Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Interesting article by Paul Krugman. The future does not bode well for moderate Republicans who can't adapt to life in the Democratic party.

I will say that nature abhors a vacuum.

Without a decent minority party, the Dems will fracture and falter, prone to infighting and corruption. See 2002 - 2006 for the Republicans, with a weak and ineffectual minority party.

There will be at least 2 parties, even if the Dems have to split into two over the failures of the Republicans.

Count on it.

In 1991, people thought the Democratic Party was dead. Then Clinton won. No party is ever dead. Krugman has some great points, is spot-on a few, but is a bit too hopeful and biased to see the big picture.

If nothing else, the party will stew, waiting for the Dems to screw up. When they do, they will sell themselves as "Not Those Guys". It worked for the Dems in 2006. It'll work for the Republicans in the coming years.

I was actually thinking there might be some bleed into the Libertarians if the moderate Republicans can find a way to oust Palin. All those right-wing fiscal crazies could easily find a home in a strict constructionalist Libertarian establishment.

That article seems pretty biased. The Dems cried bloody murder over 2000 and called Bush an illegitimate president. I'm not sure the circumstances are different. The true believers will never accept that the rightness of their message is in question, so they blame external factors (the more conspiratorial the better).

Regarding a GOP move to the right, I dunno. Maybe in the short term. I'm not an expert on these matters, but I have to think that Republicans would like to regain control in Congress eventually. And I'd think that'll be hard in purple and blue states if the GOP goes ultra-right. Frankly if it comes down to ideological purity or winning races, they'll work to win like any politician would.

Also remember that the GOP will almost certainly gain seats in the 2010 midterm elections. It almost always works that way. The real key is how the Dems govern. Try to do too much and they'll get a backlash. Do too little and their base will get upset. This isn't the end of the world for the GOP. They just need to reorganize, and they've always been the more tightly organized of the two parties.

The right wing already has a party. If the Republican party does disappear (and it won't if for no other reason than their fundraising structure and legal history) there is always the Libertarian party for the financial absolutists and the Constitution Party for the anti-abortionists and other social conservatives.

Frankly, I'd prefer to have moderates of both parties leave the Democratic and Republican parties. We could then have a party for grownups again.

I'd proffer the moderates HAVE left both parties at this point, at least the politicians. Hard to find a moderate of either party-it has become so polarized. Look what happened to Lieberman.

gorgon wrote:That article seems pretty biased. The Dems cried bloody murder over 2000 and called Bush an illegitimate president. I'm not sure the circumstances are different. The true believers will never accept that the rightness of their message is in question, so they blame external factors (the more conspiratorial the better).

The difference is the extent to which the true believers hold sway in the GOP. In the end it is the moderate sector of the Democratic party that really calls the shots there. Sure, there were a lot of angry leftists after 2000, but the 2004 defeat pretty well weeded those people out of the hierarchy. This election is the result of the first play towards a political center there has been since Clinton.

gorgon wrote:
Regarding a GOP move to the right, I dunno. Maybe in the short term. I'm not an expert on these matters, but I have to think that Republicans would like to regain control in Congress eventually. And I'd think that'll be hard in purple and blue states if the GOP goes ultra-right. Frankly if it comes down to ideological purity or winning races, they'll work to win like any politician would.

See, I'm not so sure. The GOP, unlike the Democrats, has had a great deal of success running on ideological purity. Faith in the Reagan message, divorced from historical context, will be difficult to break. At least for the next couple election cycles.

gorgon wrote:
Also remember that the GOP will almost certainly gain seats in the 2010 midterm elections. It almost always works that way. The real key is how the Dems govern. Try to do too much and they'll get a backlash. Do too little and their base will get upset. This isn't the end of the world for the GOP. They just need to reorganize, and they've always been the more tightly organized of the two parties.

That really depends. The bar for Obama is pretty low right now. All he really has to do is accomplish a withdrawal from Iraq in order to call the first half of his Presidency a success. Not that the GOP is a dead stick, certainly they're going to survive, but their ideology has to take a significant to turn in order to really prosper in this more diverse electorate. Remember, the main reason Bush was able to gain traction was his lean on the reliable voting blocs of the religious right and entrepreneurial sector. Neither of which has prospered under Republican rule.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:The right wing already has a party. If the Republican party does disappear (and it won't if for no other reason than their fundraising structure and legal history) there is always the Libertarian party for the financial absolutists and the Constitution Party for the anti-abortionists and other social conservatives.

