Are Republicans Racist?
Dave Price
Here's the perfect article to make people angry on a Monday morning.
"We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks."These kinds of studies always make me wonder:
1) How much of what they term "bias" or "prejudice" is just a reflection of reality? I mean, every individual person should be judged based on their character not their race, but there's a valid, non-racist reason people prefer not to live in poor black/hispanic/[insert non-Asian minority here] neighborhoods: they have high violent crime rates. Which is why, I suppose, that even with their supposed lack of bias, we don't see a lot of rich white liberals moving to those neighborhoods.
I should point out again that that it's not only racist but somewhat stupid to assign race as a cause of crime, as though some races have a "violent crime gene." Culture is the issue. The correlation to race exists only because culture is taught by parents to their children and thus tends to follow bloodlines, and obviously so does race. Adoption studies tend to prove that race has much less to do with crime and economic performance than culture.
Interestingly, it's not easy to find statistics on minority crime. This was all I could find in a quick google, and it seems to be by an overtly racist organization (although I do wonder how a white advocacy group is all that different from a minority advocacy group like, say, the NAACP). Are we really so afraid of the race issue that we're going to hide from unpleasant realities that really don't have much to do with race?
2) How many of those same biases exist among the people whom the bias is directed against?
3) What's the point of these studies, really? Shouldn't we be focusing on the real issue - culture - and not forever dwelling on a long-discredited theory of racial destiny that persists only because of a correlation to culture? Doesn't this just reinforce destructive identity politics?
What do you think?
Yes and that's the entire point.
It was interesting, the first day of my American Government class at EMU. We had a pretty good mix of students there but, insofar as I could tell, every black student hated Bush and Republicans. The class teacher, a female black Republican, pointed out that while most blacks tended toward traditional Republican values they denegrated them. She asked a particular vocal young woman a number of questions, about 10, and all but one of her answers followed the Republican line. The student got real quiet after that.
Not enough critical thinking is done in in our everyday life nor is it emphasised by the media. To do so would show that most people tend to be conservative in most issues. As you yourself know Dean begin labelled "conservative" for most of your opinions. Though, I know, you consider yourself "classicly liberal." Perhaps that's the new, the neo-, conservative?
50 years?
Ummmmm, weren't the Dems the ones who tried to stop the Civil Rights movement 40 years ago?
We have 150 years of proof the Dems are racist.
In 1860, they were for slavery. So in other words, treat people differently because of their race.
From 1865-1960s, most of America was racist. That group includes Dems.
1960s, Dems against Civil Rights movement. Didn't Byrd filibuster the Civil Rights amendment? Again, for treating people differently because of their race.
Present day, Dems are for Affirmative Action. Again, for treating people differently because of their race.
That looks like one racist party to me.
Why do I have the feeling that these "researchers" started with their conclusion and worked backward?
Yes.
Technically, Mike, those are two separate statements. They could be interpreted as "People vote their prejudices" and "50 years ago, prejudiced people were reliably Democrat, and today they're reliably Republican."
I'm not saying that's what the speaker meant. I'm saying the article doesn't clarify that, so the speaker can use this weasel defense.
Now, without a bit of research, I'm going to assert something that I'm absolutely sure is true: Democrats are supported by blacks with prejudice against whites. Why am I sure this is true? Because 80-90% of all black people support the Democrats, so it's inconceivable that all the prejudiced black people would be in the 10-20%.
So does the Washington Post check out this fact? Nope. Did the researchers? Can't tell from the article.
Does it mean anything? I suspect that, like the article as a whole, it's mostly BS.
All that time, I've had good working relationships with african Americans, and at a time when most european Americans -- including most Democrats -- were referring to them in sometimes sneering and sometimes hateful terms, and still lynching them in parts of the country where the Democratic party was supreme.
On the other hand, there are folks who say I'm on the contrary side of everything. But I don't give a damn. I know what's right and I know what's wrong. I'll always stand up for the one and oppose the other.
By the way Dean. I've been preaching for some time on Dean's World that race is nothing and culture is everything, in predicting how people will behave. I see you've bent somewhat toward that position.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Can I "learn" or "adopt" a culture, or do I have to be born into one of the "good" ones to get the putative benefits thereof? Can I "unlearn" a culture and thus escape the putatively pernicious effects of being born into a bad one?
I got my RNC card a bit ago and it actually states that on the back. The oddest thing...
Obviously. Immigrants do it all the time. The ones who want to, that is.
I see they're finally printing it in black and white (pun). They used to print it such that you needed a black light to read it. I think it also says something about the RNC also wants to make sure seniors are forced to eat dog food too.
You know, of course, that Haliburton prints those for the RNC free of charge.
