Grab and Keel

Why is “Affirmative Action” one of the touchstones of this election? This counter discriminatory tool is but one of many federal programs enacted in the middle of the last century. Wikipedia offers the following definition of the program:

[The term affirmative action describes policies aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all racial groups) intended to promote its access to education or employment. Motivation for affirmative action is a desire to redress effects of actual or perceived, past or current discrimination that is regarded as unfair. [Who?] It also serves to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population].

Perhaps it seems out of date to talk about affirmative action. Further, to discuss affirmative active in the context of it’s gender benefit to Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, ageism benefit to John McCain, or it’s race benefit to Barack Obama seems at odds with what we know of their upbringing. However, Affirmative Action is a national program generated by our citizens. Our shared history is the lens by which we view the upcoming election as achievement of the most difficult job hire.  By the same token, these people were not raised in a vacuum.

Jesse Jackson Sr. said this in June, regarding his 1984 presidential race, HERE:

[Sprengelmeyer-Q: Did you believe, sir? You know in 1984 – that’s something I’ve been waiting to ask you this whole time. In 1984, when the farmer said, “We might not be there yet. We might not be ready yet.” Did you believe that the country was ready at that time, or did you know there was a ceiling?

JACKSON: It was getting ready. It was a cultural ceiling. I mean, the idea . . . There were big articles, should a black run? Could a black run? If a black ran would it just take away votes from the liberal of the party? There were blacks and progressives arguing, and women and labor arguing, a black in the race gets in the way of our paradigm. There were all these . . . It shook up the process. I mean you had labor, that normally would have give their votes to a given candidate, now there were some in labor that said we want X. Others want Y. So labor had to make an adjustment. Women’s groups were kind of pro-civil rights. They said we’re civil rights but we’re not . . . it’s a dilemma. You had all these dynamics, so I made the case, reaching out, and said, “Well, if a woman can guide India, Indira Gandhi, if a woman can guide Israel, Golda Meir, if a woman can guide Britain, Thatcher, why shouldn’t a woman be on the ticket?” Even women who didn’t support my campaign, they liked that idea. They heard that message. Ferraro ends up being on the campaign. Some would think because we got 3 million votes, for fear I would demand to be on the ticket. They put a woman on the ticket. It was a victory for our struggle because opening up, removing gender and race barriers was our mission in the first place. During that process we put on 2 million new voters, we learned how to run a national campaign. We got some sense of the culture of Iowa and New Hampshire. New Hampshire . . . We learned to relate up those hills of New Hampshire and those fields of Iowa, and we were on the stage debating.]

The point is that the offices of President and Vice President are but jobs, briefly held. They are acquired by the most ruthless of job interviews, the election process. That we have cracked this ceiling, by gender, or again by age, or by race, is a sign of success of the anti discriminatory efficacy of the Affirmative Action programs we employed years ago. The breaking of this barrier, however, represents only another signpost on the journey. Without doubt the people who have made it this far in their job search are truly special, but they have had our nation’s evolution on their side. It will take many more souls to travel this path, before it’s width truly encompasses all.

Confusion arises however, when we try to conflate affirmative action, a tenet or tool of anti-discrimination, with a broader philosophy. It does not necessarily follow that job success by the previously discriminated will lead them to promote all minority politics or feminism. So, we should not expect that the first possible woman VPOTUS will necessarily align herself with all aspects of feminism. At the same time, the first possible biracial POTUS does not appear to support all aspects of minority politics.

Wikipedia says that feminism is:

[Feminism has altered predominant perspectives in a wide range of areas within Western society, ranging from culture to law. Feminist activists have campaigned for women’s legal rights (rights of contract, property rights, voting rights); for women’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination.]

We know really do know the difference between affirmative action and the final end of discrimination. We just hoped there was going to be a shortcut in the war we have been fighting so many years. Some liberals are finally getting the point, as in this excerpt from Bill Moyer’s Journal on PBS:

[KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: It was electric in the sense of the history, a sense of who Obama is standing on the shoulders of those who have mobilized and moved this country. The great civilizing advances of our time have come from the social movements, the women’s movement, civil rights movement, the labor movement. So that was exciting.

And I think that it opened up in what he spoke to. The energy from below that can push him to fulfill some of what he spoke about, because he did lay out a populist speech. But he didn’t speak to the central issue, it seemed to me, which is the role of government. He danced around it, even though he did speak in sharp, populist terms. Country is open to a stronger government role, if he doesn’t feel yet, the pressure that has to come from people in pain from below, to speak to that as clearly as he might.]

Adolph Reed is right, when he says that we must do the work. No matter who gets into office, we will have to force the changes ourselves. We are spinning in the vortex, on our way to the drain, we have been pulled too far to the right. Some of us must go down and put the plug in.  Just another reason to be a PUMA.

Sitting This One Out

BY ADOLPH L. REED JR.

NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE

[To be clear, I’m not arguing that people don’t need to engage in rallies and protests. It is self-defeating, however, to collapse the difference between the activities that make us feel good and the work that is necessary to build the movement. There are no shortcuts or magic bullets. And, if we don’t confront that fact and act accordingly, we’ll be back in this same position, but most likely with options a little worse than these, in 2012, and again and again.]

Adolph L. Reed Jr. is professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania.

I Own My Vote, Just Say No Deal, Puma Pac, the Denver Group