Frankly, I'd prefer to have moderates of both parties leave the Democratic and Republican parties. We could then have a party for grownups again.

Surely you mean extremists, not moderates.

Frazzled wrote:I'd proffer the moderates HAVE left both parties at this point, at least the politicians. Hard to find a moderate of either party-it has become so polarized. Look what happened to Lieberman.

The reason it has become so polarized is that the GOP has become unfailingly far right-wing. They bought into their own mythos. Bipartisanship is absolutely impossible when one party sits so far from the middle. Resting on arguments which are founded in absolute faith.

Bipartisanship is absolutely impossible when one party sits so far from the middle. Resting on arguments which are founded in absolute faith.

One party huh? Don't look now, your rampant partisanship is showing. The party of DailyKos, Murtha, and Huffington Post is as radicalized as the GOP. Mark my words, the Democrats will over reach almost immediately. Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer are already leading the way.

Frazzled wrote:I'd proffer the moderates HAVE left both parties at this point, at least the politicians. Hard to find a moderate of either party-it has become so polarized. Look what happened to Lieberman.

I mostly agree, although Lieberman is a bad example. The guy isn't a moderate Dem so much as a Republican in Dem clothing. To this point, staying a Dem has kept him a powerful figure with both parties. But there's a lot of bad blood there. Good lord, he's campaigning for the GOP. I can't see him remaining a Dem forever, especially if the Dems do as expected in the Senate. They might not need him as much anymore. Unless they hit 60 seats, and then he's a wanted man again.

I'd also suggest there are more moderate Dems than Republicans right now. The Dems took a step to the middle under Clinton. And ironically where the Dems have gained seats in Congress, it's mostly been at the expense of moderate Republicans.

I mostly agree, although Lieberman is a bad example. The guy isn't a moderate Dem so much as a Republican in Dem clothing.

Respectfully, that can't be right. He was the Democratic presidential VP Candidate in 2000. Are you saying the Democrats run Republicans?

dogma wrote:See, I'm not so sure. The GOP, unlike the Democrats, has had a great deal of success running on ideological purity. Faith in the Reagan message, divorced from historical context, will be difficult to break. At least for the next couple election cycles.

We're looking at "ideological purity" differently. I don't see much Reagan ideology in the GOP right now. The party seems to be much more about social conservatism than fiscal conservatism (not that Reagan was in practice much of a fiscal conservative, but he espoused it). And where the GOP is losing ground -- suburban areas around big cities -- people trend more fiscally conservative/socially liberal than the other way around. If they want to start winning in those areas again, they have to let go of the culture wars. Since politicians want to get elected and re-elected more than anything else in the world, I think that has to happen at some point.

That really depends. The bar for Obama is pretty low right now. All he really has to do is accomplish a withdrawal from Iraq in order to call the first half of his Presidency a success. Not that the GOP is a dead stick, certainly they're going to survive, but their ideology has to take a significant to turn in order to really prosper in this more diverse electorate. Remember, the main reason Bush was able to gain traction was his lean on the reliable voting blocs of the religious right and entrepreneurial sector. Neither of which has prospered under Republican rule.

I agree Obama's task is a little deceiving. It's daunting, but the bar is also set low. Still, history suggests the Dems will lose seats. It may not be a "Republican revolution" a la 1994, but I'd bet on a bit of a pullback. Americans don't seem to like the idea of one party rule, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that reflected in 2010 regardless of their results. The Dems will have a tidal wave this year, but that's less of a mandate on their agenda and more about dissatisfaction with incumbents. If you confuse the two and overreach, you'll get a backlash. Newt Gringrich and the GOP made that mistake after the 1994 election.

Having said that, it'd only be a short-term gain. The GOP has a lot of long-term demographic problems facing them, and that's why I think the party will eventually adapt to survive.

Frazzled wrote:

I mostly agree, although Lieberman is a bad example. The guy isn't a moderate Dem so much as a Republican in Dem clothing.

Respectfully, that can't be right. He was the Democratic presidential VP Candidate in 2000. Are you saying the Democrats run Republicans?

He's campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. Are you saying that's what a loyal Democrat does?

