A cynic questions people's motives. If I say that I support a given piece of legislation because it maximizes wealth, promotes fairness, or protects the vulnerable, a cynic will say that that's not really why I support it; I support it because it will benefit me personally or promote the interests of members of my social class. Cynics see sinister motives at work everywhere. Carefully constructed arguments are viewed as smokescreens, pretexts, mystifications, or rationalizations. Marxists are the ultimate cynics. They refuse to accept anything at face value. Every law, policy, procedure, or institution is viewed as an attempt by the powerful (the bourgeoisie) to oppress the powerless (the proletariat).
I have no patience for cynicism, but it's interesting to note that two can play the cynic's game. In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the following words in one of her Supreme Court opinions:
It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 43. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
These words have no binding effect; they are what lawyers call obiter dicta. What interests me is Justice O'Connor's prediction (if that's what it is) that "racial preferences will no longer be necessary" in 25 years. Let's face facts. There is a large and powerful affirmative-action industry in this country. Every university has an office for affirmative action staffed by lawyers, social scientists, and analysts. Many thousands of people are employed in this industry. How likely is it that they will accept its cessation without putting up a fight? The same can be said of the abortion industry.
A cynic would say that arguments in favor of affirmative-action programs and abortion rights are so much mystification and rationalization, designed to hide the power relations and self-interest that exist in these industries. The fact is that many people would lose their jobs if affirmative action were ended or if abortion were criminalized. I'm not advocating a cynical approach, but if progressives insist on "unmasking" conservative policies, conservatives are free to do the same—and should do the same—with regard to progressive policies. Why should only conservatives be motivated by self-interest? Either everybody is or nobody is.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 