Asians Put Foot In Racial Spoils Trough

[Recently by Jared
Taylor:


American Renaissance`s 2008 Conference: Thank You,
Loonies!
]

Asians—those smart,

hard-working
people you`ve always been told believe
in merit and would never act like the

NAACP
or

La Raza
—have joined the

racial spoils system.
They have gotten in right at
the top, and they are playing dirty. They have extracted

pandering
promises from all the

Democratic candidates
for president—promises

Al Sharpton
would be proud to get for

blacks
—and have treated the candidates like fools
for good measure.

Barack Obama
is the only Democrat to come out of
this with at least a shred of self-respect.

The group behind this is
one you never heard of: the so-called

80-20 Initiative
. Founded in 1997 by Dr. S. B. Woo,
an immigrant from China and former

lieutenant governor of Delaware
, it gets its name
from its proclaimed goal, which is to deliver 80 percent
of the Asian vote to candidates it supports, especially
in close races where an

Asian bloc vote
could

swing the election
.

It is an almost entirely
web-based political pressure group, which claims to have
an e-mail list of 750,000 Asians it can activate at the
touch of a "send" button. In an interview on CNN,
Dr. Woo

claimed
80-20 can reach 55 percent of the
"Asian-American community"
within eight hours. 

80-20 claims that Asians
may be the worst victims of

racial discrimination
in America. As board member
Frank Lee put it in a

statement
in January: "We are truly fighting for
. . . rights already enjoyed by all Americans except for
Asian Americans."

The solution? Quotas—but
not

quotas for jobs
like

bricklayer
or

policeman
. 80-20 wants quotas for

federal judges
and top management in

government
and

private industry
. And it is playing hardball to get
them.

80-20 started extracting
promises from presidential candidates in the
2004 election.
To back up its demands, the group has
put together charts and graphs, claiming that Asians are
only half as likely as non-Asians to be promoted to top
management in industry, and only one third as likely to
get high-level jobs in government. They

claim
women, blacks, and Hispanics all do better
than Asians.

Based on these claims,
80-20 sent letters to all the 2004 candidates, offering
its endorsement if they promised to do three things if
elected:

1. Order
the Secretary of Labor (who at the moment is

Elaine Chao
)to hold public hearings on
discrimination against Asians,


 

2. Order
the labor department`s

Office of Federal Contract Compliance
to crack down
if the statistics suggest

discrimination
, and


 

3. Meet
with Asian-American leaders two years later to report on
progress in the fight against anti-Asian discrimination.

How do you fight the kind
of "discrimination" that you prove”
with statistics?
If blacks are 13 percent
of the population but only 4 percent of the postmen, you
torment the Postal Service until 13 percent of the

postmen
are black.  In other words,

quotas
. That was what 80-20 wanted for the top jobs
in the country.

80-20 did

pretty well
with the candidates. John Edwards, John
Kerry, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman,

Dennis Kucinich
, and

Ralph Nader
all took the pledge. Al Sharpton was
running, but didn`t sign; he must not have liked the
idea of Asians horning in on his territory. George W.
Bush didn`t sign either.

This year, 80-20 wants
more. In the "Presidential
Candidate Questionnaire
"
it sent out on June 1,
2007, it kept the first three promises about stamping
out "discrimination,"
and added three more. To get an endorsement, candidates
now had to promise to appoint at least two Asians as
appeals court judges—none is Asian now—and "consider"
filling a

Supreme Court vacancy
with an Asian.

At the district court
level, 80-20 wanted an outright quota. Candidates had to
promise that during their first term they would appoint
enough Asians to boost their numbers to half their
percentage of the population. That would be an increase
from the present 6 to 21 judges—a three-fold
increase—and would mean the president would have to send
up a parade of Asian nominations.

Candidates also had to
promise to meet with Asian-American leaders to
"review the progress in adding AsAm [
Asian-American]
Federal judges,"
that is to say, be browbeaten.

Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and
Mike Gravel all took the 80-20 pledge in June 2007, just
days after they got the questionnaire, and shamelessly

bound themselves to a quota for Asian judges.
80-20

crowed
that candidates had "replied with the
iron-clad promise
of 6 yeses!"
[Emphasis in the
original, by the way]

For six months after that,
though, 80-20 got no bites. So it decided to lower its
sights.



Hillary Clinton
`s people negotiated less binding
terms. On December 10, she signed what 80-20 calls a
"revised"
version of the questionnaire. The promises
to end "discrimination" against Asians were
unchanged, but instead of an outright quota on judicial
appointments, Mrs. Clinton promised to "seek to
increase"
Asian nominations "until the current
dismal situation is significantly remedied."
The
language of the promise

goes on to explain
: "To put things in
perspective, not meaning to imply quota, presently there
are 0.6% Asian Am. Federal judges, while the Asian Am.
population is 4.5% . . . ."

