80/20 Needs More Than One Voice
By Ed Lau

As a Chinese American, I was at first thrilled by the creation 80-20. It advocated the formation of a cohesive Asian American association that would communicate our concerns to our political parties. African Americans, Latinos, and Jewish Americans all have organizations that speak for them. Similarly, 80-20 was formed as the spokes-organization for the Asian community—and a political action committee to distribute campaign donations.

The problem is that the current Asian American vote is split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, getting the community to form a bloc vote requires individuals to change traditional party affiliations and donate campaign funds under someone else’s name.

My right to vote is very precious. In making my decisions, I look at the overall views of the candidates on issues such as education, crime, fiscal policies, trade, foreign relations, civil rights, abortion rights and tort reform. Now we are asked to support a candidate and party based on their support of the 80-20 declaration, which I view as dubious. The 80-20 Declaration calls for four conditions, which the candidate must accept. Those conditions are: 1) a joint Cabinet-Congress meeting to verify the existence of massive discrimination against Asians in the workplace and in government appointments based on the 1990 census; 2) a commitment to prosecute cases of Asian discrimination in the workplace if they are elected; 3) a commitment to lift the glass ceiling, which keeps Asians from opportunities; and 4) a commitment to appoint Asian Americans to the Cabinet and to policy-decision positions.

I have some problems with the provisions of this 4-point Declaration. The 80-20 Initiative says that the 1990 census shows “massive” discrimination against Asians in the workplace. This raw data of the 1990 census is controversial in that it is open to interpretation. Moreover, the data has been available since 1992. If this “massive” discrimination in the workplace has been known for 8 years, why hasn’t the current Cabinet done anything about it?

I have made inquiries as to what the 80-20 hoped to accomplish by a joint Cabinet-Congress meeting. I received no reply. Congress is the branch of government that enacts the law. What new laws does 80-20 want that the current Civil Rights Act doesn’t cover? If the problem is an ineffective Civil Rights Act, then I can understand the need for a meeting with Congress to suggest new legislation. Otherwise, this is an enforcement problem for the Cabinet. Still, I don’t understand the need to have the next president promise to prosecute Asian discrimination in the workplace if they win the election—that is exactly what the president, vice president, attorney general and the rest of the cabinet are supposed to do anyway.

My inclination is not to vote for candidates who haven’t done what they are supposed to do as a Cabinet. I would want to see new leadership if the old leadership has allowed such “massive” discrimination in the workplace and has done nothing about it. A new campaign promise to lift the glass ceiling is very admirable but not convincing if their past record shows inaction in this regard. To me, past efforts speak louder than campaign promises.

The last condition of the declaration is to commit to the appointment of an Asian American to the cabinet and to high level decision-making positions. I understand the reluctance of any candidate to do this. All ethnic groups will then want the same commitment. We would then limit cabinet appointments to Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos, Jewish Americans and Native Americans, rather than the best-qualified person. If there are multiple potential appointees and one is a minority, then the minority should be given priority for the sake of diversity. I would welcome preferential non-cabinet Asian appointments , which would increase the pool of qualified Asians for future cabinet appointments . I would be delighted to see high level appointments to qualified Asians if they are identifiable within the party that wins the election. I worry, however, that 80-20 as an organization may be short lived if they end up supporting the losing presidential candidate. The elected president would not have much incentive to appoint Asian American leaders to high level positions if the brightest stayed or crossed-over to the opposing party.

We need a pool of qualified Asian leaders in both parties. It is clear that 80-20 has been very positive toward one candidate and very negative toward the other candidate. I read scathing criticism toward one candidate and continuous praise for the other. One-sided testimonials are published in 80/20’s mass e-mail campaign. This tactic does not allow us to evaluate the differing points of view. I’d like to understand both sides of every controversy so that I can make up my own mind. If one candidate objects to the wording of a provision of the declaration, then 80-20 should publish the nature of that objection.

Furthermore, I get concerned when I hear 80-20 speakers supporting the concept that we ought not criticize our elected Asian American officials even though we may disagree with their voting record. We are told to always support Asian American office holders merely because they are of Asian decent and regardless of their views or their voting records. I’m just the opposite. I vote for candidates because of their views and not because of their race.

Finally, I am very concerned by 80-20’s conclusions that a presidential candidate who does not sign the 80-20 declaration must be anti-Asian American, when there may be legitimate reasons for not doing so.

I would like to see 80-20 publishing both sides of the controversy so that I can make up my own mind. I don’t plan to make my decision for president until I’m fully knowledgeable about their platforms. I have seen a lot of political, racial and patriotic rhetoric used in 80-20 meetings to incite Asian Americans. I would like to see more efforts in channeling that energy to political activism among Asians Americans in both major political parties.

Regardless, I will continue to be supportive of 80/20’s goal of being an organization to express the concerns of the Asian American community. And I hope my comments are taken as constructive criticism, as they were intended to be so.