By S. B. WOO

INTRODUCTION

An area where Asian Americans (AsAms) need more knowledge and power is politics. If more of us know about politics-America-style, the glass ceiling above us will be broken, few will dare to or succeed in discriminating against us, and those campaign finance scandals that were committed by Asian Americans earlier would not have happened. Above all, the number of Asian American executives/administrators/
senior partners/manager will increase by at least a factor of three (explained later).

Knowledge is power! When an average AsAm knows how the American political system operates, we shall win equal justice and opportunity in workplaces.

This article talks about the whys and hows of political empowerment of Asian Americans -- how we are supposed to vote so that politicians will care about us; how many votes does our community have; how much political power do those votes represent, and HOW WE ARE TO VOTE THIS YEAR TO WIN "THE BIG INTERESTS" THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR ONLY.

Vote our own interest!

Aren't we being too self-centered? No. How have our senators and congressmen voted? Do they normally place national interest above that of their respective states and/or their respective parties? Search your memory! Senators and representatives normally vote against cuts in military bases in their respective states, although such cuts prevent waste. They normally vote against investigation of scandals if the target is their own party. With that reminder, we should begin re-evaluating how we should be voting.

The framers of America's Constitution had always assumed that people would vote their self-interest. That was why our political system was laced with layers of checks and balances. That's why we have 3 branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial in the city, county, state and the federal levels. That's why we have a multiple party system.

If you need more empirical evidence beyond a theoretical understanding of our political system that American people vote their own interest, just listen to the motto coined by Tip O'Neil: "All politics is local." He was formerly a Speaker of the House and was highly respected for his political skills. The statement that "all politics is local" reveals what politicians had always known -- American people vote their local, not national, interests.

AsAms need to vote our own interest to help not only ourselves but also America. Let me explain.

There is a well-respected economic theory, known as the "The Invisible Hand." It basically says that in a market economy if every individual or group maximizes its own interest, then the interest of the entire unit that is composed of all those individuals and groups will automatically be maximized. It is as if an invisible hand has been guiding the conflicting interests to make them work toward a common goal. America is a market driven society. Our democracy operates pretty much like the market economy.

There is another way to understand the necessity of voting our own interest. The following example shows that we failed both America and ourselves when we failed to vote our own interest.

Since 1965, the year of the Great Civil Rights Movement, the glass ceiling above minority Americans has been systematically eliminated owing to the introduction of Executive Order 11246. E.O. 11246 is a powerful federal law that compels American institutions to practice equal opportunity with all Americans or be prohibited by the Labor Department from engaging in projects with more than $10,000 federal money in them practically all large business opportunities. Visit http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm As a result, all minorities have reached rough equity except for AsAms because E.O. 11246 has been enforced for all Americans except for AsAms. Below is the government-released statistics to back up my statement.

Let's look at the situation in universities, the so-called bastion of idealism in our society. University administrators are recruited almost exclusively from the ranks of faculty and professionals already employed in the academic world. Hence the ratio of [administrators / (faculty + professionals)], broken down to races, is a measure of the opportunity enjoyed by American citizens of different races. For full-time staff nationwide, that ratio for blacks (non-Hispanic) is 0.193. That is, for every 100 black faculty and professionals there are 19 black administrators. The ratio for Native American is 0.169; for white (non-Hispanic) is 0.157; and for Hispanic is 0.145. The national average is 0.150. However, it is only 0.057 for Asian American. The only group that has a lower number is the "resident aliens," whose ratio is 0.046. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/XLS/Tab224.xls

To summarize, an average AsAm's chance to rise to the executive/ adminis-trator level is only 1/3 that of all other Americans. Our ratio is only slightly better than that of the "resident Aliens" -- another indication that America has treated its Asian citizens as "perpetual foreigners."

The situation in the corporate world is much worse. All AsAm CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, with one exception, started the companies themselves. Our population is 4%. The % of Asian Amercans who serve on the Board of our Fortune 500 companies is not even 0.4%. Similar statement can be made regarding government institutions.

How could such a shameful situation, both for us and for America, have existed? We and politicians were both at fault. Politicians were at fault, because they enforced E.C. 11246 selectively -- for every American but us. We were also at fault because we lacked the political maturity to understand that we couldn't expect politicians to serve our interest unless we can serve their interest. That is if we want politicians to fight for us and enforce E.O. 11246, we need to demonstrate the ability to reward such politicians with money and votes, preferably a bloc vote when politicians are running.

What is a bloc vote? Do we have large enough of a bloc vote to induce politicians to care about us?

2) HOW MANY VOTES DO WE HAVE?

In 2000, 2.04 million APAs voted in the presidential election. (US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Amie Jamieson, Hyon B. Smith & Jennifer Day, issued Feb., 2002)

How could the number of our votes be so small? Aren't we supposed to have a total population of about 12 million in 2000?

