"Affirmative action has a negative effect on our society when it means counting us like so many beans and dividing us into separate piles"
About this Quote
Kasich’s line is doing a familiar bit of political aikido: borrowing the moral language of civil rights while redirecting it against one of civil rights’ most contested tools. “Counting us like so many beans” is a deliberately folksy insult to bureaucracy, casting affirmative action not as repair work for historic exclusion but as a sterile accounting exercise. The metaphor matters because it smuggles in a premise: that the problem is the act of categorizing, not the inequality that made categories politically consequential in the first place.
The phrase “separate piles” is even more loaded. It evokes segregation-era imagery and a kind of moral claustrophobia, suggesting that any policy attentive to race or gender is basically recreating the divisions it claims to address. That’s the subtextual move: equate remedial inclusion with enforced separation, turning a debate about power and access into a debate about personal dignity and social cohesion. He’s not arguing against discrimination so much as against visibility - the discomfort of having difference acknowledged in public policy.
Contextually, Kasich is operating in the post-1990s bipartisan groove where “colorblindness” became an aspirational brand, especially for Republicans wanting to sound post-racial without conceding structural inequities. The “our society” framing widens the audience: even listeners who benefited from affirmative action can be invited to feel reduced, counted, managed. It’s a line built for a swing voter’s unease - anxious about fairness, suspicious of institutions, eager to believe that unity is a matter of stopping the tally rather than changing the conditions that made the tally necessary.
The phrase “separate piles” is even more loaded. It evokes segregation-era imagery and a kind of moral claustrophobia, suggesting that any policy attentive to race or gender is basically recreating the divisions it claims to address. That’s the subtextual move: equate remedial inclusion with enforced separation, turning a debate about power and access into a debate about personal dignity and social cohesion. He’s not arguing against discrimination so much as against visibility - the discomfort of having difference acknowledged in public policy.
Contextually, Kasich is operating in the post-1990s bipartisan groove where “colorblindness” became an aspirational brand, especially for Republicans wanting to sound post-racial without conceding structural inequities. The “our society” framing widens the audience: even listeners who benefited from affirmative action can be invited to feel reduced, counted, managed. It’s a line built for a swing voter’s unease - anxious about fairness, suspicious of institutions, eager to believe that unity is a matter of stopping the tally rather than changing the conditions that made the tally necessary.
Quote Details
| Topic | Equality |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List


