Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Do progressives have a problem with white males?

At first glance, the answer would appear to be "no". Progressives have a lengthy history of embracing leaders who happen to be Caucasian men, from George McGovern and Walter Mondale in past decades to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry in recent years. However, it seems as though lately the embrace has loosened, and progressives have decided that celebrating diversity means excluding people of a certain racial and gender category.

The latest example of this phenomenon was found in Wednesday’s Boston Globe, in a column by Eileen McNamara. The column focused on Barbara Grossman, the wife of former Democratic National Committee co-chairman Steve Grossman, who has decided to financially support Deval Patrick’s campaign to be the next Democratic governor of Massachusetts. (Steve Grossman has decided to back Patrick’s rival, Bay State Attorney General Tom Reilly.) The article noted that Grossman is one of several left-wing women who have decided to support Patrick due to a perception that he is more committed to progressive principles than the "centrist" Reilly.

But there’s another reason why Grossman has decided to support Patrick.

"…I would love to see someone other than a white male in there. It’s about time for that, too," said Grossman of Patrick, who happens to be African-American.

Interesting.

And strange.

Grossman is openly saying that part of the reason she is supporting Patrick over Reilly is because of ethnicity–something that a generation ago we were told should be irrelevant when it comes to making decisions. She is implying that there are "too many" white males in elected positions in Massachusetts, and that explicitly supporting someone in part because he is not a white male is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

Interesting.

And strange.

This, of course, comes on the heels of Sam Yoon’s historic victory in the election for Boston City Council last week. Yoon was clearly a charismatic candidate who had some fairly interesting ideas about how to improve Boston, and he should have won simply on the strength of those ideas.

However, it appears that his ideas alone did not account for his victory. As the Boston Phoenix noted a few months ago, one reason he had so much momentum going into the election was that left-wing voters prized Yoon, who happened to be Asian-American, as a symbol of ethnic diversity, "an attractive choice for white liberals frustrated by the continued white domination of Boston politics." In other words, liberals found it appropriate to explicitly support Yoon in part because he was not a white male.

Interesting.

And strange.

What are we to make of these events? Why have progressives decided to embrace the notion that certain candidates should be supported explicitly because of race, when race should be irrelevant?

Obviously, this is not a new phenomenon–just the recent manifestation of an old one. The notion that explicit race-based measures must be taken to remedy the problem of "too many white males" was, of course, the foundation of racial quotas. Progressives once explicitly defended quotas, regardless of the Constitutional problems posed by such measures, as "necessary tools" to rectify "racial imbalances" (i.e., "too many white males.")

Of course, the courts have given the thumbs-down to racial quotas in recent years, since our Constitution recognizes individual rights and not group claims. The civil rights movement was not, contrary to popular belief, about advancing the rights of blacks as a group; it was about advancing the rights of American individuals who happened to be black. Color was not to be a burden or a benefit in the eyes of the law. Civil rights, as traditionally defined, would have never allowed for concepts such as proportional representation, in which an entity had to use quotas to match the racial demographics of the city where that entity was located; it only allowed for the concept that if a qualified candidate who happened to be of a certain race applied for a position at that entity, he or she could not be denied the position because of the irrelevancy of color.

Quotas accorded race a status that was explicitly forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is why so many quota programs, set-aside programs, etc. have been ruled unconstitutional.

Progressives never agreed with this view, which is why they often resorted to vicious character assassination against those who correctly concluded that the Equal Protection Clause and the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not permit racial classifications in the name of "diversity" or "rectifying imbalances" (remember how much hell California activist Ward Connerly caught when he championed Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot initiative that prevented the use of racial quotas at public institutions in that state?) However, such attempts at character assassination have largely failed, and the tide has clearly turned in favor of those who recognize that quotas are in conflict with the Constitution.

Today, progressives aren’t as open as they once were about defending quotas (remember "Mend It, Don’t End It?"), but they have not abandoned the viewpoint that gave rise to quotas, i.e. the notion that explicit race-based efforts must be undertaken to undo the perceived damage caused by having "too many white males." The fact that the civil rights movement was not about combating the phenomenon of "too many white males," merely about establishing legal protections for those who were not white males, is lost upon today’s progressives. Since the left will not abandon this viewpoint, they must implement this viewpoint in another environment–and they have chosen the political environment.

The notion that Deval Patrick and Sam Yoon are to be supported explicitly because they are not white males is thus an old war on a new battlefield. And it says something about the odd thinking that animates today’s progressives.

Why is it that Barbara Grossman cannot say she supports Deval Patrick simply because she feels he will be an excellent governor? Why is it that Sam Yoon’s left-wing supporters could not endorse him simply because they felt he had the potential to be an outstanding city councilor? With apologies to Tina Turner, what’s race got to do with it?

The answer should be "nothing," but to progressives, the answer is "everything." And it’s a grotesque shame, one that doesn’t even make sense from a political standpoint. For example, doesn’t Barbara Grossman realize how many people she is alienating with her statement? If she is essentially withholding support from Tom Reilly in part because he is a white male, won’t that offend those who feel that race should play no part in one’s decision to support a certain candidate? If Deval Patrick gets the Democratic nomination, doesn’t it seem obvious that those offended by Grossman’s remark will not vote for Patick, concluding that they don’t want to support someone who receives money from a person who adheres to such a race-centered philosophy?

To support Patrick in part (or in whole) because he is black is just as morally troublesome as to refuse to support Patrick in part (or in whole) because he is black. To support Yoon in part (or in whole) because he is Asian is just as morally troublesome as to refuse to support Yoon in part (or in whole) because he is Asian. The progressive supporters of both men should champion them because they are intelligent and accomplished, not because of something that people fought and died to make irrelevant.

And shouldn’t that be obvious by now? When it comes to race, why are progressives being so, well, regressive?