David Waldman's very thoughtful essay, "Behind the White Folks Who Built this Country," is fine as far as it goes, but I don't feel comfortable with the argument. It plays into the Buchanan position. The "slaves gave the founding fathers time" argument doesn't help understand the central issue, which is, "what do we owe each other now, today, and always?"
It's obvious that the "fathers" of our country were all white. It's also obvious that no black (or any other minority) person, including women, was allowed to participate at that level at many times during our history. It's true that systematic repression and unfounded discrimination resulted in an underclass that has yet to be fully allowed to participate in the American experience.
This is the most common argument for affirmative action. We have a duty to address these wrongs. Well, we do, of course.
But this is not the only argument for it. In fact, it is not the best argument for it, because it leaves an opening for arguments, like Buchanan's, that appear reasonable to people with no historical perspective, or who are inclined to accept any argument that comforts them in their fearful state of identity. Buchanan says affirmative action is stupid, because it creates another class of people to be unfairly discriminated against.
As Democrats, were have been taught, and we firmly believe it is idiotic to say that people without a heritage of bias against them are disadvantaged in the same way minorities are. This, too, is true.
However, it's intellectually dangerous to ignore the fact that there undoubtedly were people of color, and especially women, who had - at their historical moment - achievements just as astounding. Their history is less well documented, or completely unknown. In fact, their history is not known to me! I'm not a student of the history I'm talking about, I freely admit.
But, I know enough about the works of Henry Louis Gates (see here for one great book) to know that black slaves, at many times, achieved things completely beyond anyone's expectations. The abilities and intellects of these disadvantaged people were considerable.
This history, known or unknown, works for the classic argument against affirmative action that conservatives make, that it was a long time ago, and minorities today already have everything they need to achieve anything they put their minds to. After all, a black man can become President of the United States.
The best argument for affirmative action is not our sordid history, important and profound as it is. The best argument is political. Basic systemic inequalities between groups of people in the US are destructive to the society as a whole. How they came to be is important to understand, but is not the reason we should attempt to address glaring inequalities of opportunity today.
The reason we should embrace permanent affirmative action is the same reason we should address poverty, access to health care, voting rights, workers rights and all the other problems we progressives ask government to address. It is our responsibility as human beings to care what happens to others, to care about their disadvantages and to care about what they have to offer society.
This argument cannot be disputed by Buchanan's argument that history is over, and we should be free of it. This argument prevents the Frank Riccis of the world to cling to the idea that something that happened long ago cost him a promotion (even though it can be pointed out that he ultimately won his promotion).
The only argument against socialist elements of government, like affirmative action, is the argument that nobody cares or should care about anyone else, and we are all stuck where we are, disadvantaged, or comfortably advantaged.
This is an argument progressives should be able to win forever. It's our core reason for what we want politically, and what we fight for here every day.