Oh, you could measure it various ways. For instance, ask someone to rank the following in order of importance:
1) Athletic prowess
2) Education level
3) Hard work
4) Politeness
5) Fame
6) Sexual attractiveness
7) Expensive clothes/car/jewelry
8) Self-discipline
9) Treating others well
It's pretty apparent that how a culture values those traits tends to make a culture successful, or not.
do I have to be born into one of the "good" ones to get the putative benefits thereof?
No, adoption studies tend to prove this is not so. Or did you mean purely in terms of the ability to change one's behavior? Man is infinitely malleable; all it takes is will.
An the evidence for that is...
Going to a high end mall in Singapore or San Diego seems to indicate that craving for high end symbols of wealth seems to be a facet of prosperous and successful people.
It sounds like I'm being deliberately contrary, but last time I checked there were plenty of CEO's who are anything but polite and plenty of near poverty level people in the caring professions who are passionately devoted to treating others well.
Also, if you take two individuals who work hard and have attained high education levels, does "culture" lose it's ability to predict success?
Like Ted, I'm curious about the evidence. I actually wrote Thomas Sowell after he published "Crippled by Their Culture" in the WSJ and ask him how he defined culture and what was his data set but he did not respond.
Not really, it's a facet of people who want you to think they're prosperous and successful people. I think it's in the book "The Millionaire Next Door" but IIRC most millionaires drive 2 year old domestic family cars not BMW's.
I don't know, I just threw that list out on the spur of the moment, thinking of teenagers killing each other for sneakers and Starter jackets, and drug dealers with gold chains.
#9 should probably be "Following laws" for the list to make more sense.
I'll bet even those CEOs know when to be polite. It's true you can break any or all of those and still be successful, but as a culture that will tend to hurt you. We generally find cultures that value hard work, self-discipline, education, etc. have the highest per capita GDP.
I work with a Filipino guy who's about 55. He owns half a dozen condos he bought 15-20 years ago. The mortgages are just about paid off now so he's got to be worth around $1 mil, and he drives a little hatchback rustbucket to work every day.
Wish I could do that. They generally wear out LONG before then. :p
How about let's see if a propensity to do illegal drugs is a predictor of voting patterns, I wonder how that would turn out?
Let's try a study to see who has a prejudice against Christians and see who ends up as the dominant political party.
In other words, let's choose something that we can spin into an attack on a group we want to attack and claim to be innocently doing "science."
Dave: I thought about it some more, I think my problem with "culture" as an explanation comes down to several things.
"We generally find cultures that value hard work, self-discipline, education, etc. have the highest per capita GDP"
Problem number 1 - remember the "Asian Tigers" - all of sudden the economies in SE Asia took off. The problem I have is that it's hard to believe the values in those countries changed much.
Problem number 2 - Thomas Sowell compared the relative prosperity of recent immigrants to the U.S. from the West Indies and Africa to U.S. born African Americans to argue that their race, or *others perceptions* of that race could explain the disparity. Now it seems to me that a group who are able to muster the determination both to emigrate and to get past the INS, are not a representative sample, and indeed many immigrant groups do quite well within a generation. So they must have a successful "culture". However, presumably they do substantially better in the U.S. than they did back home.
Problem number 3 - all of the values you list seem to be self-evidently valuable. The question is how well do such values distinguish what you would call "successful" people from unsuccessful people. I ask this because if you look at a typical corporate office, it seems that certain "soft" attributes such as "towing the line" and being a "team player" determine success as much as some of the values you mention - as the unfortunate Jonathan Fishbein seems to have found out.
Problem number 4 - is it the intrinsic superiority of a culture that matters, or is it the need to belong to the dominant culture of a society?
Problem number 5 - are these "cultural" attributes actually malleable. For example, risk-taking varies somewhat with age, nationality, gender, etc, but individual deviations are pretty large. It's not at all clear that you can really change your risk tolerances willingly. (Although Holocaust survivors, among others, seem to have been affected by their experiences).
Seems to me that the stakes of understanding this question are very high. For one thing, they influence social policy at all levels of government, and on a more down to earth level, what do you tell your children to do?
I submit that that is itself a cultural perspective. For most of the listed traits, we can find current or historical cultures where they were more valued or less valued.
I do not understand your comment, but I'm trying.
Insert "which" as the second word:
"So which party does the only sitting former member (high-ranking) of the KKK represent in the Senate?"
That would be the party of former Klan Kleagle, Senator Byrd (D).
1) Well, you still find higher GDP per capita in those places. The value they were lacking was respect for individual rights -- which is why the Westernized cultures of Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong are far wealthier. Yes, they have better governance, but one is reflective of the other.
2) Good point.
3) True, but few cultures manage to actually inculcate enlightened self-interest.
4) I think pride is indifferent to success, perhaps even a negative.
5) Well, I'm not sure risk-taking is all that important. You can be very risk-averse and still be very successful, just not as an entrepeneur or raceboat driver.