By Selwyn
Duke

In a way, I
prefer the old, overt affirmative action. While it was government-sanctioned
discrimination, at least it was, in some measure, more honest than our cultural
affirmative action. There is such a thing. It’s when people in the market and
media privilege others – sometimes unconsciously – based upon the latter’s
identification with a “victim group.”

This phenomenon
is what Geraldine Ferraro referred to recently when she addressed Barack
Obama’s meteoric political rise and said, “If Obama was a white man, he would
not be in this position.” Pundits have condemned her for this unfashionable
utterance, but it’s no insight. It’s a truth hiding in plain sight.

What do you
think Bill Clinton was referring to when he said that he wanted his cabinet to
“look like America,” meritocracy or quota orthodoxy? Yet Clinton isn’t alone;
he merely gave voice to common practice. Would Condoleezza Rice have been
appointed Secretary of State and Joycelyn Elders (the poster girl for AA)
Surgeon General if they weren’t black women? Would Ruth Bader Ginsberg and
Sandra Day O’Connor have ascended to the Supreme Court and Janet Reno been
Attorney General if they weren’t female? And, as Ferraro noted herself, she
would never have been the 1984 vice-presidential candidate but for her
fairer-sex status.

Cultural
affirmative action manifests itself in all arenas, not just politics. A perfect
example is Michelle Wie, the female golfer who set her sights on tackling the
men’s tour. Based mainly on braggadocio and a fawning media bent on portraying
her as an Amazon golfer who would teach the boys a lesson or two, she was
granted entry into numerous PGA tournaments, even though untold numbers of male
golfers were more deserving. Of course, some will point out that she is quite gifted.
Others will say that the market spoke.

That is my
point.

Sure, Wie is
no duffer, just as the other folks I mentioned have their talents; Ginsberg,
O’Connor and Reno know how to negotiate the law, Rice and Ferraro understand politics
and Elders can provide comic relief. Yet ability wasn’t the factor most
relevant to their rise. As for the market, that is precisely the entity that
effects cultural affirmative action. People glommed onto Wie at least partially
because they believe that breaking down sex barriers is healthy and that her
success would have represented another step forward in female/male equality. Cognizant
of this “market,” politicians, media outlets, and others know that if their
hires and appointees don’t “look like America,” America – or at least its
squeakiest wheels – will look at them with suspicion.

As for
Obama, I personally know of a white man in Illinois who supports him because, as
this fellow put it, “I always wanted to see one [a black man or a woman] in the
White House.” Moreover, the idea that his race is an asset is so true that even
the scoffers sometimes unwittingly affirm it. Writing at MercuryNews.com, Ruben Navarrette characterized
Ferraro’s comments as “bitter, envious and foolish” and wrote,

“As
Republican strategist and CNN contributor Leslie Sanchez noted, it takes
chutzpah for someone who herself benefited from the politics of gender to
accuse someone else of benefiting from the politics of race.”

Note that
Sanchez did not say that Ferraro was wrong;
she simply implied it was hypocritical for her to level such an accusation. As
for Navarrette, his argument seems to be that Obama cannot be benefitting from
cultural affirmative action because, after all, Ferraro also benefitted from
it. Striking logic, good man. Besides, were this 1984, I can just imagine him
spinning like a dervish while claiming that Ferraro’s sex wasn’t the sole
reason she garnered the vice-presidential slot.

Yet denial
of the obvious isn’t uncommon. I heard both Bill O’Reilly and Dick Morris
(whose predictions usually don’t match the reliability of a weather forecast)
both dismiss Ferraro’s assertion. How can politics wonks be so blind? Or is it
that they will not see?

It depends
on the individual. Some people are so imbued with leftist orthodoxy that they
interpret everything through the black=oppressed/white=privileged prism and
divide their world into victims and victimizers. By their lights, the idea that
a social phenomenon could benefit the former is too preposterous to consider.

But then, to
paraphrase George Orwell, in every age there is a big, uncomfortable truth that
no one dares mention. In many cases, this simply means lying, paying homage to
the dogma of the day so as to avoid becoming anathema. Yet in other cases the
lie takes a more subtle form.

Discerning
an unfashionable truth presents one with a dilemma. He either must profess it,
which can mean career destruction and ostracism – being loathed by others – or
he can refuse to do so, which, if he is sincere of heart, can mean he will
loathe himself. In other words, if he withholds it, he may feel like a phony;
worse still, if asked about it, he may feel compelled to lie. The latter especially makes it hard to like yourself.

So many
choose a different route: They lie to themselves.
It isn’t difficult; all that is necessary is to deny the matter its day in your
mind’s court. If you simply refuse to examine all the relevant facts – if you
avoid searching for the truth – there is little danger of finding it. It’s that
famous human ability known as rationalization.

So perhaps
you thought affirmative action was in its death throes, with all the state
referenda and court rulings against it. But don’t be surprised, as
government-mandated affirmative action is no longer necessary.

We have the
cultural variety.

As for me, I
don’t care whether or not a team looks like America. I just want it to look like
the best.

 Protected by Copyright