The brouhaha du jour among the left is the idea that John McCain is flip-flopping on affirmative action.

The problem is, he’s never actually supported affirmative action, and the quotas, lowered standards, and set-asides that most often define it. Back in 1998, he opposed one of Ward Connerly’s initiatives, calling it “divisive.”

But one can think that quotas and set-asides are wrong, and also think that a public referendum on it — and the racial tensions inevitably stirred up by the argument — would do more harm than good. The argument is not with the goal, but with the path taken to that goal. (It’s not terribly dissimilar from the argument that Roe v. Wade took the decision of regulating abortion away from the legislative branch, and those who feel that if states are going to recognize gay marriage, it ought to be through legislative action, not by judicial fiat. How a state passes its laws can be as important as what those laws are.)

Ironically, the Huffington Post did the legwork on this:

McCain told Hispanic leaders Tuesday that although he doesn’t favor race-based hiring quotas, he opposes ballot proposals outlawing quotas or racial preferences.
“Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations,” he said.

So McCain has changed his mind on whether the right way to remove race-based hiring quotes is through the legislature or direct referendum. It’s been ten years since that assessment, and one can conclude that in the past decade, it has become clear that most state legislatures generally don’t want to touch the explosive issue of racial preferences. McCain can legitimately argue that ten years later, he’s concluded that for quota opponents, Connerly’s initiatives are the only game in town.

(At that Huffington Post link, there’s a mention of McCain citing the military as an example of an institution that has a highly effective and diverse force of individuals. By some definitions, the military has programs that are defined as affirmative action:

Military affirmative action plans do employ goals: promotion of minorities and women within the eligible pool is to occur in the same percentages as overall promotions from that pool. But in many cases the goals are not linked to timetables. In addition, the goals serve as presumptions, not mandates; promotion boards that fail to meet them are deemed to have done their job correctly if they can demonstrate due diligence. All candidates for promotion are placed in a common pool and are subject to the same standards. Race can serve as a factor, but only when other differences are very small. As one officer put it, “Only fully qualified people are promoted, but not necessarily the best qualified. But don’t forget, we are talking micro-millimeter differences in these cases.” The armed forces engage in constant training, including compensatory training, before as well as after admission to the All-Volunteer Forces, to enable the highest possible percentage of individuals to meet high standards. While outreach efforts are not racially exclusive, some are “race-conscious.” New recruits who are diagnosed as having particular weak spots are given numerous opportunities to remedy them.

“Micro-millimeter differences” seem a far cry from, say, the University of Michigan’s decision to give “underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on their scale, while a perfect SAT score was worth only 12 points.” (This is what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in Gratz vs. Bollinger.)

If most affirmative action programs looked more like the military’s, and less like the University of Michigan’s, the topic wouldn’t be as controversial…

UPDATE: The great Corner contributor Roger Clegg writes in, noting:

Another follow-on point: Once a measure is on the ballot, as it is in Arizona, then it’s going to be voted on – so, even if you might not have wanted a referendum vote in the first place, that’s no longer an option, and you might well conclude that it’s better to have it pass than fail (the only two options left).

Yup.