Please Don't Back Down Mr. President

In my last column, I argued that Trent Lott had sold out the Republican Party by stating his support for affirmative action during a vital time, when the Supreme Court is set to consider a lawsuit against the University of Michigan’s racially-centered admissions process. I was hardly surprised at Lott’s willingness to place himself above the causes conservatives fight for; he is, above all, an unprincipled politician who has made these kinds of cheap concessions before. I never dreamed, however, that I would have to write a column bemoaning the fact that President Bush is considering doing the same thing.

Yes, you heard correctly. Apparently, there is a “developing debate within the administration” over how to handle the lawsuit currently before the Court. Lott’s remarks have, according to sources, bolstered those who are opposed to the government submitting an amicus brief that would unambiguously oppose racial preferences in admissions decisions. Some of President Bush’s strategists feel that to reach out to minorities, particularly African-Americans, they should instead stand mute on the lawsuit, or, God forbid, actually support the University of Michigan.

This calculation, that it would be insensitive to oppose affirmative action in the aftermath of Lott’s comments, is so ridiculous that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, one might think that Republicans disavowed Lott’s comments fully by forcing him, clearly against his will, to step down as Majority Leader. Furthermore, even if favoring affirmative action would be a wise political move for Republicans- and it isn’t, as I’ll explain below- it’s hardly the best way to bring minorities into our party. The goal ought to be to convince minorities that affirmative action is wrong, or at least to convey that opposing it is a principled, respectable position, not convincing them that Republicans believe something that they really do not.

Besides, I resent the notion that opposing Michigan’s policies will hurt Bush in 2004. As I’ve noted in a previous column, Michigan awards 20 points to an applicant simply for being African-American, Hispanic or American Indian. 20 points is, as the Weekly Standard notes, eight more than the number of points awarded for a perfect SAT score. It is also exactly equivalent to the difference between a 4.0 GPA and a 3.0 GPA in Michigan’s points system. Now, certain sects of the population, such as ultraliberal minorities and Cornell’s incoming President, who have internalized all of the silliness of academic discourse- “Race is just one factor of many” “Diversity is a compelling governmental interest” “Race is only used in a narrowly tailored way”- may think that these massive preferences are perfectly fair. But most clear-thinking Americans do not.

Look, barring some epoch-changing series of events, President Bush is going to be reelected in 2004. This is not like his father, whose job-approval ratings shot up to 91 percent during the Gulf War in an artificial measure of support for a President during a time of war, and then quickly plummeted afterward. It’s been more than a year since the U.S. liberated Afghanistan and Bush’s approval rating has been firmly stuck in the high-sixties. On a very basic level, the American people like this President, and feel a personal bond with him, which is probably why his approval rating has stayed solid despite a grim economic outlook. It’s not just me who thinks Bush is essentially invincible in 2004. Al Gore, who has wanted to be President for his entire adult life and probably dreams of revenge against his old rival, is not running precisely for this reason. Hillary Clinton, who polls show would be the favorite in a Democratic primary if she ran for President, is taking a pass until 2008, when she would actually stand a chance of being elected.

In their place, the Democratic candidates are not exactly fear inducing. Joe Lieberman is a credible moderate who has staked out a position to Bush’s right on foreign policy. But they’re not smart enough to nominate him and even if they did, in a general election, his decidedly non-liberal positions- he favors invading Iraq with or without U.N. approval, is a hawk on North Korea, has favored school vouchers and private accounts for Social Security and has even questioned affirmative action- would make it impossible to get the levels of leftist support he would need to win. And the other candidates? John Kerry is a Michael Dukakis doppelganger, one of the most liberal members of the Senate, who thinks that serving in Vietnam absolves him of the need for a coherent foreign policy philosophy. John Edwards is a lightweight who probably wouldn’t even be reelected to the Senate if he doesn’t run for President. Dick Gephardt combines the android qualities of Al Gore, with even less political savvy. Tom Daschle is a whiny little guy who is prone to ridiculous outbursts- remember his rant against Rush after the election- and he annoyed me even when I was a Democrat. Who else is there? Howard Dean? Bob Graham? Al Sharpton!!?? These are the clowns that President Bush is so concerned about, that he would abandon one of the most important conservative goals, just when it is within reach?

Furthermore, I doubt that anything the Bush administration does will curry favor with the race demagogues on the left. Unfortunately, dialogue on race has reached a point in this country where no matter what conservatives do, they are always racist or insensitive. What do I mean by this? Well, conservatives universally denounced Lott’s comments and orchestrated his ouster. The charges on the left were many: Lott had merely exposed the racism of the Republicans, which had previously hid behind code words like states rights and race neutrality. Republicans were hypocrites and disingenuous for getting rid of Lott when they should have taken the opportunity to examine the root causes of Lott’s remarks that are embedded deeply in conservative thought. That this is all a bunch of sanctimonious nonsense is obvious. But more importantly, what would the reaction have been if Republicans had kept Lott as Majority Leader? Much the same. Republicans would have been racists who had no problem keeping a neo-segregationist as their leader. So, you see, in this case, no matter what Republicans did, we could never have escaped the idiocy of the left.

