Is Sarah Palin a “Victim” of Affirmative Action?

My dictionary defines affirmative action as: “action favoring those who often suffer or have previously suffered from discrimination.”

Naïvely, I had always thought of affirmative action in terms of the advancement of racial or ethnic minorities (I just found out that I was wrong on this), and as a noble thing (many believe I am wrong on this one).

Dahlia Lithwick, in a provocative essay in this week’s Newsweek, set me straight on the former, and Justice Clarence Thomas has—it seems almost forever—tried to set me straight on the latter.

In “From Clarence Thomas to Palin,” Lithwick links the “perils of affirmative action” from Clarence Thomas to vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

While I do not believe that a justly implemented policy of affirmative action is perilous, I tend to agree with Lithwick on something I had not considered before. That is her view that McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin for his running mate—followed by a never-ending Conservative celebration—is in fact an example of affirmative action at the highest level.

When one considers the following points raised by Lithwick, it is difficult to dispute her assessment:

Palin was chosen not because she was the second-best person to run America, but to promote diversity on the ticket, even the political playing field, and to shatter (in her words) some glass ceilings. When she was selected, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes enthused: “As a 44-year-old woman, Mrs. Palin brings desperately needed diversity to the Republican ticket.”

And,

[Clarence] Thomas hates the notion of flinging the first minority you can lay hold of at a glass ceiling. The McCain campaign elevated it to priority one.

Finally,

Where Clarence Thomas excoriated liberals for promoting token blacks so America might become a Benetton commercial, John McCain has mastered the fine art of turning women into campaign accessories: flag pins with nice calves.

Most of the rest of Lithwick’s interesting essay is devoted to supporting her theory that affirmative action can affix a “crushing stigma” to its beneficiaries—in this case, Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin.

She uses Clarence Thomas as a self-described example of a person who “rails against affirmative action, not simply because it constitutes ‘reverse discrimination,’” but because of the aforementioned “stigma”, a “badge of inferiority.“ According to Lithwick, “[Thomas] will never forgive America for the chances he was given or for how small it made him feel.“

With respect to Sarah Palin allegedly being “the recipient of know-your-place treatment,“ Lithwick makes some rather unusual comparisons and suggestions.

Referring to Palin’s precious few appearances before the press:

Palin has been allowed to speak to three television reporters. No press conferences. Just photo ops in fabulous shoes, all of which smells of empty tokenism. Thomas would say that in its most toxic formulation, affirmative action demands its beneficiaries be seen and not heard, and that is precisely what Palin is experiencing

Further comparing the “affirmative action crushing stigma” of Sarah Palin to that of Clarence Thomas:

Although the former [Palin] exudes self-confidence and the latter [Thomas] seems crippled by self-doubt, both are frozen in a defensive crouch, casualties of an effort to create an America in which diversity is measured solely in terms of appearance. As a result of this simplistic sorting process, Thomas has learned to neatly divide the entire world into angels and demons. Palin casts everyone as either a supporter or a “hater.” Thomas thinks that anyone who opposes him is a racist. Palin sees anyone who doubts her as sexist.

As I have mentioned, I do not oppose affirmative action. I believe that, when properly implemented, it is a noble philosophy. If Conservatives—typically staunch opponents of affirmative action—have had a change of heart and want to give a woman a shot at the next-to-the-highest office in the land that is fine with me, and more power to them.

But, just pick one with adequate, experience, judgment, knowledge, etc., etc.