More delusional conservatism

American Thinker published yesterday an article with the absurd title, “Last Gasp of Affirmative Action?” The reality is that after the disastrous Grutter v. Bollinger decision in 2003 (see my analysis), mainstream opposition to AA largely melted away, with the exception of just a few holdouts, like Ward Connerly. I feel as strongly about the issue as ever, but the passion is just not there in Conservativeland. Opposition to racial quotas is just another fundamental issue that conservatives have abandoned, along with, e.g., opposition to homosexual rights, opposition to illegitimacy, and, going back a bit further in time, opposition to the systematic perversion of the U.S. Constitution by the federal courts over the last 80 years. I don’t know what the conservatives think will be left of conservatism after they have given up so much. Maybe they think that opposition to higher taxes, plus lots of noisy patriotism, will be enough to keep the conservative movement going, along with America itself.

- end of initial entry -

Richard W. writes:

This article in American Thinker on Afirmative Action was above average, if not without fault.

The comments were quite interesting. Especially the one on the idiocy of the title the editors gave the article, as an example of “Conservative Triumphalism”—a topic you have pretty much defined. Also, the cost to society of incompetent (but certified and credentialed professionals) is also discussed. Another VFR critique rarely seen in the conservative press.

I sense VFR readers flowing out into the blogosphere and moving the debate forward in subtle but important ways.

Jim C. writes:

The most important thing that American Thinker is doing with respect to dismantling affirmative action is its well-documented coverage of the incompetence and low intelligence of the nation’s first affirmative action president. Obama is a failure, and American Thinker is to be congratulated for alerting its readers to the most important reason for such failure: he unqualified (in the parlance of the times).

LA replies:

I want to clarify that the delusion conservatism I was referring to is not the article itself, which is a decent article, but, as a commenter at AT points out, the title that AT’s editors gave the article.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 18, 2011 10:42 AM | Send