We are a decent nation led by prestigious jackasses.

For a nation born with idea of itself as being a nation of laws and not of men, as a nation where all men are created with equal natural rights, and a nation where all laws apply to everyone with regard to status or station, it is not surprising that Americans are so resistant to allowing the government to actively discriminate among citizens based on race and gender.  

The pernicious and pathetic pursuit of active discrimination by government in all its guises (quotas, affirmative action, diversity, inclusion, etc.) is one of the most horrid examples of the moral bankruptcy of the prestige Mandarin Class.  They don't mind racial discrimination as long as they are the ones who get to do the discriminating.

A useful recap of the reality that there is a massive gulf on this fundamental point of belief and faith between Americans and the Mandarin Class is provided in Surprise! Americans Oppose Discrimination by John S. Rosenberg.  

He notes a general disappointment by all political advocates.  Republicans because they may have failed to keep the White House, Democrats because they failed to retake the Senate, failed to retake any state governments or state Mayors and because they lost a substantial number of seats in the House.  Politicians are disappointed and angry.  Americans are eager to get back to being productive friendly Americans.

Rosenberg marks an exception to the politician's gloom.  The exception being American's continued insistence that government should not be racist or discriminatory.

A noteworthy, important exception is the hearty band of Asian Americans and other Davids, who, under the inspired leadership of Ward Connerly, defeated the massively funded effort of Goliath—California’s Democratic party and the state’s cultural and financial elite—to pass Proposition 16, which would have repealed the state’s constitutional prohibition of discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to people based on race, ethnicity, or sex.

The vote, shocking to some and surprising to many, was not close: 57% to 43%. As this graphic display vividly demonstrates, California was a sea of red counties voting No with only a handful of coastal liberal enclaves (San Francisco, Marin, Santa Cruz, Alameda [Oakland]) voting Yes. Los Angeles, the only other yes-voting county, barely did so—51% to 49%.

If there is anything surprising about the vote on Proposition 16, it is that so many people who should know better—Democrats, self-appointed “woke” opinion-shapers, pundits, progressives (but I repeat myself)—were surprised. The virtually identical issue had been on the ballot four other times in liberal states, and each time the forces favoring racial preference over colorblind equality faced the same “surprising” fate:

• California, 1996. Proposition 209, amending the state constitution to prohibit discrimination against or preferential treatment of people based on race, ethnicity, or sex, approved 54.55% to 45.45%.

• Washington, 1998. Initiative 200, modeled on California’s Proposition 209, approved 58.22% to 41.78%.

• Michigan, 2006. Proposal 2, a state constitutional amendment also modeled on California’s Proposition 209, approved 58% to 42%.

• Washington, 2019. The Washington legislature passed Initiative 1000, which would have repealed I-200’s prohibition of racial preferences, but supporters of that ban gathered enough signatures to place Referendum 88 on the ballot to block I-1000 and preserve I-200’s ban on racial preference. Their effort was approved 50.56% to 49.44%. (I have discussed that vote here.) 

Although preference-pushers were serially shocked by these results, no one familiar with the consistent findings of opinion surveys over many years would be surprised. As I discussed here, for example, in “The Harvard Affirmative Action Case and Public Opinion,” Frank Newport, then Gallup’s editor in chief, quoted a question Gallup asked four times between 2003 and 2016:

Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university: applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted (or) an applicant’s racial and ethnic background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted?

“Each of the four times Gallup has asked this question over a 13-year time period,” Newport emphasized, “between 67% and 70% of Americans chose the ‘solely on merit’ option.”

Rosenberg goes on to martial much other evidence.  No matter the wording or context, Americans tend to very solidly insist that government serve all citizens equally and not practice racial separation or discrimination.

We are a decent nation led by prestigious jackasses.