by J. Jennings Moss
Originally published March 16, 1995 in The Washington Times.
A
storm threatens to engulf an uncertain White House over the politically hypersensitive topic of federal affirmative-action programs.
Liberal Democrats and representatives of women’s groups traveled to the White House yesterday to state clearly that any backtracking will not be tolerated. Last week it was conservative Democrats who gave the signal that Mr. Clinton should moderate such preferential programs.
The pushing and pulling from both sides of his party, along with the growing chorus of Republicans who say affirmative action should be repealed outright, leave Mr. Clinton in a tenuous political position.
Political analysts say he must find a way to keep the Democratic party’s traditional base of minority and female voters happy without further alienating those white men who fled the Democratic party in November because of the perception that Democrats no longer looked out for their interests.
“No party is so important that we will belong to it if it undermines us on this issue. No president is so important that we will belong to him if he undermines us on this issue,” Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, said yesterday.
But last week, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut – the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council – said changes need to be made. “You can’t defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunities, which is what America has always been about,” he said.
“I think the president is handling all this pressure extremely well and I advise him to stay in the center,” Rep. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said after leaving a meeting with Mr. Clinton and about two dozen other Democrats.
Several of those who met with Mr. Clinton and other officials left with the impression that Mr. Clinton remains committed to affirmative action but would be willing to look at possible revisions to some programs.
During a press conference nearly two weeks ago, Mr. Clinton opened the possibility that he would back affirmative-action programs that were based on a person’s low economic status rather than on race or sex.
“I am disturbed that we don’t have a clear, firm statement already,” said Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women. “Words are cheap and words are easy inside a closed conference room.”
White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry said such concerns were “obviously justified,” but he said civil rights groups should keep in mind what Republicans want to do.
“Ask them what is of greater concern to you, Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority who would like to roll back affirmative action, do away with it all together, or the president of the United States, who’s trying in a sensible way to have a national conversation on this issue that results in good, common sense policies,” Mr. McCurry said.
For Mr. Clinton, senior aides said he is approaching the subject in a methodical way – having a task force review existing policies, calling on people inside and outside government for guidance, and reading numerous articles on the subject.
And the aides said that Mr. Clinton has not yet determined whether any change in affirmative-action programs is necessary.
“The principle focus is on trying to capture the essence of this debate and how to lead. The question of whether there need to be legislative proposals is not the principle focus,” said a senior White House official.
Leading the overall administration effort to look at the issue and draft possible policy alternatives is George Stephanopoulos, one of Mr. Clinton’s closest advisers. The actual review is being led by Christopher Edley Jr., an associate director at the Office of Management and Budget who was a professor at Harvard University.
In a scholarly article about the implications of empirical studies on race discrimination published in 1993, Mr. Edley said such studies “provide powerful evidence of continuing, substantial discrimination in a variety of settings.” Mr. Edley raised the question of how policy makers in a political setting will deal with such evidence.