I don't know how you can say F.U. to your own party any more clearly. Shoot, Hillary and Bill are campaigning for Obama even after the (bruising) primaries. McCain bit the bullet in 2000 for Bush. Even if you can't stand the guy, you support him if he's your party's candidate. That's just how it works.

I know you probably think of him as one of the "good Dems," but you have to look at the situation objectively. If one of your guys loudly supported Obama to the degree of speaking at the Dem convention, would you think of him as a man of principle doing what's right?

No, you'd say "get rid of the rat ba$tard." Which I'm sure is what the Dems are saying now.

Good point Gorgon, I'd forgotten about that. However, he had to run as an independent way before the McCain Presidency. Moderates of either party are few and far between at this point.

Frazzled wrote:Good point Gorgon, I'd forgotten about that. However, he had to run as an independent way before the McCain Presidency. Moderates of either party are few and far between at this point.

Moderate in terms of party affiliation, or moderate in terms of commitment to an ideology? There is a pretty distinct difference.

dogma: No, I want moderates of both parties to leave. That way, both the Democratic and Republican parties will be quicker to collapse. A true third party can then arise. Take a look at Minnesota's Independence party for an idea.

The Republican party forces an ideological purity test on its members. That's precisely why moderates are leaving/being driven out. The Democratic party has had to juggle disparate viewpoints in their party for decades. That is one reason why they have been unable to present an opposition party for the past 8 years. They slowly seem to be overcoming that, particularly with the western and southern regions being given greater autonomy to not toe the party line on issues like immigration, guns, and religious conversations.

Gorgon: I believe you're painting an overly broad picture of what you call "one party rule". I think the big difference this time around is many people are tired of incompetent government. When one party runs on "the government is the problem" and moves from opposition to specific government programs to one in which the government is deliberately set up to fail via corruption, cronyism, and politicization of previously bureaucratic organizations there will be a backlash. What the Republicans were counting on was continued anger at the government, but they failed to realize that people vote for candidates (people) and not policies or agencies.

I wish [the south] would secede. The rest of the country could then have more responsive government and wouldn't have to subsidize the very states that hate them. I do agree that demographic shifts will probably affect the Republican political strategy in the long run, but we'll still have cultural warriors like Bachmann, Hatch and Palin for the foreseeable future.

gorgon wrote:
We're looking at "ideological purity" differently. I don't see much Reagan ideology in the GOP right now. The party seems to be much more about social conservatism than fiscal conservatism (not that Reagan was in practice much of a fiscal conservative, but he espoused it). And where the GOP is losing ground -- suburban areas around big cities -- people trend more fiscally conservative/socially liberal than the other way around. If they want to start winning in those areas again, they have to let go of the culture wars. Since politicians want to get elected and re-elected more than anything else in the world, I think that has to happen at some point.

In the long run I certainly agree with you. The GOP is far from dead. However, they need to get back to their core position of fiscal conservatism as an opposition to debt spending. Not this unholy marriage of small government and Keynesian theory. Which is, really, the message that Reagan put out. A kind of project for the liquidation of government authority into the private sector. At the time it made sense. But that time was one in which the market was nowhere near as globally interconnected as ours currently is. Increasing the wealth of the wealthy only trickles down when the economy exists as a closed system. In that sense it isn't so much Regan's ideology which the GOP is running on, but the image of Reagan himself. This lead them to systematically dismiss the role of any other actor on the world scene. After all, for them it was only the Soviet Union which stood in the way of American hegemony, and Reagan vanquished that Jabberwocky. So the thinking goes his policies would work even better as a result.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:dogma: No, I want moderates of both parties to leave. That way, both the Democratic and Republican parties will be quicker to collapse. A true third party can then arise. Take a look at Minnesota's Independence party for an idea.

The Republican party forces an ideological purity test on its members. That's precisely why moderates are leaving/being driven out. The Democratic party has had to juggle disparate viewpoints in their party for decades. That is one reason why they have been unable to present an opposition party for the past 8 years. They slowly seem to be overcoming that, particularly with the western and southern regions being given greater autonomy to not toe the party line on issues like immigration, guns, and religious conversations.

So, you want the intelligent members of either party to leave in order to accelerate their collapse into extremism. With the end goal of opening space for another extremist party? Excuse me if I reserve the right to disagree. The last thing we need as a nation is a 3 way shouting match.

