Colorblind Equality: A Winning Issue for McCain?
Does John McCain really want to win? His failure to come out forcefully for colorblind equality suggests that he might not, and that even if he does, he won’t.
National polls have consistently shown that substantial majorities oppose preferential treatment based on race. In five polls from 1977 through 1991, Gallup found that at no time did support for preferential treatment exceed 11%. Recent polls continue to find strong majority opposition.
• An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Jan. 2003, found that 65% opposed and 26% favored the “use [of] race as one of the factors in admissions to increase diversity” in colleges.
• A Gallup poll, June 2003, found that 69% of all respondents (75% of whites; 59% of Hispanics; 44% of blacks) opposed allowing race and ethnicity to be considered “to help promote diversity on college campuses.”
• A Newsweek poll, July 2007, found that 82% of all adults (86% of whites, 75% of non-whites) disapproved of allowing race to be considered “as a factor in making decisions about employment and education.”
• A Quinnipiac University poll, Aug. 2007, found that 71% agreed and 24% disagreed with the recent Supreme Court ruling “that public schools may not consider an individual’s race when deciding which students are assigned to specific schools.”
• A Newsweek poll, May 2008, found that 72% disapprove and 21% approve of “giving preferences to blacks and other minorities in things like hirings, promotions, and college admissions.”
Nor is it necessary to rely on opinion surveys to plumb the depths of popular opposition to racial preferences. In the three states where voters have been given an opportunity to vote race preferences up or down — California, Washington, and most recently Michigan, all solid blue, liberal states — they have voted to write the “without regard” principle of colorblind equality into their state constitutions by substantial majorities.
Despite some rhetorical flourishes (more like feints) promising a new politics that would transcend race, Obama has never wavered (no flip-flop here!) in his support for policies that benefit some and burden others based on their race or ethnicity. In 2006 he even made an ad urging Michigan voters to oppose the principle of colorblind equality — fortunately to no avail: the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) passed with 58% of the vote, even as the Democratic candidates for governor and senator won landslide victories.
Indeed, in a lesson McCain and the Republican establishment apparently still haven’t learned, the only Republican candidate for statewide office who won in Michigan in 2006 was Mike Cox, who was re-elected attorney general. It is no coincidence (though it also is no doubt not the sole explanation of his victory) that Cox was the only Republican candidate who supported MCRI.
And Michigan may well be a bellwether in the coming election. In his highly regarded political newsletter, Stuart Rothenberg writes that the five states that will determine who is the next president are Michigan, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, and Nevada.
Whatever his preferences, McCain will not be able to avoid taking a stand for or against colorblind equality much longer, if for no other reason than a Colorado civil rights initiative, virtually identical to the proposals that passed in California, Washington, and Michigan, will be on the ballot there next fall and will be hotly contested. Similar initiatives will also be on the ballot in Nebraska and McCain’s home state of Arizona, where he has also dodged the issue so far. (Democrats and liberal interest groups succeeded in depriving voters in Missouri and Oklahoma of the opportunity to vote on similar proposals this year.)
I’m not sure why Republicans remain so fearful of allying themselves with a popular principle that is so fundamental. Gunnar Myrdal and others have called it “The American Creed.” Could McCain, who showed undaunted courage in standing up to the torturers in Hanoi, really be afraid of being called a racist by the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Is he intimidated by the prospect of a cover of the New Yorker depicting him in Klan garb?
Whatever the reason, I believe a strong, principled, unequivocal statement by McCain supporting the core value of colorblind equality would go a long way toward energizing his now lethargic base, securing victory in the crucial states of Colorado, Virginia, and Michigan, and strengthen his campaign almost everywhere else, except perhaps New York, California, and Illinois — and maybe even in those states. He’s not going to win any more black votes by refusing to endorse the principle of colorblind equality, and may even lose a few.
If a moderate, likable Republican strongly supporting colorblind equality, and thus opposing race preferences, can’t win Michigan, Virginia, and Colorado running against a fancy-talking but empty-suit liberal Democrat who supports race preferences, then he should fold up his tent now and go home.
About the only consolation I can see in McCain failing to come out strongly for colorblind equality is that if he loses I won’t be as disappointed as I otherwise would be.
“Indeed, in a lesson McCain and the Republican establishment apparently still haven’t learned,…”
Well, the motto of the Republican Establishment is proudly “Still Haven’t Learned”.
Yes, being a Michigander, Republican GOP candidate Dick DeVos was all wrong for a number of reasons and his opposition to the MCRI was a giveaway that the guy’s an elitist and not representative, nor supportive of the concerns of the GOP base in Michigan.
If you’re not willing to fight against government racial discrimination against me and mine, what good are you?