There are plenty of other examples of this. President Bush, in the 2000 campaign, reached out to minority voters in a way that no GOP candidate has in the modern era. The Convention featured several high profile minority speakers. The left’s reaction? These are tokens, a few African-Americans that conservatives are exploiting to hide the true racism of the Republican Party. “Civil Rights Groups” threw their full weight behind Gore and in one of the most disgusting ads in modern political history, the NAACP implied that Bush was somehow culpable for the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas. But what would have been the reaction if the Republicans had not featured numerous minorities at the convention and if President Bush had made no special efforts to reach out to African-American and Hispanic voters? Again, Republicans would have been the evil party of lily-white racists. Since September 11th, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta with President Bush’s approval has absurdly insisted that everyone, from 90-year-old Asian grandmothers to young Arab males receive the same level of scrutiny at airports. It is an ethos that emphasizes political correctness above security. Al Gore was searched recently. President Bush has also intoned numerously that Islam means peace, and in one of many silly politically correct farces, urged American children to find Islamic pen pals in Afghanistan. Yet the reaction has been shrill. We’ve heard constantly about nonexistent racial profiling in airports, reports about an enormous upsurge of hate crimes against Muslims (even though, one year after Islamic fundamentalists murdered 3,000 Americans, the number of anti-Muslim incidences was only half that of anti-Jewish incidences), and about President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft’s insensitivity towards Muslims.

Rest assured, the same principle will apply no matter what action the President takes with respect to the current lawsuit. If he supports the plaintiffs, Jesse Jackson will invoke Dred Scott and the New York Times editors will editorialize that he is building a bridge to the eighteenth century. If the administration abstains, the same accusations will accrue. If he supports the University of Michigan, he will be accused of being disingenuous, of trying to hide the true racism of the GOP and making an effort to make the electorate forget about Trent Lott. So, you see, at some point, Republicans have to understand that no matter what they do, these baseless charges of racism will continue. The way to fight them is standing firmly on principle, and convincing the silent majority of common sense Americans that there is nothing racist about opposing the neo-apartheid system that is in full force at American universities.

President Bush should also understand that while conservatives like myself generally admire the job he has done, we are wary of his increasing tendency to sacrifice principles for political gain. I understand the need to make pragmatic compromises but the disappointments are starting to accumulate- the Ted Kennedy education bill, the steel tariffs, the coddling of Saudi Arabia and other Arab autocracies, the mindless charade of pointless inspections and erosion of America’s diplomatic leverage on Iraq during the last three months. In many respects, the decision President Bush faces with respect to the Michigan lawsuit may define the soul of his presidency. Is he a politician who actually believes in certain fundamental things on which he is willing to spend political capital? Or is he someone, like former President Clinton, that believes that capturing and holding the presidency is an end in and of itself, irrespective of what the office is actually used for? I strongly believe that the answer is the former, not the latter. If President Bush makes decisions based on what he believes, and makes a heartfelt argument to the America people of why racial preferences are inherently wrong, he’ll be successful. During the 2000 campaign he pledged that he would not just blindly follow the advice of analysts and political consultants, but rather, he would lead, as a president should. Conservatives anxiously wait for him to do just that with the lawsuit against the University of Michigan.

I understand the need to make pragmatic compromises but the disappointments are starting to accumulate- the Ted Kennedy education bill, the steel tariffs, the coddling of Saudi Arabia and other Arab autocracies, the mindless charade of pointless inspections and erosion of America’s diplomatic leverage on Iraq during the last three months.

Cornell Review

The really sad thing about this is that it does not matter what the Administration does about this court case, nor does it matter how the judges rule. This has been proven in California, where it has been against the law for years to discriminate in this way, but where they are still doing it anyway. Every so often a Wade Connerly type will initiate a lawsuit to stop the pratice at one institution or another, and after a 36-month song and dance, the court will rule that the University has to stop doing that. But they don't. They chamge the words on the top of the forms so it doesn't say the name of the program that was declared illegal, and then keep right on doing what they were doing. You watch: the same thing will happen here.

I wish someone would start saying that Affirmative Action serves to "baby" blacks. A characterization made more interesting by the fact that it accurately describes what many blacks have been led to want, but refuse to admit to wanting.

As always, the right thing to do morally is the right thing to do politically...at least for those who can see past their nose.

For the Administration to wimp out on this one would be a blunder of monumental proportions.

It is incumbent on us to make sure that those who counsel cowardice and fear on this issue are drowned out by reasoned voices in the GOP.

I'll remain prayerful and hopeful until this is settled one way or the other.

the Ted Kennedy education bill, the steel tariffs, the coddling of Saudi Arabia and other Arab autocracies, the mindless charade of pointless inspections and erosion of America’s diplomatic leverage on Iraq

I give him the Kennedy bill -after all, he proposed vouchers after 3 years. There's plenty of time to get what he wanted. And I give him the diplomatic relations with the Saudis - that's been policy for years, and we can't just abandon it.

But, affirmative action and immigration policy are all his. I'm still crossing my fingers and hoping he will get that.

The proof of what you say is in the pudding here at university of Texas. They are already under the Hopwood ruling, they have had a Texas AG tell them race cannot be used as a determinant factor, etc., but they still desperately find ways to invent excuses for preferences. The administrations are these colleges are through-going quota-queens.

OTOH, Hopwood did make a difference, and so will outlawing quotas nationwide.

This makes two rumors regarding Bush I have heard today, the other being his plan to gut his ten year tax break. Ah well, at least it won't be long until the facts out themselves.

During the 2000 campaign he pledged that he would not just blindly follow the advice of analysts and political consultants, but rather, he would lead, as a president should.

..........

And I will make the most of it. I believe great decisions are made with care, made with conviction, not made with polls.

I do not need to take your pulse before I know my own mind. I do not reinvent myself at every turn. I am not running in borrowed clothes. When I act, you will know my reasons ... When I speak, you will know my heart.

SNIP

Big government is not the answer. But the alternative to bureaucracy is not indifference.

It is to put conservative values and conservative ideas into the thick of the fight for justice and opportunity.

George W

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.