Beinert's Paradox

Matthew Yglesias' post about "Beinert's Paradox" is clever but wrong. Yglesias, responding to Beinert's suggestion that Obama woo racist Democrats by favoring class-based affirmative action, argues:

But of course on the merits of the issue, abandoning race-based affirmative action makes sense to the extent that we don’t think present-day racism — as opposed to economic issues that may in some cases reflect the legacy of racism — is a substantial problem. But if racism really is a huge barrier to Obama’s electoral prospects, that suggests that present-day racism really is a substantial problem and we should probably maintain some focus on race per se.

I have made a similar argument to Beinert's on this blog. I think Yglesias' counterargument is too simplistic.

Part of the problem is that Beinert seems to overstate the number of Democrats and Democratic leaners out there who will completely refuse to vote for Obama solely because of race, leading Yglesias to characterize racism as a "huge barrier" to Obama. It may be that race is a factor for close to 20% of these voters, but as Beinert points out, these voters would be willing to vote for a black candidate who they believe shares their values, whatever the hell that may mean for each voter. The prejudice is still worrisome, but less racist than it might be in that these voters are ultimately voting based on the content of a candidate's character and not the color of his skin.

The main problem with Yglesias' logic is that he equates opposition to race-based affirmative action with racism. A reasonable fair-minded person could oppose race-based affirmative action. And I don't think it is irrational to worry that an African-American would be too inclined to favor race-based preferences. There also exists some white resentment based opposition to policies such as affirmative action that I can understand as being nonracist even if I disagree with it.