Johm McCan is indeed intimidated regarding racial matters. To be blunt, he is the typical guilt tripped white dude. This peculiar phenomenon may be the greatest threat to the very survival of Western Civilization. The intellectually shallow Barack “Barry” Obama has taken full advantage of this madness. His whole presidential campaign revolves around white guilt.
if McCain REALY wants to win
which i doubt very much
he must, yes MUST AGGRESSIVELY promote and EXPLAIN to public this:
————–
from Gal Luft yesterday’s testimony to US Senate
————–
Methanol
True flex fuel cars should also accommodate another important fuel called methanol. China has embraced this alcohol fuel. Several provinces in China already blend their gasoline with methanol and scores of methanol plants are currently under construction there. The
Chinese auto industry has already begun to produce flex-fuel models that can run on methanol. Methanol packs less energy per gallon and is more corrosive than ethanol. But it is cheaper and far easier to produce in bulk. While ethanol can be made only from agricultural products such as corn and sugar cane, methanol can be made from agricultural waste, natural gas, coal, industrial garbage and even recycled carbon dioxide captured from power stations’ smokestacks — an elegant way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Electricity
Since we hardly generate any electricity from oil, using electricity as a transportation fuel enables the full spectrum of electricity sources to compete with petroleum. Plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) can reach oil economy levels of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline without compromising the size, safety, or power of a vehicle. If a PHEV is also a flexiblefuel vehicle powered by 85 percent alcohol and 15 percent gasoline, oil economy could reach over 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. Ideally, plug-in hybrids would be charged at night in home or apartment garages, when electric utilities have significant reserve capacity.
The Department of Energy estimates that over 70 percent of the U.S. vehicle market could shift to plug-in hybrids without needing to install additional baseload electricity-generating capacity. In addition, the U.S. is the world’s biggest potential market for electric cars which can be sold as second or third family car. Thirty one percent of America’s households own two cars and additional 35% own three or more vehicles. There are over 75 million households in the US that own more than one vehicle and that can potentially replace one or more gasoline only cars with cars powered with made-in-America electricity.
A nationwide deployment of flex-fuel cars, flex fuel plug-in hybrids, and alternative fuels could take place within two decades. But such a transformation will not occur by itself. Every year that passes without Congressional action to ensure that new cars sold in America are flex fuel vehicles is another year in which 16 million gasoline-only cars start their 17-year life on U.S. roads, further binding us to foreign oil. On the grounds of national security and in the interest of stemming the hemorrhaging of our economy, Congress should take swift action to require that new vehicles sold in the United States are flexible fuel vehicles through an Open Fuel Standard.
Such an Open Fuel Standard would level the playing field and promote free competition among diverse energy suppliers. A few years ago Congress passed an open standard for television mandating that as of February 2009 every television sold in the U.S. must be digital enabled. Further, Congress allocated coupons in the amount of $80 per household to allow Americans to convert their analog TV to digital transmission. One would hope we consider our transportation sector at least as strategic as television watching. I realize that many are opposed to any government interference in the market. Indeed, in a perfect world, government would not need to intervene in the energy market, but in a time of war, the United States is taking an unacceptable risk by leaving the problem to be solved by the invisible hand. This is especially true since the energy market is anything but free. It is manipulated by a cartel, heavily rigged in favor of the status quo, and, as the case of the ethanol tariff shows, riddled with protectionism.
Choosing not to embrace an Open Fuel Standard, is choosing to preserve oil’s monopoly in the transportation sector, and with it OPEC’s growing stranglehold over the global economy and in essence guaranteeing continuous economic and strategic decline.
—————-
more details here
http://xyu.livejournal.com/662249.html
http://xyu.livejournal.com/661921.html
http://xyu.livejournal.com/661759.html
This is so obvious. McCain, like so many of his white gentile colleagues doesn’t have the brains, the courage or the integrity to speak the truth about race
This is a lose lose situation for McCain. He will gain no new support and alienate more blacks and swing voters, as well as leaving himself open to the usual racism or insensitivity charges. It’s just not an important issue for the US to go around and stir up a hornet’s nest is folly. McCain would do best by speaking softly on this. Only in right wing blog land would this score any points and they are all voting for him anyways.
I think Javelin is largely right. Although some people who it would score points with are NOT voting for McCain, because of his support for bringing cheap Mexican labor soon to a town near you, and because of his support for endless imperialism the world over.
P.C. Is the most dangerous thing facing this country nobody and I mean NOBODY really wants to discuss race realistically. It all seems to be a diatrade about black grievance’s wile ignoring inconvenient facts, like dropout rates, Fatherless children, disproportionate crime and violence and screaming racism every time somebody disagrees with them and never including other races in the discussion.
When the N word is classified as a term of endearment for blacks and off limits for whites I get an idea of how racial reconciliation will work in this country. There is no room for reasonable people only persons of color who can use it to advance victim agenda. McCain should stay clear of this and let the voters decide in Novemmber. Polls have shown what people who are not afraid of being labeled a racist think of racial preferences. I have conceded that regardless of what my efforts are I will be labeled a racist if I do not pull the lever for the great gaffesby in November, I will just have to wear that label.
P.C. is an ENEMY strategy to legitimize ALL BAD AND RUINING TENDENCIES in American society, to help spreading
perversions that cut population growth
illegal immigration that creates 5th column of enemy inside our borders
makes us helpless in confronting anything that goes bad
gives a support to ANY destructfull behavior or sabotage
if someone is doing bad things there should be no cover for him either in his minority status or sexual deviancy or educational backwardness or anything else
they must be brought to justice and dealt with
Oh come on, get a grip! These people fulmininating about PC are just as silly and bombastic as the PC folks themselves. Yes, PC is going to destroy America by legitimizing a race war against white christians and enabling our enemies, right?? Talk about paranoia!
Javelin:
PC is geared to take away your identity
a must watch to understand WHY
http://wms3.streamhoster.com/seanruiz/WMC/08-0714_Sharansky.wmv