“Not meaning to
imply quotas?”

A quota is exactly what 80-20 wanted, but
couldn`t get from Mrs. Clinton. Instead, they got a
quota in everything but name. She agreed that both at
the

district
and

appeals court levels
the current situation is
"dismal,"
and she promised to improve things
"significantly"
during her first term. She thus
committed herself to

openly race-based
judicial appointments, and, like
the others, agreed to a browbeating session two years
into her term.

John Edwards and Bill
Richardson later signed the same "revised"
version.

What did Mrs. Clinton get
in return? Just before the crucial California primary,
80-20 endorsed her. "Sen. Obama willfully refused [to
sign]," 80-20

huffed
. "That is why we endorse Sen. Clinton."
The group also promised to spend $30,000 on political
ads for Mrs. Clinton in the Asian ethnic media,
including

radio ads in Cantonese, Mandarin, and Korean.
 Mrs.
Clinton did win the Asian vote three-to-one over Mr.
Obama. And, of course, 80-20 claimed credit.

After losing the
California primary Barack Obama got religion and decided
to take the pledge, too. But he has been the cagiest
player of all. He swallowed the demands to correct
"discrimination"
against Asians without a gurgle,
but his people rewrote the questions about judicial
appointments. He

promised only
that he will make it a "top
priority"
to appoint

Asian-Americans
as district and appeals court
judges.

Presidents are, of course,
busy people with lots of "top priorities," so Mr.
Obama got away with promising the least.


No doubt he will

have an even higher "top priority" making

judicial appointments
for a

certain other racial pressure group.

80-20 has duly endorsed
every candidate that took the pledge, so it is now
officially neutral in the Democratic race. Not one
Republican candidate bothered to return the
questionnaire, and

John McCain
shows no sign of doing so.

But let`s take a look at
the sleazy way 80-20 doled out its endorsements. It
started by saying it would back only those candidates
who made certain promises. Why, then, did it let Mrs.
Clinton and Mr. Obama successively water down the
promises others had already made? It brazenly cheated
Senators Dodd, Biden and Gravel when it let Mrs. Clinton
make weaker promises and then gave her the same
endorsement it had given them—they were still in the
race. It then cheated Mrs. Clinton when it let Mr. Obama
sign an even weaker pledge to get the same endorsement.

80-20 is playing the
candidates for the fools they are. Needless to say, the
candidates have all been very quiet about how they were
tricked, and about the race-based judicial appointments
they have promised to make.

In the larger sense,
however, what does 80-20 tell us about the kind of
Americans Asians want to be? Traditionally, they have
been the one minority that has not played the victim.
It`s not a convincing role for the racial group with the
highest incomes, the highest life expectancy, the lowest
crime and poverty rates, and a

prominent record of success
in companies like

Yahoo
and

Linksys
.

Asians could have chosen
to emphasize their common interests with
whites—eliminating "affirmative action,"
promoting tough sentences for criminals, keeping out
illegal Mexicans—rather than join the chorus about
discrimination. Asians can make it on merit and

do just fine
in

race-blind competition.

But if Asians insist on
quotas for judges and

CEOs
, they shouldn`t be surprised to find the tables
turned elsewhere. They will pay—along with whites—if
blacks and Hispanics get serious about quotas in

engineering
and

medicine
. Likewise, in a world of quotas, they would
see their admissions to the Ivy League

cut by two thirds
.

So why is the one group
that consistently out-performs whites claiming to be
oppressed?

Because they can get
away with it.

They have found an area in which Asians probably are
underrepresented, and are shouting "discrimination"
because they know practically no one—certainly no
presidential candidate—is going to make the obvious
argument: If underrepresentation is all it takes to
prove discrimination, then most of the time America
discriminates in favor of Asians.

In the end, it looks as
though the advantages blacks and Hispanics have gained
from

racial activism
,

bloc-voting
, and an

aggressive victim mentality
are simply too
attractive even for Asians to forego. As the United
States continues to lose racial and cultural coherence,
Asians appear to be deciding they have nothing to gain
by staying out of

explicitly racial politics
in their current implicit
alliance with whites.

And why should Asians line
up with a

white majority
that

does not defend its own interests?
What was once
supposedly the

"model minority"
is obviously concluding that,
in the age of "diversity”, power comes from

racial solidarity
.

When will whites get the
message?


[Contact
80-20 Initiative
]


Jared Taylor (email

him) is editor of


American Renaissance

and the author of


Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race
Relations in Contemporary America
.
(For Peter Brimelow`s review, click


here
.)