And Now for Something Completely Different

HADLEY ARKES

WHEN President Bush vetoed the Kennedy-Hawkins bill—called, by some, the Civil Rights Act of 1990—he had, in his possession, surveys that measured the savviness of the public about racial quotas. The issue of “racial entitlements” has now moved beyond the sensibilities of academics and lawyers; an awareness of this question has been diffused through the public, and it excites a moral concern that runs surprisingly deep. Deep enough, in any event, that the charge of “racial quotas” now has bite, and the recognition has settled recently among Democratic advisors that this issue may now be quite a powerful asset for the Republicans in 1992. Apparently, experience has now confirmed, for people rooted in the world, that the language of “affirmative action” is pretentious, false, cynical; that behind the ingenious rationalizations, and the high-minded claims of fairness, is an engine that distributes benefits badly, and grossly, on the basis of race.

Featured Tags

HADLEY ARKES

WHEN President Bush vetoed the Kennedy-Hawkins bill—called, by some, the Civil Rights Act of 1990—he had, in his possession, surveys that measured the savviness of the public about racial quotas. The issue of “racial entitlements” has now moved beyond the sensibilities of academics and lawyers; an awareness of this question has been diffused through the public, and it excites a moral concern that runs surprisingly deep. Deep enough, in any event, that the charge of “racial quotas” now has bite, and the recognition has settled recently among Democratic advisors that this issue may now be quite a powerful asset for the Republicans in 1992. Apparently, experience has now confirmed, for people rooted in the world, that the language of “affirmative action” is pretentious, false, cynical; that behind the ingenious rationalizations, and the high-minded claims of fairness, is an engine that distributes benefits badly, and grossly, on the basis of race.