Republicans use AA to buy votes. It’ also useful as an ad hominem to call anyone who supports AA racist.
The assumption is that the disparities created by discrimination can be remedied by AA, and conservatives get real peevish when that that assumption is addressed.
See, it’s easy to write vacuous statements about groups of people to make a political point.
This is so true, the election of the first black president shows just how rascist this country is. I can remember several white presidents before Obama and no one ever criticized them or opposed what they did.
Do not kid yourself this is a horribly racist country, the fact that the most succesful television personality is a black woman, the athlete with the most endorsements is a black man, and the most succesful film actor ever is a black man just show how racist this country really is.
This is pretty silly at every level.
First, the issue is not whether the country, as a whole, is racist. The issue is whether various groups, (ethnic and religious minorities and women), are able to get a fair shake in majority of cases in this country. The notion that AA only addresses the issues of black people is one of the lies often told about it from the perspective of the Far Right.
As to presidents: I don’t recall any mainstream criticism of any president for being white. I recall lots of criticisms for presidents regarding their approach to economics, warfare/defense, and social attitudes, (sex, drugs, Rock and Roll, marriage, etc.), but no criticism of them for being white or “really” American. There were, for example, no serious attempts to deny the legitimacy of George Romney or of John McCain for running for president after being born outside the country while Obama had stories invented that he had been born in Africa.
As to the success of various individuals in various fields, it ignores the way that majority vs minority popularity, (not rights and access), operate. The most “successful” radio station in Cleveland was long a Country/Western station. Of course, drawing the conclusion that Country/Western music was the most popular form in Cleveland based on that single statistic required one to ignore the fact that there were no other C/W staions in that market while there were a dozen Rock and Roll stations and at least three R&B or Urban stations. The C/W station got the highest ratings by being the only one for that market while the stations broadcasting to the more popular forms had to fight among each other for shares of the market. (This is not a claim that there is no support for C/W music in Cleveland; I am only pointing out how “the most popular” TV or movie personality could be a black person despite a general opposition to fairness that permeates much, (not all), of the country.)
This is question begging not an argument. You assume that the only reason he was said to be ineligible to be president was because he is black and then use people attacking him as ineligible as evidence of racism. Every succesful presidential candidate has crazy stories made up about them. Clinton had people saying he was involved in drug dealing, Bush had people say he was involved in 9-11. Sarah Palin had a prominent journalist accuse her of faking a pregnancy. If any of the last six presidents had been black there would have been evidence that they faced unique criticism. Even in the last campaign, there was a commercial that explicitly attacked Romney as “Not one of us”. As far as presidents go, Barry O has had a pretty easy time of it.
If I was arguing that country and western stations needed government approved discrimination to succeed in Cleveland, the example of the most succesful radio station in Cleveland being country and western would definetly be germane.
The basic premise is that liberals believe black people are equal in abilities to white people (and they also believe this about woman and Hispanics and other people).
Then liberals look at reality and see that black people (and the other groups I mentioned) are not achieving the same level of success as white people.
The liberals conclude that this lack of equal success by people with equal abilities must be due to some form of obstacles limiting their success. Affirmative action is an attempt to balance out the disadvantage of these obstacles.
Arguments made against affirmative action (with rebuttals):
Black people aren’t equal in abilities to white people. Their lack of success is just a reflection of this.
Rebuttal: Dress it up however you will, this is just racism.
Black people are achieving the same success as white people. Barack Obama is President, Will Smith is a movie star, Cam Newton is a quarterback.
Rebuttal: A few examples of successful black people does not accurately reflect the general status of black people in America.
What you say about obstacles facing black people may be true. But that doesn’t mean the government has the right to impose its solutions on people.
Rebuttal: Protecting Americans from harm is what the government is supposed to do.
Affirmative action is wrong in principle. We should use some other means to balance out the effects of racism.
Rebuttal: Give us some realistic suggestions. A lot of people use this argument as a disguised attempt to make the same argument as #3. They want to throw out affirmative action without offering a replacement solution.
There’s a problem but we don’t need to force a solution to it. These things work themselves out on their own if you just allow them to without interference.
Rebuttal: We tried that. The 13th Amendment ended slavery in 1865. We sat back and let society take its best shot at solving the problem of racism without interference. Affirmative action wasn’t proposed until 1961. I think a century was a fair chance for society to solve the problem on its own and it didn’t work.
Please define.
Does the OP believe that IQ is the only measure of individual differences, or that affirmative action efforts were even based on a belief that some groups are less intelligent than others?
What was said about Clinton and Bush are several orders of magnitude below what a significant minority of Republicans actually believe. The Sarah Palin pregnancy thing never got any traction and few today even remember it. Some people seem to think that the existence of a few successful black people means that now we can claim to be a colorblind society. People like Colin Powell, Oprah, and Obama got where they were in spite of their race and in effect sailed into headwinds all the way. If you don’t think racism is one of the reasons for the irrational hatred of Obama among whites, particularly in the south, then I don’t think you’re being honest with yourself.
I think this is probably true, as someone that agrees with most of the arguments in favor of AA being made in this thread.