Yes, but only 68% of the 12 million are 18 and older the minimum age required to register to vote. Of those only 58% are citizens. Of citizens who are 18 and older, only 52% were registered in 2000. Of those, only 83% actually voted. (US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Amie Jamieson, Hyon B. Smith & Jennifer Day) When you take all of those percentages into consideration, that is, when (12 million x 0.68 x 0.58 x 0.52 x 0.83) it comes to the reported 2.04 million votes.

In 2004, there will be an estimated 20% increase in AsAm voter. About 2.5 million AsAms will likely vote representing about 2.2% of the national vote.

3) HOW MUCH POLITICAL CLOUT CAN WE MUSTER WITH 2.4 MILLION VOTES?

A lot. How could that be? Three reasons. First, the concentration of our population is in California. Second, California is a pivotal state in any presidential election, because it has 55 or 20% of the electoral votes needed to become the next president of the USA. Third, an AsAm bloc vote has emerged under the leadership of 80-20 in recent years to possibly tilt the state to one candidate or the other, depending on which candidate the 80-20 will endorse. In 2004, that endorsement could make or unmake the next US president.

Is a bloc vote good for America? A bloc vote is the most effective way for a small minority to establish its necessary political clout with which to protect its rights. David Broder, perhaps the country's most respected political columnist, recently calls this approach one of the "unnoticed glories of American life." http://www.80-20initiative.net/broder.html .

About 40% of AsAms live in California. As a result, AsAms represent 8% of the voters in California, which is 4 times that of the national average of 2%. (US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Jessica S. Barnes and Claudette E. Bennet, Feb. 2002) That is why a bloc vote by AsAms in California packs Political clout. Two numerical examples below will illustrate the astounding political power of a bloc vote.

Two candidates run against each other in a political division, which for simplicity is assumed to have two constituent groups only. One group has 1 million votes (8%) and the other has 11 million votes (92%). Candidate A, a novice, courts the larger group, not being aware that the smaller constituent group has the internal political cohesion to deliver a bloc vote in the ratio of 8 to 2 while the larger group does not. When the ballots are open, candidate A wins the larger community by the ratio of 52/48. The margin of difference is 4%. Since the larger group has 11 millions votes, 4% of 11 million votes provides a winning margin of 440,000 votes to candidate A. His opponent, candidate B, is a seasoned politician. She courts the smaller group and wins that community by a ratio of 80 to 20, which is the voting pattern of the Jewish Americans and African Americans. The difference between 80% and 20% is 60%. 60% of 1 million votes is 600,000 votes. As a result, candidate B wins the election by (600,000 440,000) or 160,000 votes. Astounding? Yes.

Let's now use the presidential election of 2004 to make the same point. Real figures are used, although some assumptions are made. It projects that if 80-20 will endorse Mr. Bush in the 2004 election, then California will become a hotly contested state that could go either Democratic or Republican. However, without 80-20's endorsement of Bush, California will remain firmly in the Democratic column in the 2004 presidential election. Here is how it goes.

In 2000, Bush lost California by 12 points, when Californians voted 54/42/4 for Gore/ Bush/ Nader. In that election, 80-20 endorsed Gore. According to a national poll partially sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and conducted by a group of professors from Utah, Yale, Harvard and Florida State, AsAms voted 66/31/3 for Gore/Bush/Nader in 2000. http://www.80-20initiative.net/NAA_Political_Survey.pdf In California, AsAms voted 70.25/28.25/1.5. (Private communication with the Principal Investigator of the NSH Survey, Prof. Pei-te Lien) Such a shift to favor a Democratic presidential nominee is astounding. AsAms used to vote in favor of the Republican presidential candidates. According to the New York Times, in 1996, the AsAms voted nationwide 43/48/8 for Clinton/ Dole/ Perot; in 1992 AsAms voted 31/55/15 for Clinton/Bush/Perot.

If 80-20, as a 2-year-old organization in 2000, has delivered better than 70/30 in California to its endorsed candidate, how will it do in 2004? In 2004, 80-20 aims to deliver 80-20, its name sake, to its endorsed candidates. By then, 80-20 will be 6 years old. Its e-mail list has expanded from 300,000 in year 2000 to 1,000,000. It didn't have a single dues-paying member in 2000, it has more than 2000 members in 2003, and is estimated to grow to at least 2500 by the end of 2004.

In 2004, if 80-20 endorses Mr. Bush and succeeds in delivering 80/20 to him, then the 54/42/4 figures in 2000 for Dem/Rep/Third Party, will change to 50/46/4 at the start of the race for California's 55 electoral votes. Bush's initial disadvantage will decrease from 12 points to 4 points. It'll make California a hotly contested state.

If the above scenario occurs, both the Democratic and the Republican parties will be pouring a huge amount of campaign resources into California. The AsAm media will be getting a huge amount of political advertisement. The scholars in Asian-American-studies in California's universities will be called upon by both political parties for political consultation. But more importantly, because the two parties will be fighting over our votes, the rightful concerns of the Asian Americans will be listened to.

