ago, 61 percent of Americans supported affirmative action.

Predictably, race and politics remain reliable indicators of where one comes down on this issue.  Opposition to affirmative action stems from nearly 60 percent of whites, 40 percent of Hispanics, and 20 percent of blacks. Sixty-seven percent of Democrats support it, versus just 22 percent of Republicans and 17 percent of self-identified members of the Tea Party who do so.  Independents support affirmative action by just 39 percent.

As NBC News’ Domenico Mantanaro writes, this historically low support for affirmative action is attributable to several things, including “diversity fatigue” and “20 years of anti-affirmative-action campaigns.”  Yet, he adds, it is also explained as a result of “an African-American being elected president [.]”

Whether Obama’s presidency is just one cause among others or a primary contributor to the erosion of support for affirmative action is neither here nor there.  Any extent to which the Obama presidency accounts for this phenomenon almost makes his time in the Oval office worth it, for there are few policies as inimical to our constitutional order as affirmative action.

The liberty that Americans have always prized and that our Founders did their best to codify in and secure by way of the Constitution did not fall like manna from heaven.  It is the product of many generations, a complex of historically and culturally-specific habits, including and especially the habit of despising large concentrations of power.  This last found its penultimate expression in respect for the rule of law.

The rule of law prevents those in government from succumbing to arbitrary—i.e. unlawful—deployments of power at their disposal.  In other words, it forbids them from acting partially, whether in their own interests or those of a class.  It requires of the government that it refrain from privileging some citizens above others.

The rule of law precludes affirmative action.

Reporting on the results of the NBC/WSJ poll, Domenico Mantanaro says that respondents who reject affirmative action reject it on the grounds that such “programs unfairly discriminate against whites.”  They are mistaken.  Affirmative action deserves to be rejected, certainly, but not because it is either discriminatory or discriminatory against whites.

Affirmative action needs to be abolished because it is government discrimination against some citizens in favor of others.

As such, it is an affront to the liberty of all citizens.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama’s color wound up actually harming his cause by facilitating the end of affirmative action and the restoration of some measure of liberty?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Lionel Mandrake

    Am I the only one shocked and depressed by the matter of fact ho-hum news yesterday that “non-Hispanic” whites NOW make up just 63% of the US population??

    In 2980, whites, yes, we were actually called “whites”, not “non-Hispanic whites”, were 80 some odd percent of the pop.

    Well, good. Lets legalize 30+ million more Hispanics plus millions of Moslems, Chinese inter-stellar space travelers, and kill ourselves off already.

    • JVR

      The 63% figure you quote is not really of significance.

      What is of significance is the percentages of people under 20 years old.

      With each election cycle, the proportion of white voters decline by about 3%. It was 75% in 2008, 72% in 2012, will be 69% in 2016 (do you want to bet that a Democrat will win the WH in 2016?), and so on.

      It is because of this that AA is a permanent fixture of American Life. It may be repealed by a red Congress (it will be harder in the Senate), but it will remain a fact of life because non-white voters have absolutely no reason to oppose it. Any politician voting for aboshing it will surely face stiff opposition.

      For the future of AA you should expect an intensification in the direction seen in South Africa — where no whites are hired OR promoted. The law even determines that white businesses MUST give a majority of their assets to black partners (usually ANC men), on pain of being denied contracts.

      This will be coming to America. The language in which it will be couched will be velvet, but the bite will be real.

      If you seek to blame someone for the very idea and implementation of AA, then you should seek no further than (white) limousine liberals. They did it, together with feminists to their own sons and brothers.

      Talk about a betrayal.

      • Judahlevi

        It doesn’t matter what ‘skin color’ is dominant in the future demographics of the country. Only collectivists worry about skin color, not individualists. Democrats count people by skin color, Republicans never should.

        It is more important the values that these individuals have than their skin color, gender, or any other superficial exterior appearance. What most of us are most concerned with is their minds, not their bodies.

        http://centerforindividualism.wordpress.com

        • chicagorefugee

          So, your advice is unilateral disarmament? We should allow people who openly harbor racial resentments against us to turn us into a minority in our own country? Do you also think Israel is required to allow Palestinians the right of return? Because there is much more justification for that than for this insanity.

