How Obama Could Earn Re-Election—Abolish Quotas!



While President Obama has been

traipsing around Asia
, his

political brain trust
has been back at
the White
House

“soul-searching”
to figure out how they can still have
jobs on January 21, 2013. [
`Soul-searching`
Obama aides: Democrats` midterm election losses a wake-up
call
,
by Anne E. Kornblut,
Washington Post
, November 14, 2010]

At present, Obama`s strategy to get
re-elected is simple: wait. Wait for the economy to improve
(possible); wait for minorities to

remember
to

show up to vote
in 2012 (likely); wait for Republican
politicians to remind the public why

they kicked them out
back in 2006-08 (highly likely).

But what if Obama decided instead to
earn re-election
through an act of historic statesmanship?

Yeah, I
know it sounds crazy. But I thought I should throw it out
there.

What
would be the one sector of public life in which he,
personally, had the political capital to make a decisive
difference?

(I`ll
let you mull on that question awhile.)

A few of the reasons Barack Obama got
elected President in 2008 still seem plausible (if

increasingly ancient history
)), such as the quality of
his Democratic and Republican opponents. But most of the
other rationalizations of 2008, such as a national spasm of
racial self-congratulation and a covert desire to impose
upon blacks a respectable role model, increasingly appear,
in these hard times, to be eye-rollingly inane.

What
were
we thinking?

It`s highly evident by now that

Obamania
was a

media-manufactured
, race-based fad. (Exactly as I argued
in my book America`s Half
Blood-Prince
). It will be hard to gin up again,
especially given that Obama`s chilly personality is not
naturally appealing to voters.

And the Democrats are in big trouble
heading toward 2012 because their long run strategy of
achieving one-party rule by

“electing a new
people”
is, very slowly, provoking
its
own offsetting nemesis
. Unlike in, say, 2000 when
Al Gore
won the popular vote
by holding George W. Bush to only
54 percent of the white vote, Obama`s Democrats gave up 60
percent of the white electorate in 2010 to the Republicans,
despite (or maybe because of) the fact that the GOP was
largely leaderless.

This
racial realignment is taking place at a glacial rate. But
the logic is inexorable. If one party gets to win by playing
by a set of rules like racial bloc voting, then it`s hard to
imagine that the other party will eternally eschew competing
by those same rules out of Politically Correct
fastidiousness.

That`s what has happened in the South,
which has been the main locus of multiracial political
competition. For example, in the South Carolina U.S. Senate
race, Democratic candidate
Alvin
Greene
, an

unemployed black man
who has been living with his father
since being kicked out of the military, carried the black
vote 80-9. But he lost because the white Republican
incumbent

Jim DeMint
won the white vote 82-9.

Okay, so the 2010 South Carolina contest
wasn`t exactly

Lincoln v.
Douglas.
But if we prefer a country where
citizens
listen carefully to long, closely reasoned speeches before
making up their minds to
one
where people vote tribally
, well, we should have thought
of that before a
massive
change in the demographic balance
was engineered.

But all
this hardly means that the GOP will be a sure thing in 2012.
Back in
2000
, I
pointed
out
that Bush would have romped home over Gore in the
Electoral College if he`d only carried 57 percent of the
white vote. But even 2010`s 60 percent might not be enough
in 2012—if Obama can persuade a huge enough number of
minorities to turn out to, in his memorable phrase,




“punish our enemies”.

Moreover, white Republicans are inherently
limited at playing this game of
“we`re gonna punish
our enemies and we`re gonna reward our friends”
that
minority Democrat politicians such as

Rep. Maxine Waters
and
Rep.
Luis Gutierrez
play so blatantly.

White
Republicans can`t—and, even more importantly, don`t want
to—follow this strategy.

Clearly, media bias plays a role. Look at
the

bad press
the

Southern Strategy
has gotten—so bad that Ken Mehlman
actually

apologized
for it while he was Republican National
Committee chairman.

But more
fundamentally, white voters don`t like voting merely for the
self-interested racial reasons for which Waters` and
Gutierrez`s tax-and-spend constituents happily cast their
ballots.

White Republicans don`t want to vote just
because it will be good for themselves,

their kids, and the people their kids are likely to marry
.
They wish to have principled reasons for opposing what
Waters and Gutierrez want to do to them.

Congressman Waters, for instance,

unapologetically wrote quota hiring into the financial
reform act
because it`s good for blacks. In contrast,
white politicians aren`t supposed to write quotas out of
bills because they
are bad
for whites.
They are supposed to justify everything by
appeal to

Kantian universal principles,
which is a lot more
complicated and likely to break down somewhere.

And
white Republicans particularly don`t want to be accused of
having racial reasons for their political preferences.
Therefore, white Republicans tend, especially since Obama`s
election, to espouse complex ideologies explaining why a low
tax-low spend system of government is better in principle.

Of course, white Republicans still do get
accused—constantly—of racism. After all, as the concept of


“disparate impact”
explains, white people have, on
average, more money, so, therefore, their desire to keep
more of it away from the government is, mathematically
speaking, racist.

In summary:
neither party
looks ready for 2012.

While Obama might idle his way to a narrow
re-election, he also might not. He`d be best off
doing something.
But, given his talents, what could he do that would help put
people back to work and significantly lower the GOP`s white
share of the vote below 60 percent?

