Saturday, January 19, 2008
Why Obama? Why Clinton?
I am a fan of John Edwards. I thought in 2004 that the Democrats would have done better to have had Edwards rather than Kerry at the head of the ticket. He was a better campaigner than Kerry and he had the correct answer to the question, "If you had known then what you know now, would you have voted in favor of the war resolution?" As you may recall, Kerry's answer to that question was "Yes." Edwards' answer was "No." As one who believes that Edwards would have beaten Bush in the election of 2004, I find it incomprehensible that he is not leading in the polls among Democrats. Instead, Democrats this year favor either a woman (Mrs. Clinton) or an African-American (Mr. Obama). Apparently the thinking is that any Democrat can win and the Party doesn't need the special qualities and talents of Mr. Edwards.
Why? In spite of what Ward Connerly thinks, we have a lot of racial prejudice to overcome or at least to live down. We have a lot of prejudice against women in high political office to get rid of. The average woman or African-American who has experienced prejudice and discrimination and still feels that he or she is experiencing it today looks at the possibility of a woman or an African-American as President as a powerful incentive for those individuals who make hiring decisions to see such a President as proof that his or her subconscious feelings that blacks or women should not be put in important jobs are not justified. It is this hidden, subconscious prejudice that still stands in the way of women or blacks receiving promotions that white men take for granted.
Hence, one can argue that electing a black President will do more than all the antidiscriminati0n legislation and all the affirmative action to get rid of this hidden, subconscious prejudice. The same applies to electing a woman to get rid of subconscious prejudice against women.
So, what is more important? Is it more important that the next President appoint "liberal" judges to the federal courts to restore some sort of balance to our system of justice or that the next President serve as an example of the wrongness of subcouscious prejudice? If you are a woman or a black man in a job situation where white men are routinely promoted and you are left behind, you probably value a promotion more than a liberal federal judicial appointment.
I will still vote for John Edwards. I want single-payer universal health coverage and liberal judicial appointments. I am retired and don't have to worry about whether I am going to be promoted next year. However, I suspect that the Democratic nominee will turn out to be either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.
I won't even make a wild guess as to whom the Republicans will nominate.
Why? In spite of what Ward Connerly thinks, we have a lot of racial prejudice to overcome or at least to live down. We have a lot of prejudice against women in high political office to get rid of. The average woman or African-American who has experienced prejudice and discrimination and still feels that he or she is experiencing it today looks at the possibility of a woman or an African-American as President as a powerful incentive for those individuals who make hiring decisions to see such a President as proof that his or her subconscious feelings that blacks or women should not be put in important jobs are not justified. It is this hidden, subconscious prejudice that still stands in the way of women or blacks receiving promotions that white men take for granted.
Hence, one can argue that electing a black President will do more than all the antidiscriminati0n legislation and all the affirmative action to get rid of this hidden, subconscious prejudice. The same applies to electing a woman to get rid of subconscious prejudice against women.
So, what is more important? Is it more important that the next President appoint "liberal" judges to the federal courts to restore some sort of balance to our system of justice or that the next President serve as an example of the wrongness of subcouscious prejudice? If you are a woman or a black man in a job situation where white men are routinely promoted and you are left behind, you probably value a promotion more than a liberal federal judicial appointment.
I will still vote for John Edwards. I want single-payer universal health coverage and liberal judicial appointments. I am retired and don't have to worry about whether I am going to be promoted next year. However, I suspect that the Democratic nominee will turn out to be either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.
I won't even make a wild guess as to whom the Republicans will nominate.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, judicial appointments, single-payer, subconscious prejudice, Ward Connerly
Ward Connerly's Solution
Comic strips in the daily newspapers sometimes unwittingly pose comments on political developments. An example struck me today. On the front page of the Los Angeles Times is a story about Ward Connerly's crusade to eliminate all forms of affirmative action by States. An initiative to this end was enacted a few years ago here in California. This year initiatives to ban any action by governments to remedy past discrimination based on race will be on the ballot in several States. Opponents of these measures concede that defeating them will be difficult or impossible.
At the same time, in the Comics section of the newspapter, the character Danae in the strip Non Sequitur, has found her own way of dealing with problems. He solution is to surround herself with a "Shut Up Zone." With this zone in effect she no longer has to be concerned about her father criticizing her for a bad report card, for not cleaning up her room, etc. The problems simply go away if people are not allowed to talk about them.
Ward Connerly believes that the problems of racial prejudice and discrimination will simply disappear if we stop talking about doing something to remedy them. His initiatives would prevent governments from gathering data relating to current practices of racial prejudice and discrimination. There would be no available information; therefore, nothing to talk about. We must simply shut up.
The American Public does not know how pervasive past measures that discriminated against blacks were. For example, when Social Security was enacted in 1936 Southern members of Congress insisted that the plan should not include agricultural workers. In the South, most negroes were agricultural workers and they had to be kept in their place.
At the same time, in the Comics section of the newspapter, the character Danae in the strip Non Sequitur, has found her own way of dealing with problems. He solution is to surround herself with a "Shut Up Zone." With this zone in effect she no longer has to be concerned about her father criticizing her for a bad report card, for not cleaning up her room, etc. The problems simply go away if people are not allowed to talk about them.
Ward Connerly believes that the problems of racial prejudice and discrimination will simply disappear if we stop talking about doing something to remedy them. His initiatives would prevent governments from gathering data relating to current practices of racial prejudice and discrimination. There would be no available information; therefore, nothing to talk about. We must simply shut up.
The American Public does not know how pervasive past measures that discriminated against blacks were. For example, when Social Security was enacted in 1936 Southern members of Congress insisted that the plan should not include agricultural workers. In the South, most negroes were agricultural workers and they had to be kept in their place.
Labels: affirmative action, pervasive discrimination against blacks, social security, the "Shut Up" Zone, Ward Connerly
