racism – Page 15 – ThisIsCommonSense.org

One of the two major-party candidates for president is black, the other white.

Obviously, there is much more to say about them. We can talk about their ideas, character, experience, communication skills. Presumably, conscientious voters will choose the person they think can best do the job — regardless of race.

Not so, says Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com. According to Weisberg, given the collapse of the Republicans and the weak economy, everything is stacked in favor of Barack Obama. Therefore, if Obama loses the election, only racism could explain it.

Weisberg offers no coherent argument. He simply asserts that Obama has vastly more advantages than liabilities, while with McCain it’s vice versa. So the right choice is transparently obvious.

And hey, even if you disagree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, at least they’re “serious attempts” to deal with big problems. It doesn’t seem to occur to Weisberg that the “seriousness” of a proposed policy is not what makes it right or wrong. Or that a voter might reasonably consider the actual content of a proposal.

Of course, some voters might reject Obama out of racism. But it’s not self-evident that “racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”

And would it not be racist, condescending, unjust, and downright stupid for us voters to treat a black man’s qualifications for the job of president as irrelevant, just to prove we’re not racist?

To his credit, Mr. Obama would expect more of us than that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

An Affirmative End to Preferences

Do you support negative action programs?

I didn’t think so. But you might be more inclined to support such programs if they’re labeled “affirmative action.”

Around the country citizens have been fighting to stop government programs that grant preferences to some citizens over others on the basis of their race or sex. To me, and apparently to most voters, such preferences are simply racist and sexist. Voters in California, Washington State, and Michigan have passed constitutional amendments to prevent such unfair practices in government programs.

Others protest that ending racial preferences will end all so-called “affirmative action.” Well, that’s only true if such programs do indeed set up racial and gender preferences.

These protesters go on to demand that those campaigning to end these preferences must use their phraseology of opposing affirmative action. That is that these civil rights campaigns should say they are anti-good, anti-positive, anti-affirmative action.

But ask yourself: affirmative for whom? A general hiring policy should never favor some people over others on grounds irrelevant to job performance.

Voters in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska will have a chance to decide this issue through citizen initiatives placed on their states’ ballots this November.

I trust they’ll vote affirmatively.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.