It's really funny to hear about this as a polarizing election. First, Obama isn't the most liberal guy on earth, and McCain is pretty moderate in his own way. Surely you can argue that Obama is really a hard core leftist that softened himself enough to win while McCain leaned right only to win the nomination, but I think it's bad casting to fit either of these candidates as extremists. You need only look to the other politicians in the parties (kucinich on the left, palin on the right) to see what an extermist looks like.

I don't know if you any of you remember, but if you dig through ancient history to the 2000 election, the presidential race was a no holds barred race to the middle! Turn out was low simply because neither candidate in any way showed his ideological hand. Bush won mostly due to Gore trying to coast to a win, and in addition W had a great ground game that knew who he really was. The average american didn't know that W was a hardline right wing guy in 2000.

Parties realign all the time. The gop will find a new life, that much is certain. The dems seem to have coapted a bit more of the center, but that will change with time. First off, unlike in many other countries the social conservatism the GOP runs on isn't dying out. Part of that is due to much higher birth rates among conservatives than liberals, and part of it is the strong individualist/religious/nationalist thread that runs in American culture. Secondly, just as the Democrats learned what issues to run with (Economy, education) and which to avoid (Gun Control, Affirmative action) the GOP will quietly bury some of it's thornier planks (abortion, gay marriage) in a generation or two.

Finally, there are always new issues that change party dynamics. It could be argued that the GOP got two shots in the arm in a few years: a squeaker of a win in 2000, followed by the war of terror. Gaining the white house and having a huge issue that the GOP tends to score will with (security) kept the "big tent" that Reagan assembled together for a few more years. The GOP will regroup, no doubt.

As for the democrats, anybody that remembers 1994 is very worried about what will happen with the Dems. The last time they controlled the White House and Congress, nothing got done and the GOP stormed congress in a landslide. As another poster pointed out: you don't have to be good if the other side sucks.

dogma wrote:The difference is the extent to which the true believers hold sway in the GOP. In the end it is the moderate sector of the Democratic party that really calls the shots there. Sure, there were a lot of angry leftists after 2000, but the 2004 defeat pretty well weeded those people out of the hierarchy.

I don't think it did. As pointed out below, there are a lot of House Dems that see THIS as the chance to push their agenda. They have seniority, and they will demand that Obama act with the mandate the party has been "given". They will absolutely overreach, and at a time the economy will tremble because of it. Majorities ALWAYS overreach.

gorgon wrote:This isn't the end of the world for the GOP. They just need to reorganize, and they've always been the more tightly organized of the two parties.

They have been. The neo-cons shattered their strength (small government, tight spending, smart and strong foreign policy), but they can rebuild to it rather quickly if the Dems screw the pooch. Which looks quite likely.

dogma wrote:That really depends. The bar for Obama is pretty low right now. All he really has to do is accomplish a withdrawal from Iraq in order to call the first half of his Presidency a success.

And that is WAY harder than it sounds. It can't just be a withdrawal...it has to be a successful withdrawal. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in his background has set him up for that task. So I agree it's a low bar, but it is a deceptive one. It'll be very easy to trip over, especially with a self-serving Congress eying the 2010

Frazzled wrote:The party of DailyKos, Murtha, and Huffington Post is as radicalized as the GOP. Mark my words, the Democrats will over reach almost immediately. Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer are already leading the way.

As stated above, they will absolutely try to dictate what the government should do. They were the minority for a long time, and they chafed at it. They want to RUN now. And get things down. Frank has already said he wants to cut the military by 25%. They want immediate social programs. Obama is going to have to pick and choose, and he will make enemies because of that. They are as much a part of this partisan rancor as anyone. Don't foist that disaster off on the Republicans alone.

gorgon wrote:I mostly agree, although Lieberman is a bad example. The guy isn't a moderate Dem so much as a Republican in Dem clothing. To this point, staying a Dem has kept him a powerful figure with both parties. But there's a lot of bad blood there.

That blood will disappear if they have 59 Dems and they need him to caucus with them for the magic 60. And he would. His voting record is more liberal than Hillary's and probably at least the equal of Barack's (very short) record. He just broke with them on one issue (the war) and they have derided him brutally for it. So there is an ideological test for you, Dal'yth Dude. It's not just the Republicans who believe in LOYALTY UBER ALLES. Speaking of...

