The Sotomayor hearings in the Senate have occasioned much commentary from pundits. Patrick Buchanan, in particular, has been tagged a racist for his emphasis on the judge's reference to herself as a "wise Latina." His appearance on the Rachel Maddow show last night was a classic, but, while the initial objective of calling attention to her self-designation may well have been in the "you see, she's just as race-conscious as we (conservatives) are" mode, it seems that her failure to back down and admit her prejudice, convinced Buchanan that the apparent subservience to authority that her judicial record reveals is not sincere. That is to say, Sonia Sotomayor is a woman who does not know her place and does not appreciate her unwarranted elevation to prominence, as Justice Thomas clearly does.
In other words, the conservative opposition to affirmative action isn't a consequence of their belief that it represents favoritism on the basis of gender and race. Rather, what they object to is the reliance on competence as the criterion of choice. Which is actually a bit strange, when you come to think of it. Conservatives are adamant in their belief that objectivity means that the object of any act is deserving of and responsible for the results. But, in the case of affirmative action, the recipient's competence doesn't count. From which it seems reasonable to conclude that competence is seen as contrary towards subservience.
Which leads me to the conclusion that with Pat Buchanan, as I observed in a comment on KOS,
It's not racism; it's authoritarianism being frustrated by people who won't subjugate themselves and take direction.
I actually think that the point of the fuss about the "wise Latina" started out as an effort to say, "see, she sees differences just like us." Then, when the judge said the phrase was in-artful and wrong because it had been misunderstood, the effort shifted to making her recant as a demonstration of obedience (they even tried flattery to get her to that point), which she resisted and frustrated them even more.
Conservatives keep harping on the fact that everyone's different and that this difference should justify why they are treated differently. Because that's how they see social relationships--people are treated as they deserve to be treated--i.e. the object of an action is responsible for how the subject behaves.
(The President orders terrorists assassinated because they're terrorists. Whether or not the dead actually engaged in aggressive acts is beside the point. The subject's (President's) behavior is objective when it's prompted by the object against which it is directed. Or really by any external prompt, as Air Force General Lorenz explains.
Acting on one's own initiative is subjective and suspect. Judge Sotomayor's self-directed achievements are actually held against her. When conservatives identify affirmative action as favoritism, they're not objecting to the favoritism, they're objecting to it being extended on the basis of individual achievement, rather than subservient behavior.
If you arrive at the table with a prejudice that self-directed behavior is always bad, then personal initiative can't be good. They want to render judgments on the basis of what one is, rather than what one does.