4) HOW TO WIN "THE BIG INTERESTS" AVAILABLE ONLY IN A TIGHT PRESIDENTIAL RACE?

American candidates are taught to consider making a promise if winning the election depends on it. If fulfilling the promise will be good for America and helpful towards winning the election, then make the promise! It is a good deal. That is what democracy is all about.

In a tight presidential race, Bush and Kerry will both make deals. If the Asian Americans play our cards right, we can win two "BIG INTETERESTS" this year.

(a) Shattering The Glass Ceiling for Asian Americans

None fits the above criteria better than the issue of glass ceiling. First, the AsAm is the nation's only minority for whom the Executive Order 11246 has not been enforced -- a gross inequity. Second, all AsAms have jobs or have had jobs or have loved ones with jobs. Hence, every AsAM yearns for equal opportunity in salary increments, promotions and rising to the top.

Following that conviction, 80-20 sent the following questionnaire to all presidential candidates aiming to break the glass ceiling with the written commitment of the next president. It contains three questions:

"(1) If elected, will you direct the Labor Secretary to hold public hearings regarding the validity of the huge amount of statistical data strongly suggesting discriminatory practices against Asian Pacific Americans in workplaces today?

(2) If the data were shown valid, will you issue a directive to the Labor Department asking it to focus on enforcing Executive Order 11246 on behalf of Asian Pacific Americans, since in the past similar efforts have already been made on behalf of women and other minorities?

(3) Two years after you have issued a directive described in item 2, will you meet with a group of Asian Pacific American leaders, put together jointly by 80-20 and the Labor Department, to review the progress in extending equal opportunity to Asian Pacific Americans? "

80-20 respectfully requested the candidates to give a either yes or no answers so as to make their written commitments clear-cut. Thus far John Kerry and Ralph Nader have answered with "yes/yes/yes" and signed their responses. http://www.80-20.info/preselect.html

George Bush has not.

80-20 recommends that no financial or other forms of contributions be given to Bush until he has responded positively to 80-20's questionnaire. After all, "Leverage is the currency of politics."

(b) Safeguarding Our Families From Internment Camps

Another area of gross inequity affecting the largest number of AsAms is the threat of being interned. During WWII, Japanese Americans were interned but not the German and Italian Americans. Presently, we are one of the two ethnic groups, the other being the Arab Americans, who may still face the danger of being interned.

If one thinks that internment is not possible in the 21 Century, think again.

On 2/4/2003, Congress Howard Coble, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security justified the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII on a radio interview this way. He said, "We were at war. They (Japanese Americans) were an endangered species. For many of these Japanese Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street. Some probably were intent on doing harm to us .... "

Coble's last sentence quoted above implied that internment was justified on military grounds. That was in gross contradiction with the findings of a blue-ribbon government commission, Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilian (CWRIC). In 1983, when the war hysteria was gone, and cooler head prevailed, the Commission reported:

"In sum, Executive Order 9066 (Pres. F.D. Roosevelt's order to intern) was not justified by military necessity .... The broad historical causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. "

Those of us who think internment is impossible nowadays were probably recalling the findings of the CWRIC. However, such findings apparently had no effect on a powerful politicians like Mr. Coble who is in a key position to recommend whether to intern American citizens. So think again and be vigilant!

Coble's second and third statement above implied that our government was actually doing Japanese Americans a favor by interning them -- protecting "an endangered species." How do we know that a politician like Coble may not want to protect us again!

80-20 will endorse a presidential nominee. There will be an Endorsement Convention during which the elected Delegates will be asked to decide which of the three to endorse. The Howard Coble issue is likely to surface prominently at that time. If the Republican Party had, by that time, induced an apology from Mr. Coble and had replaced him as the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee with a person sensitive to concerns of the minorities, Pres. Bush will obviously be given substantial credit by the Delegates. That will be particularly so, if Mr. Bush has not only responded with yes/yes/yes to 80-20's questionnaire but also ordered the Labor Department to enforce E.O. 11246 immediately. Note that Mr. Bush is the sitting President. He doesnt have to wait till he is elected again to enforce an existing law on the book.

In reading this article, I hope you have not only learned about the whys and how of political empowerment. You are actually witnessing political empowerment in progress. If you didn't get it, please read the immediate above paragraph again.

CONCLUSION: AsAms must vote our enlightened self-interest. We must understand that leverage is the currency of politics and practice it. When we have that kind of political maturity, our community will win equity and become an integral part of America. Indeed, such political maturation helps make America "a more perfect Union," because the dream of equal opportunity for all Americans is the most fundamental of all American Dreams. Mind you, This year's presidential election will be very tight. All presidential candidates will do whatever that is necessary if the deal is good for America and helpful towards winning the White House. If you want to win the two "BIG INTERESTS" for yourself, then support 80-20.