Prop. 209: The Angles of Attack

A new political commercial was introduced Tuesday in California. It concerned Proposition 209, the ballot initiative that would eliminate public sector affirmative action programs. In the radio spot, a black man and a woman talk about the need to “bring us together,” to “prohibit discrimination” and provide an “equal chance to compete.” Naturally, for this is politics, the ad was sponsored by those who would abolish affirmative action.

Cut now to the opposing trenches. After much infighting, a campaign theme has begun to emerge. Proposition 209 will not be attacked head-on for what it is--a blatant attempt to play to the fears and frustrations of white males, a piece of racial politics, pure and simple. Rather, it essentially will be cast as a clash of genders.

There is no doubt a certain logic to this approach: Women understand too well the evils of workplace discrimination, and arguably they have gained as much through affirmative action as minorities. At the same time, it makes for pragmatic politics. Cast Proposition 209 as a battle in the race war, or so the popular thinking goes, and its passage will be all but guaranteed. Better to recast it as an assault on workplace gains by women.

Or better still--from the perspective of Democrats with stakes in other races on the November ballot--simply let the thing pass quietly, without fuss or fight. Should the campaign generate too much heat, the emotions could spill over and undermine other candidacies. As a Democratic consultant put it: “The good news is that this initiative is still below the radar screen for most voters. I have sat through focus groups with white voters, and nobody even mentioned it. It wouldn’t bother me if it stayed that way.”

*

More than a year ago, Willie Brown was grappling openly with the tactical problems posed by what was then called, disingenuously enough, the “California civil rights initiative.” For starters, there was the semantical land mine. With Proposition 187, the explosive word had been “illegal.” Opponents of the anti-immigrant proposition never found a way to overcome its simplistic power: What is illegal is, well, illegal. With Proposition 209, the word is “preference.” Preferences, however high-minded, on face are discriminatory--as the initiative’s authors love to argue.

Of course, such language doesn’t address what’s in the heart--or gut, in political parlance--of these issues. Proposition 187 was not about legalities. It was about immigrants, about nativism, as the follow-up campaign to crack down on all immigrants, legal and otherwise, has made clear. In a similar way, the only real preference at issue with Proposition 209 is the preference of some whites to return to their good old days. At the gut level, as Brown acknowledged, the whole thing is about “race.”

Now, the Mineola, Texas, shoeshine boy in Brown wanted to lead the fight himself, to battle the race-baiters on their own turf. The California politician in him, however, recognized the wisdom in moving the debate “away from this black face.” Brown, in fact, thought Elizabeth Dole would be the best person to front the fight.

Perhaps he was mindful of her ringing endorsement for the essence of affirmative action, delivered five years ago in conjunction with the so-called “Glass Ceiling” campaign she devised as Labor secretary: “There can be little doubt that a woman or minority, no matter how well-schooled, what their wage or how thick their portfolio, enters many business organizations with limited or no hope of reaching the top.”

*

Alas, as the Proposition 209 campaign unfolds, Mrs. Dole is otherwise occupied. Nonetheless, Brown’s vision for the campaign--a battle between “white women and the rest of the world”--appears close to realization. From the latest No-on-209 flier to arrive by fax: “The initiative, if passed, will ban affirmative action programs. . . . And, as if that wasn’t bad enough, the initiative will make discrimination against women and girls legal by gutting the state’s constitutional protection against sex discrimination.”

The next sheet describes an Oct. 9 “Women Make THE Difference!” rally. Special guest: Anita Hill.

And so it will go, now until November. Again, it might make good political sense to attack from this angle, just as the Proposition 209 advocates are smart to throw around quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. to recall his dream of a “colorblind” society, to pretend they are fighting his good fight.

What’s bothersome about this tactical agility is what it defers: a rough, open and honest debate over race. It would not be pretty, but there are worse alternatives. The very presence of Proposition 209 on the ballot is an indicator of the racial resentment smoldering in too many hearts. Someday soon, Californians must face it full on. This does not appear to be that day.