RSS

Pat Buchanan is a bigot

Wed, Jul 22, 2009

Bigots

No great surprises here, but if anyone had any doubts, this debate with Rachel Maddow ought to eliminate them. Pat Buchanan went off on a bizarre anti-affirmative action rant, which included this choice excerpt:

“White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks.”

(There is a  full transcription here, if you’d prefer to read it.)

There’s been a lot of coverage of this debate in the media (for example, on Huffington Post and Gawker.com), but not a lot of explicit defense of affirmative action (at least as it is practiced in the United States), so I’d like to offer up some justification for the practice here.

It’s easy to understand how, in a country that prides itself as being a relatively pure meritocracy such as the modern-day United States, any actions seen as privileging particular groups are met with hostility. One must understand that the belief supporting affirmative action is that treating unequals as equals perpetuates the inequality. Affirmative action seeks to redress imbalances that are the consequence of  deliberate, discriminatory, disproportionate representation of entire sections of society in governmental, educational and industrial institutions. Such negative, oppressive discrimination has usually been made over historically meaningful periods of time on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.

The claim that one can not redress one form of discrimination by introducing another is a facile play on words that uses the word “discrimination” to refer to two different things. Racial, ethnic or gender-based discrimination is usually based on unfounded, irrational prejudices. The discrimination that results from affirmative action is a response to a statistically observed inequity in representation, that can be reproducibly demonstrated by social scientists.

Opponents of affirmative action such as Pat Buchanan frequently assume that affirmative action implies the preferential selection of underqualified candidates over qualified candidates (he cites several examples, including that of Frank Ricci). The truth is that most supporters of affirmative action oppose such preferential selection and instead promote the idea of preferential selection among equal or comparable candidates.

Affirmative action exists to redress systemically entrenched inequalities. Imbalances in representation have been repeatedly observed to perpetuate themselves in the absence of affirmative action. I guess it’s too much to ask someone like Pat Buchanan to stop whacking his knee with a rubber mallet for long enough to soberly consider the merit of such an approach.

CODA:

There was a postscript on the Rachel Maddow show where she dispelled some of the factual claims Buchanan made in the debate (including the ones made in the scare quote), just in case you were tempted to take them at face value.

, ,

5 Responses to “Pat Buchanan is a bigot”

  1. Geoff Costeloe Says:

    I think I actually disagree with you on this one. Pat is a crazy right winger but he does pose some good arguments against affirmative action. The interviewer is mercilessly trying to attack him. Really, what relevance is it that all of the justices 200 years ago were white men. It was a different time and we’ve progressed since then.

    Reply

    • admin Says:

      Yeah, I know affirmative action is a hard sell for some people. It’s difficult to reconcile with the American Dream and the ideal of a meritocracy.

      The truth is that without affirmative action (or something very like it) those groups possessing cultural capital (gained through previous historical acts of exploitation) within a social structure have repeatedly been observed to use it to sustain class differences in which well-positioned groups continue to be advantaged.

      It’s a subtle argument, and it’s a topic that inflames passions. I don’t expect everyone here to agree with me about everything, but I’m glad to at least see debate encouraged.

      Thank you for your comments. I stand by my remarks.

      Reply

  2. Injun Trouble Says:

    I disagree with affirmative action to a very small degree….but what makes me the most angry is to defend the country based on a white-man standard. Can we be honest and realize the main reason that it was ‘mostly white men’ in each of these areas that he’s mentioning is because of the incredibly high amount of inequality and racism of those times? He’s not stating why it’s correct that it was mostly white men….only that it WAS mostly white men……this is not a defense of the fact.
    By the by…I’m an American Indian/Caucasian member of this country….and I don’t expect special treatment as a result.

    Reply


Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] This post was Twitted by TCorp […]

  2. […] This post was Twitted by isabigot […]

Leave a Reply