On affirmative action, Obama intriguing but vague
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is one of the rare Democrats who often choose to explain the values behind a policy rather than the policy itself. (That's more often been the proud approach of Republicans, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.)
So when ABC's George Stephanopoulos, in the waning minutes of the Pennsylvania debate, asked Obama for his views about affirmative action, Obama's answer was a microcosm of the strengths - and some of the recently apparent weaknesses - of his campaign: The Illinois senator's reply was intriguing but fuzzy, responsive to voters' underlying concerns but not really specific in policy terms.
Obama began, "Well, I think that the basic principle that should guide discussions not just of affirmative action, but how we are admitting young people to college generally, is how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? How do we make sure that every child in America has a decent shot in pursuing their dreams?"
Acknowledging that "race is still a factor in society," Obama nonetheless suggested that his own daughters, who've had "a pretty good deal," might not be deserving of special treatment.
But he added: "I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system and it can't be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black, or white, or Hispanic, male or female. What we want to do is make sure that people who've been locked out of opportunity are going to be able to walk through those doors of opportunity in the future."
It was a fine answer, seemingly well received by voters and media watchdogs. But affirmative action isn't a vision, but a policy designed to give preferences to students whose opportunities have been limited by past discrimination. The Supreme Court has said that for public universities to justify an affirmative-action plan, they must show evidence of historic discrimination, such as a past refusal to consider black applicants.
It's hard to see how discrimination against some of the other groups Obama mentions, such as lower-income whites, could meet the Supreme Court's standard.
Be that as it may, Obama left unclear whether he was talking about creating actual written affirmative-action plans to favor lower-income whites, Hispanics, women, or others whose circumstances may be less fortunate.
He may have just meant to point out that a thoughtful college-admissions system would consider "the whole person" - his or her academic record, background, leadership skills, obstacles overcome, and more. If so, Obama is envisioning an admissions system quite similar to those in place at many universities, where boards look not just at test scores and grades, as in many European countries, but at intangible credentials as well.
Despite its vagueness, Obama's response to Stephanopoulos's question had the virtue of explaining the candidate's underlying values - his commitment to atone for past discrimination and promote inclusiveness, but also be mindful of every student's unique attributes - and probably struck many voters as refreshingly high-minded in a combative political atmosphere.
These kinds of answers have worked to Obama's advantage in the past. When, in stump speeches, he promised that "our time for change is now," and "their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over," he got many heads nodding in agreement. The lines were meaningful to people, even if they meant different things to different people.
Like some gifted politicians, including Reagan, Obama has the ability to make his audience feel that he's talking to them directly, and that they're in complete agreement.
But as Hillary Clinton seems to have discovered, Obama's references to values and principles may be elevating, but to some voters - particularly skeptical blue-collar types - they can also be distancing. In Pennsylvania, Clinton took to reciting various specific programs, from special education to veterans' benefits, to point up the contrast between her groundedness and his high-mindedness.
In the Pennsylvania debate, after Obama's response on affirmative action, she promised to "affirmatively invest in our young people" and launched into an outline of her educational agenda: expand universal prekindergarten, end No Child Left Behind, cap interest rates on student loans.
Given her success in Pennsylvania, Clinton will probably try to accentuate stylistic differences between herself and Obama in Indiana and North Carolina, which hold primaries next Tuesday. By then, voters should know that they're not only choosing between Obama and Clinton, but between poetry and prose.
Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond. 