I'm Down

Mickey Kaus asks: why not debate affirmative action.

There's no way around it, affirmative action yields all sorts of confusing and unfair results. Kaus makes an interesting point about Obama, the affirmative action president:

Were Obama a magnificent president in all respects, Trump’s charge would have little resonance. Who cares how Obama got into Harvard Law? In 2008, it was obvious enough to voters that he might have benefitted from preferences. He won a national majority anyway. But it turns out there are some ropes Obama doesn’t seem to have learned in his turbo-boosted ascent up the political hierarchy. He hasn’t been alert to some ingrained bureaucratic pathologies–he told Jon Alter he learned as president that “one of the biggest lies in government is the idea of ’shovel-ready’ projects.” Wish he hadn’t had to learn that! Nor does he appear to have acquired the skill–that someone like Bill Clinton would need to acquire to survive several terms as a governor–of making a policy sale. And would a leader versed in effectively wielding power declare that, say, the leader of the sovereign nation of Libya “needs to go” if he wasn’t willing to do what was necessary to make him go? Rookie mistake?

Now...I think it's unreasonable to think any President is actually going to be ready for the job prior to having it. But I think the point Kaus is making here is Obama was particularly unready versus say, Hillary Clinton, and benefitted from people liking the idea of a black President. I don't think he is wrong. Then again, Bush won because of who his mother and father were. I wonder if it makes sense that our Presidential elections now mirror the college admissions process. Famous legacies and minorities getting a leg up...what's next...a scholar-athelete President? I suppose I wouldn't object.