Dal'yth Dude wrote:I wish [the south] would secede. The rest of the country could then have more responsive government and wouldn't have to subsidize the very states that hate them. I do agree that demographic shifts will probably affect the Republican political strategy in the long run, but we'll still have cultural warriors like Bachmann, Hatch and Palin for the foreseeable future.

I'll assume you've never really been to the South, DD. You completely misinterpret their issues. And there is no America without the South.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:The Republican party forces an ideological purity test on its members.

I wish [the south] would secede.

And the Democrats don't? How many Dems back abortion limits and gun rights? How many Dems believe in advancement and placement by earned merit, rather than inborn race / gender?

Because that worked so well for them the last time they tried it?!?

dienekes96 wrote:I don't think it did. As pointed out below, there are a lot of House Dems that see THIS as the chance to push their agenda. They have seniority, and they will demand that Obama act with the mandate the party has been "given". They will absolutely overreach, and at a time the economy will tremble because of it. Majorities ALWAYS overreach.

I think we have a different take on what a Democrat true believer actually it. To me, they are the affirmative action, feminist legislation, gun control types who treat the symptoms rather than the cause. If that were the face of the Democratic Party I think they would most definitely overreach. But given the pull of the Clintons and their ilk I suspect that useful things like tax reform and national health care will be the items featured on the agenda. This may be a reach in light of the current hyper-right GOP, but it is the kind of reach which pushes the economy from the bottom up, and secures popular support.

Certainly the debt is going to climb, but short-term debt changes are largely irrelevant if they lead to sustained growth. No one is going to care about the national debt if their lives are better than they were before. Hell, I would wager that most people don't even care about the national debt right now.

dienekes96 wrote:
And that is WAY harder than it sounds. It can't just be a withdrawal...it has to be a successful withdrawal. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in his background has set him up for that task. So I agree it's a low bar, but it is a deceptive one. It'll be very easy to trip over, especially with a self-serving Congress eying the 2010

That's the thing. He doesn't have to bring the troops home before 2010. He could schedule full withdrawal for 2012. So long as the time table is set before the mid-term it will be looked on as a political victory. So the success of the initiative will largely be a question for re-election, not the mid-term.

This isn’t the end of the Republican party, despite the excitement coming from the left wing blogosphere. Fundraising and campaigning infrastructure like that held by the GOP and DNC is too powerful to let one bad election result kill. Further, both parties have a long record of adapting to absorb issues into their parties if it’ll gain more votes.

So really, there’s three possibilities. The first and most likely is the Republicans will pull back slightly on the more extreme elements of their party (as opposition does that naturally), and just wait it out until the Democrats manage to annoy enough people and allow the Republicans to sweep back into office. This is about 90% likely.

The second most likely option is a re-alignment of the party, although the exact nature of this change is unclear. There is no value in heading further right, what they really need is a new way to sell the party to the centre. Perhaps a third way like that taken by Labour in the UK, taking a centrist platform and rejecting the old debate of left-right. This would only come about as a result of a long time in opposition, which is unlikely, given the history of the Democrats. This is maybe 9% likely.

The last possibility is the Republican party drops away as a major party, replaced by some other powerful contender. It happens, remember the whigs or the strange death of Liberal England? But never on this Earth has there been political infrastructure like the major US parties have right now, it’s a hell of a lot to overcome to become a major party. One bad President and a nutty congress isn’t enough to kill a party. This is about 1% likely at most.

JohnHwangDD wrote:How many Dems believe in advancement and placement by earned merit, rather than inborn race / gender?

I love it when this bullcrap comes up. If you don't think that, by long-established "tradition" and bias that has only started to change in the past half-century, white males don't have a starting advantage over those in the same family-financial demographic, then you're blind to reality... and if you think that everyone has equal chances no matter their financial status, you're dreaming. My mother, who was honored this past weekend for her scientific work over her career which, among other things, brought the world PDE-5-based drugs (and if you want to know what that means, look here), was told early in her educational career that she wasn't going to finish, that the slot in graduate school was wasted on a woman, that she was looking for a husband and would drop out when she caught one. Similar attitudes were taken about her finances for that education, and as a result, she not only had to work her a$$ off in school, but at 3 jobs to keep up with the costs. Most of her fellow students were from rich families; she came from Eastern Kentucky farm stock, and there was not a penny granted for education from them. How many other potential boons to society have gone unrealized because the system was rigged by money and bias?

It's not race/gender-based "advancement" to advocate that the Land of Opportunity be one of EQUAL opportunity. You know, "All men are created equal"?

lord_sutekh wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:How many Dems believe in advancement and placement by earned merit, rather than inborn race / gender?

It's not race/gender-based "advancement" to advocate that the Land of Opportunity be one of EQUAL opportunity. You know, "All men are created equal"?

There's your mom's problem right there! Our country's freedoms were specifically
written for men!

/jokeinpoortastesapologiesofferedforgivenessnotexpected

lord_sutekh wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:How many Dems believe in advancement and placement by earned merit, rather than inborn race / gender?

I love it when this bullcrap comes up.

By "bullcrap", I'm assuming you mean Affirmative Action, set-asides, and tokenism? Yeah, I agree.

If you don't think that, by long-established "tradition" and bias that has only started to change in the past half-century, white males don't have a starting advantage over those in the same family-financial demographic, then you're blind to reality... and if you think that everyone has equal chances no matter their financial status, you're dreaming.

Given that I'm not white, I don't know what you're talking about. I do know that I had to work pretty hard to get into a good college, and then work hard to graduate, and then work hard to get and keep my jobs.

It's not race/gender-based "advancement" to advocate that the Land of Opportunity be one of EQUAL opportunity.

So maybe there's an advantage, maybe not. All I know I did a lot of work with the opportunities I was given so that I can now afford to play with toy soldiers.

You know, "All men are created equal"?

But blacks, women, etc. are "more equal" so they should have extra slots reserved for them that they didn't earn based on their merits?

Speaking as an Asian, I want all racial and gender preferences and caps removed, so that when my son graduates high school, he gets into UC or UCLA instead of some other (black, white, or Latino) kid who isn't as smart and didn't study as hard.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Speaking as an Asian, I want all racial and gender preferences and caps removed, so that when my son graduates high school, he gets into UC or UCLA instead of some other (black, white, or Latino) kid who isn't as smart and didn't study as hard.

Except you’re assuming that two kids, just as smart as each other, both studying as hard, will get the same grades regardless of their upbringing.

I’m not sure reserving positions for specific ethnicities is necessarily an answer*, but denying the problem exists is absurd.


*And it is extremely unlikely to be the best answer.

No, I'm saying that, if my kid would have gotten in if he were black, he should get in if he's Asian.

Besides, with grade inflation being rampant and accelerating, actual grades are likely to be meaningless by the time he applies for college.

The problem I see is that an admissions ceiling still exists. Whether the ceiling is 0 (to deny minority admissions), or 1000 (for "diversity"), matters little if you're the 1001st kid, and therefore denied admission despite otherwise qualifying.

JohnHwangDD wrote:No, I'm saying that, if my kid would have gotten in if he were black, he should get in if he's Asian.

Besides, with grade inflation being rampant and accelerating, actual grades are likely to be meaningless by the time he applies for college.

The problem I see is that an admissions ceiling still exists. Whether the ceiling is 0 (to deny minority admissions), or 1000 (for "diversity"), matters little if you're the 1001st kid, and therefore denied admission despite otherwise qualifying.

How can there not be a ceiling? There’s only so many students a college can take before the lecture halls are all full, the lecturers don’t have the time to talk to students directly and the TAs have too many papers to mark. Someone has to be the 101st best applicant for a class that only has 100 places.

All I can say is, I'm white, I was handed a lot that others weren't because of my race and financial position, and it's manifestly unfair that I got into Vanderbilt with a D average in high school, while much more deserving people are left out because they can't get the chance of the money.

Affirmative action can work if the schools are adequately funded. They're nowhere NEAR that. If the schools were funded to the degree they should be in a society that values education so highly, there would be no shortage of seats, no shortage of teachers because they are underpaid and treated like unwelcome necessities, and in time affirmative action would become unnecessary as opportunity became realistic to the broader populace and drive mattered more than money.

Yeah, that's an important point Lord Sutekh. Well funded schools and open education seem the bigger, more long term answer. And greater income equality. And universal healthcare.

But then, I'm probably quite a way to the left of most of you lot.