Friday, Jul 4, 2008
David Horowitz called me anti-American, anti-white and ignorant for saying no, but history says I'm right.
Jul 20, 2000 | David Horowitz made me the poster boy for left-wing anti-patriotism recently for my statement, in a review of Ward Connerly's autobiography ("Creating Equal: My Fight Against Racial Preferences") in the Nation, that "throughout American history, in nearly every instance in which they have been given a direct vote on the matter, the majority of white Americans have rejected any measure beneficial to the interests of blacks."
Horowitz called that assertion "anti-American, anti-white and astoundingly ignorant" because, in his view, American history is a tale of sure and steady improvement in conditions for black Americans.
"Given the fact that whites have been the American majority throughout the nation's history," Horowitz argues, "it would be interesting to hear leftists like professor Klinkner explain how blacks have made any progress at all, if they have not made it through the expressed will of the white majority: how the slave trade was ended; how the slaves gained their freedom; how the Constitution was amended not only to outlaw slavery but to guarantee equal rights; how segregation was ended; how civil rights were enforced; how voting rights were guaranteed; how anti-discrimination laws were passed; how affirmative action was launched; how the welfare system was funded; and how African-Americans became the freest, richest and most privileged community of blacks anywhere in the world."
Well, let me explain. My statement in the review of Connerly's autobiography discussed his use of direct popular referendums as a way of attacking affirmative action. What I actually said was, "The method by which [Connerly's] attack on [affirmative action] has been mounted -- direct voter referendums -- reveals an overwhelming pattern of white racism. Throughout American history, in nearly every instance in which they have been given a direct vote on the matter, the majority of white Americans have rejected any measure beneficial to the interests of blacks. At times, such propositions have passed, but only with a coalition of a majority of minorities and a minority of whites."
As the article made clear, I was referring to direct popular votes -- plebiscites, ballot initiatives, referendums and the like. Each of the examples of racial progress Horowitz cites to refute my statement occurred through legislative or executive action, not direct popular votes. To my knowledge, the only examples of popular referendums when a majority of whites voted for measures in the interest of blacks (or, conversely, against measures that harmed black interests) are the referendums on black suffrage in Iowa and Minnesota in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, and when a (bare) majority of white South Carolinians voted in 1998 to eliminate the anti-miscegenation clause in their state constitution.
Perhaps there are other examples that I have overlooked, but I doubt very much if there are enough to even come close to matching the dozens of cases when a majority of ordinary whites, when given the direct opportunity to do so in the privacy of the voting booth, refused to extend the most basic rights of citizenship to black Americans. In the 19th century, whites throughout the nation voted overwhelmingly to deny blacks the right to vote and, in some states and territories, to exclude them altogether. In more recent decades, popular white majorities have routinely voted against fair-employment and open-housing laws.
In some cases black interests did prevail in these referendums, but only when a coalition of a majority of nonwhites and a minority of whites was large enough to prevail overall. Thus my skepticism about whether direct voter referendums offer a level playing field for the contest over affirmative action.
Get Salon in your mailbox!