  • leon johnson

    This evil place gave affirmative action to every other race but Blacks,even illegals.So it didn’t help blacks at all..Just be fair,and do right by all races, But You can’t,you are to EVIL…

    • dizzyizzy

      That is the voice of black nationalism and rage. Some white liberals felt guilty for enabling racism, and sought some kind of reparations for blacks, while others opportunistically established black studies departments, yielding to the calls made louder and scarier by the urban riots of the 1960s. See http://clarespark.com/2010/07/18/white-elite-enabling-of-black-power/. “White enabling of black power.” I don’t blame Leon Johnson for his anger, but our entire society that was either okay with the oppression of black people or found pseudo-remedies that did nothing to help them.

    • Drakken

      Since you hate whitey so much, I am sure that you would be much happier and more productive back in Afrika enjoying the fact that whitey isn’t there, well except the ones in SA trying to escape the ANC.

      • leon johnson

        HEY drakken,learn how to read,No where in my comment,mention hate,evil yes,God LOVES EVERYBODY,I do too,But He hates the things you do outside of Him,I do too.Your evilness turns on your self.Reap evil,Sow evil.

        • Drakken

          So whitey in your eyes are evil? Are your effing kidding me?

  • RogerDane

    Mindless electorate will ‘forget what they believe’ in 48 hours.

  • dizzyizzy

    The other comments are worried about “race suicide” as Theodore Roosevelt called it. I am more worried about our education system, which is controlled by teachers unions and directives from the federal Department of Education. The appropriate response to fears of being outnumbered is to educate everyone properly for life in the modern world.

    • Lionel Mandrake

      How do you edumakate he uneducationable?

      • dizzyizzy

        How do you know they are uneducationable? You think only “white people” have brains?

        • Lionel Mandrake

          Shut up dummy.

      • MarilynA

        You don’t. You just don’t teach any one anything except tolerance, acceptance of aberrant sexual behavior, and how to get along with others in a diverse society without making judgments about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Discrimination was once considered a test of character. Today it’s a sign that you are a bigot or racist.

    • MarilynA

      In the name of Economic and Social Justice, now nobody is taught any more than the dumbest students can learn. That is the end result of affirmative action and other race based policies designed to elevate everyone to the same level playing field. Now, those who can’t achieve will have an equal chance since those who can learn won’t know any more than they do.

  • logdon

    Looking at those posters, ‘Defend affirmative action and integration’, surely this has to be the most ludicrous non sequitur these idiots can come up with.

    Integration was based upon equality, non bias and a colourblind attitude towards all American citizens.

    Not some.

    Not a chosen few, or for that matter, a chosen many.

    All means all, irrespective of colour, race or religion.

    So can anyone tell me where affirmative action plays any part in this.

    Is it affirmative action for all, irrespective of colour, race or religion?

    Nope, that would be self defeating by its own definition. Affirmees would be placed in the same homogenous pot as the non affirmees and the whole caboodle thus rendered null and void.

    So if it’s not that opportunity for all, there must then winners and losers. In this case the winners would be black and the losers, white.

    And that’s integration? Setting up one group as somehow more worthy than the other, based upon colour?

    Isn’t that what MLK and his cohorts wanted to defeat?

    I’d call it blatant racism. There is no other logical explanation.

    It is separation and the definition of separation is the very opposite of integration.

    These people are insane.

  • onecornpone

    Recent musings of a serious observer of electoral demographics in Texas found that while ‘minority’ voters strongly identify with similar people, non-minorities identify most strongly with geographical place.

  • Mekus Milkdud

    the problem is affirmative action only really helps blacks, it does not help the real minorities, Asians and it will never help whites even though in many communities whites are now the minority. blacks will never give up anything that supports them even if they have 80 or more percent of the pop in a given area.

    • chicagorefugee

      Women and “minorities” are vastly over-represented in the federal bureaucracy – and still they press for more!

  • kafirman

    Great article. Discrimination is the sign of intelligence. Eat good food. Entertain the great ideas. Government should not be interested intelligent enterprises per se and not in equalizing outcomes. Rather Government’s legitimate interest lies in 1. Securing unalienable rights for all citizens and 2. treating the citizenry equitably under law.

  • Moliminous

    Do your homework! What’s the difference between affirmative action and the Dred Scott decision?

  • okokok