History
shows that Presidents are most likely to achieve their most
memorable accomplishments by betraying their supporters.

Sometimes, these acts of base backstabbery
turn out to be a good thing, such as
Bill
Clinton
signing the welfare restriction bill in 1996 or

Richard Nixon
going to China in 1972.

When
Ronald Reagan decided that Mikhail Gorbachev was ready to
negotiate with him in good faith, he alarmed some of the
most fervent Cold Warriors. Yet most Republicans felt that
Reagan had earned his reputation for not being suckered by
the Soviets, so they trusted him.

Of course, some acts of Chief Executive
treachery turn out vastly destructive. Most notoriously,
Republicans credulously trusted George W. Bush as he
inflated the Housing Bubble by

demanding from his regulators 5.5 million more minority
homeowners,
and by ignoring his oath of office to
enforce the immigration laws. Republicans never would have
let a Democratic President get away with such a fiasco.

(Allyssa Katz`s excellent book
Our Lot
shows that the Democrats under Clinton would have
liked to inflate a minority housing bubble, too. But back then, they
only dared push the envelope on lending to a limited scale
because of Republican scrutiny. 
With Bush in office, however, that scrutiny fatally
relaxed.)

In an alternative universe in which John
McCain had
had the
guts to take Obama to the mat
over Rev. Wright, the
Arizonan

likely would have made a pretty miserable President.
Yet
one constructive thing McCain would have been politically
well-positioned to do—if he so chose—would have been to use
his reputation for bloodthirstiness to instead declare
victory in the expensive war in Afghanistan and bring the
troops home.

In
contrast, Obama, hamstrung by his lack of military
credibility, is now hinting that he`ll keep troops in
Afghanistan past his announced withdrawal date of 2011, all
the way to

2014
.

So in
what field does Obama have the personal credibility to
declare victory and bring the troops home?

Where
does he possess the personal authority to end a wasteful
war, thus simultaneously improving the economy and getting
himself re-elected by reassuring white voters?

Foreign
affairs? No.


Economics? Obama is not a leader with an impressive track
record of creating wealth. His career, such as his wasting
$100,000,000 as chairman of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge,
has been essentially ornamental. Hiring Obama has been a
stylish way for affluent white people to expend surplus
wealth.

The lone
area where Obama has enough personal credibility to pull off
a Nixon-goes-to-China political revolution: civil rights. As
a black, as a former discrimination plaintiff`s attorney, as
a one-time law school lecturer on
“racism and the law”,
and as the author of an autobiography subtitled
A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama has standing to make an
“admission against
interest”
.

My suggestion: Obama should declare
victory in the half-century old War on Discrimination—which
Ed
Rubenstein
of VDARE.COM recently estimated costs
8
percent
of a year`s GDP, or over a trillion dollars.

It`s
been widely noted that firms in 2010, even highly profitable
ones, appear in no hurry to rehire full-time workers. One
problem is the costs of government mandates, such as health
care. Another is uncertainty over government actions.

Government-mandated uncertainty is the
essence of current anti-discrimination law. Hiring legally
unprotected whites is dangerous because that accumulates
statistical evidence of disparate impact discrimination. But
hiring legally protected minorities is a legal minefield
because of the

potential costs of discrimination lawsuits
if they don`t
work out and have to be let go. (A friend who owns a small
business explains: “If I can`t afford to fire them, I can`t afford to hire them”.)

Not surprisingly, firms have been
slow
to hire American citizens
, who can get them in trouble
with the Feds. Employers have using the recession to
outsource work to Asia or to
hire
illegal immigrants off the books
. It makes more sense to
work a few official employees long and hard than to hire
many.

To
rectify this, Obama could announce that his election as
President shows that the civil rights war is officially over
and it`s time to reap the peace dividend: the federal
government can dramatically cut back its
persecutions
of employers
for
race-related
reasons.

Nothing the President could do with a
stroke of his pen would do more to cut unemployment by
making it legally safer to hire Americans than Obama
announcing that, between now and the 50th anniversary of the

Civil Rights Act
in 2014, he will lay off most of

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission bureaucrats
and
other federal racial inquisitors.

And the
business climate would be immediately improved by Obama
abolishing the EEOC`s innumerate

“Four
Fifths Rule”.

Similarly, Obama could order the Justice
Department to switch sides in the Bush Administration`s

egregious Vulcan
Society
disparate impact lawsuit.
The federal
government should instead support the Fire Department of New
York for using an objective test of firefighting knowledge
in its hiring.

After all, that`s what a lot of people
more or less assumed they would be getting from electing
Obama President. In reality, Obama campaigned in 2008 at
black colleges like

Howard University
for
more quotas and
more jobs for quota enforcers. You just didn`t hear about that
because you weren`t supposed to hear about that.

I think
ending the War On Discrimination could raise Obama`s chance
of re-election from, say, 50 percent to, say, 80 percent.

But,
obviously, Obama isn`t going end quotas.

Still,
maybe someone could ask him why he isn`t considering it?

And, now
the idea is out there, maybe the Republicans could pick it
up?

[Steve Sailer (email
him) is


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.

His website

www.iSteve.blogspot.com

features his daily blog. His new book,

AMERICA`S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA`S
"STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is
available


here
.]