I would also support a scheme that used measures of poverty as a proxy for race in the applications process, although acknowledge that it probably wouldn’t be sufficient to capture the additional disadvantages a poor black student may face compared to a poor white one. But I am sympathetic to the argument that Barack Obama’s kids (for example) probably shouldn’t get preferential treatment compared to my own.
I also think that the OP may be getting somewhat confused by the liberal/conservative split vs. the Republican/Democrat split. Some breakdowns here: Race, Ideology, and Support for Affirmative Action. Conservative blacks favor AA just as much as liberal blacks, for example. It just so happens that almost all blacks are Democratic. Liberal whites, however, are far more likely than conservative whites to support AA - so maybe that’s the real question the OP is asking.
Nope. You used the fact that he got elected as reason to claim that racism was no big deal in this country. I have made no claim that racism is an overwhleming problem; I just noted that his election does not prove that racism is not an issue. Kennedy was elected in 1960 and there are still places in the country where being Catholic is a distinct liability. Romney was attacked throughout the nomination process for being a member of a “cult” and I suspect that his loss was, in part, based on the rather tepid support he got from the Religious Right. (We’ll need to see the actual demographics from the election to know whether my guess is correct, there, but I suspect that the Far Right voted in smaller numbers than in previous elections.)
And, as I have noted, religion is still one of the issues that brings out discrimination in this country and is a consideration in AA.
Now you are just being silly.
You missed the point. You claimed that the most popular TV, movie, and sports figures are black, implying that that is evidence that racism is no longer an issue in this country. I pointed out, with an example, why the appearance of any individual person or entity at the top of the popularity polls is not an indication of anything aside from the pressures of competition in regard to other persons or entities in the same fields.
Have you seen any call for the government to subsidize the persons you mentioned in their endeavors? If not, you are the one who introduced a red herring to the discussion.
And Bakke pretty much killed quotas anyway, back in the 1970s. 
Seriously, this is a good point. The part of affirmative action I like best is that it forces employers to at least consider women and minorities in their hiring and promotion processes. It doesn’t do a damned bit of good for women or members of minority groups to be every bit as good as white guys if they can’t even get considered in the first place.
In hiring and housing. Ironically, school enrollment, (or, at least, college enrollment), does not seem to have been materially affected by Bakke.
OK, and once we all agree that quotas are no bueno, then we have another dichotomy:
Outreach programs to help get more minorities into the hiring/admissions pool vs explicitly using minority status as a factor (that is one, among many) in the hiring/admissions process.
What was said about Clinton: He was involved in drug trafficking, he swindled people in a land deal, he raped a woman, he used state troopers to procure women, he had people killed, he ordered Vince Foster killed and covered it up, and he ordered the bombing of other countries to distract from his affair with Lewinsky.
What was said about Bush: He was not really elected, he was covering up a past as a cocaine addict, he went AWOL from the national guard, he was part of a conspiracy which killed 3,000 people on 9-11, and started a war which killed tens of thousands of others to enrich himself and his friends.
What is said about Obama: He was born in the same country as his father and he got his birth certificate changed, he only pretended to convert to Christianity.
Any fair minded person could see that what Clinton and Bush were accused of was much worse. Irrational hatred of opposing political figures is part of human nature, just try saying something nice about Sarah Palin in public and find out for yourself.
I asked this of Shodan, but I guess he was just doing another of his drive-bys, so I open the question to anyone else that opposes Affirmative Action.
What I was pointing out is that the criticism of Obama is not necessarily a sympton of racism. When Bush was president dissent was a form of patriotism, now it is a form of racism.
The fact that so many of the most popular entertainers and athletes are black is not conclusive evidence that race is not a huge problem in this country but it is good evidence that black people do not need government assistance to succeed.
There were much fewer people repeating the lies about Clinton as there are about Obama.
Much of what was said about Bush was indeed true: He “won” election in 2004 because Gore didn’t insist on a statewide recount and the Supreme Court stopped the counting that was going on, the was indeed a coke user, and he did start a war under false pretensses.
Compare this to Obama: he’s a Muslim, he’s a socialist, he’s a Kenyan, he got into college under affirmative action, he pals around with terrorists (as continually stated by Palin), his preacher hates America, he stole money from Medicare, he personally witnessed the Benghazi attack in real time, etc. The lies about Obama are far beyond what any other president has had to endure.
You are causing harm. The preferential treatment you give to selected groups is paid for by the people who are excluded in favour of less qualified applicants.
Any fair-minded person could see that you’ve seriously soft-pedaled the criticism of Obama. Just off the top of my head you’ve left off “He pals around with terrorists”, “He actively allowed the deaths at Benghazi”, “he hates America” and he’s a socialist/Marxist/Nazi" not to mention “he’s a radical Muslim” (which you have more delicately phrased for some peculiar reason), “he’s the anti-Christ”, and “he’s going to take away your guns/put you in a FEMA death camp/make himself president for life”. I’m sure with a little Googling I could expand that lsit considerably. One might think you didn’t have sufficient confidence in your argument to make a more equitable comparison.
OP, Read this. This is why I support Affirmative Action
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm