Duane Bindschadler <dbind...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <4voe40$...@news2.cais.com>, darks...@cais.com wrote:

>> For educational purposes of the newsgroup.

>> Clinton and Blacks: The Power of
>>                   Symbolism

>Interesting article, ed. but it seems to me that the writer has missed
>a central point. Consider all the things he listed -- what would
>have been the result if you had George Bush in the White House and
>the '94 Republican Congress? Welfare would have been out the door, and
>with far more punitive and draconian conditions, so fast that people's
>heads would still be spinning.

>The only black members of the administration would be those who never
>raised a fuss about all those inconvenient "black" problems (and
>by that i mean problems that affect many or most americans but have
>been labeled with a black face).

>Economic stimulus would have been in the form of lowering the marginal
>tax rates for the highest income levels, and lower capital gains, with
>a bone thrown to the middle class in the form of income tax credits
>for kids. Most of that money would have come out of federal social and
>educational programs.

>Federal affirmative action programs would already be gone. And there
>would be minimal attempts to enforce the existing laws against discrimination.
>(y'all do recall who reagan put in charge of the EEOC, yes?)

>don't misunderstand -- i have no wish to take the all-too traditional
>white-liberal positions of either (1) "the republicans are the boogie
>man, so you have to vote for our guy" or (2) "but look at all the good
>things he/we have done for you! you should be grateful." To me, it comes
>down to making a choice. and in a 2-party system like we have, the
>alternatives often come down to voting for whoever you dislike the
>least.