A letter of thanks from Dr. Richard Ferrier to President Bush

Please accept my thanks and praise for your decision to direct the Solicitor General to file a brief opposing the blatant race preferences practised by the University of Michigan. You are right to say, in forceful terms, that it is wrong for government to favor or disfavor American citizens because of their race.

You are also right to point out a corresponding wrong, the "soft bigotry of low expectations." And you are right to ask us all to have high and honest standards, in schools, in the workplace, and everywhere else.

Finally, you are right to acknowledge that bigotry is a great evil and equal opportunity a great good--and that existing anti-discrimination laws must be firmly enforced.

I hope this will be the first step of many to eradicate explicit preferences and every other governmental policy that mandates race-consciousness and statistical equality of results in the name of an ill-defined "diversity." The "quota mentality" that lies behind such policies is antithetical to the principles of this country. But the programs that embody it are myriad and their defenders strongly entrenched. We are in for a long fight.

You have made a good start. Never quit until we truly live in a society where all are respected, and where merit, not race, counts and is counted.

I have to admit that I feared that President Bush was going to wimp out on this one. I would have been perfectly happy for him not to take a stand and advocated as much on a recent thread. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that government should be involved in making college more affordable, but I still think the president's statements were very good. Once again, he's generally been the president that he promised to be. I don't like every aspect of what he promised, but I admire his keeping his word. America still needs the example he is setting to counteract the opposite example set for eight years. I'll "ditto" Dr. Ferrier's comments above on this issue.

WFTR
Bill

The latest on this is Ward Connerly's op-ed in today's Washington Times.

The glass is only half full, but, as Connerly says, we have made a start.

Read it

Here

Cheers,

Richard F.

We are in for a long fight.

We sure are in for a long fight if the President continues a policy of politically expedient incrementalism such as the Michigan Brief.

I believe the time is ripe for a bold assertion to make the 14th Amendment's text reflected in law. Such a court ruling would end affrmative-action by law, hate-crimes laws, and discrimination in contracts, set-asides, etc.

Bush has been bold on tax-cuts, terrorism, and Iraq. Why so timid now?

Bush has been bold on tax-cuts, terrorism, and Iraq. Why so timid now?

For good or for ill, President Bush has been the president that he said that he would be. He promised to give us a tax cut, and he delivered. He promised that those in our armed forces would be paid more, and he has delivered. (I think he has.) He promised to nominate pro-life judges, and he has generally delivered. He never really made a strong promise to reduce the growth of government, but he was making some headway on that goal until the terrorist attacks. In the aftermath of the attacks, he's gone along with many expansions in government. Unfortunately, he also promised to expand the power and scope of the Department of Education, and he has delivered. One of the biggest betrayals was his promise to veto campaign finance reform.

The point of all of this is that he never promised to be really bold about much of the political correctness in race relations. He more or less opposed quotas, and he has delivered on that promise. He did not promise the kind of bold action that you are advocating, so I'm not surprised that he hasn't delivered.

Again, I agree with what you are advocating. My comments are not meant to support the president's course of action over what you suggest. I'm simply explaining what I think is the reason for the actions that he is taking. I'll also admit that in some ways I admire his being the president he promised to be even when I don't think he's doing what's best for the country.

WFTR
Bill

Bill, your taking the time to elaborate and articulate your perceptions of the President's record is very much appreciated. I won't quarrel over our differences of opinion concerning the extent of his campaign committments to reducing the size of government, his incongruities on free trade, or the flip-flop on CFR. As they can all be ascribed as reactions to new political and economic exigencies.

I will simply restate that I think the President missed a historic opportunity to boldly lead most Americans who are ready to follow a leader concerning the issues of racial equality under the law.

I understand the arguments that there is so much on his plate that adding another big issue wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. :)

And that by incrementally boxing the issue down will lead to our desired conclusion.

I believe that he missed an historic opportunity for all of those reasons combined with a personality quirk that inhibits him for fear of being perceived as racist. Ironically, I believe that the very action I advocated would have nearly destroyed any perception that he is racist, due to his obvious faith and his demonstrated habits of fairness and inclusiveness. I think the A-A community would have appreciated, respected, and met the challenge of such an assertion, resulting in a more unified country as well as historic political realignment.

I feel very strongly that he and we will come to regret the things he did not say when he had the chance.

I'll also admit that in some ways I admire his being the president he promised to be even when I don't think he's doing what's best for the country.

I must say that is one of the most curious compliments I have ever read. I'm not sure I understand it or wish to.

Thanks much for your well-thought reply. I'll simply restate that I would have been very happy had the president taken the course of action that you advocate.

I would like the chance to explain my compliment of President Bush's willingness to follow campaign promises even though I disagree with the policy that he promised. Maybe I made the statement more complicated than it had to be, but I wanted to praise his honesty. There are liberals like Bill Clinton at the national level or Mary Landrieu here in Louisiana who are liars. They campaign for one thing and end up doing something entirely different. To me, they are the worst. I can admire an honest tax-and-spend liberal who says that he will raise taxes and spend more money much more than I admire someone who talks a conservative game but doesn't follow through in office.

In President Bush's case, I think he campaigned as a moderate. Therefore, I'm not surprised when he fails to take the stands that the country needs. I wish he would take a more conservative line, but I understand his doing what he promised to do. If you saw him as someone who would be more conservative, then I can understand your disappointment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.