Thanks Taz. I recently became a naturalized citizen and registered using the link you provided.

Now I need to decide who to support. I will vote for any republican candidate who has a strategy for Iraq other than stay the course and can reduce my property taxes.

how come sf bay area is not in the top 5 metros for s.asians...?
w/ santa clara w/ a sa pop of 73K

Now I need to decide who to support. I will vote for any republican candidate who has a strategy for Iraq other than stay the course and can reduce my property taxes.

Click on the Project Vote Smart link- it is ridiculous how much information they gathered on the site- include candidate issue stances.

Thanks for registering!

I just wanted to address a reason many people have for not voting: "my vote won't count, it's meaningless." Totally false. While your's is unlikely to be the deciding vote in an election, there are many other ways your vote makes an impact.

1) Voting histories are carefully scrutinized by all candidates. You may not realize this but your complete voting history (whether you voted, not who you voted for) and demographic info is publicly available. This info is used to determine whether desis are registered (and for which party), how often they vote and if they vote in the primary. The more desis vote, the more candidates will cater to their needs. Simply being registered increases desi clout.

2) Every vote counts because winning and losing margins matter a lot. Sure, it's unlikely that George "macaca" Allen will lose his senate election, but if desis can help make it a close race, it makes his prospects as a presidential candidate much dimmer. Margins also help decide where candidates stand on the issues and what kind of candidates run.

3) The closer the race, the more money that the party needs to spend on the race. So, if Virginia is no longer a "gimme" for the republicans, they need to spend more time and money on winning races there, diverting resources from other elections.

So, yes, every vote does count...for a lot!

Great and informative post, Taz, and insightful comment Umang.

When I registered people to vote and they expressed helplessness or apathy tied to some Political Identity Hat they happened to be wearing at the time, I sometimes tried to find out what their other Political Identity Hats were, get them to put it on, and then show them how much they had to be involved for. Are you a Dad? Are you retired? What's your occupation? What are your parents' concerns? Are you really passionate about parks? That frequently worked. In college most of my political agitation was science-centric, and I probably feel that aspect of my interests and priorities is much, much more underrepresented in our current government than most of the others. I probably have that more in mind this morning because Chris Mooney is on tour with the new, updated paperback edition of The Republican War on Science. If you don't know about Mooney, I highly recommend you look into his work and his book--he's a quiet but eloquent, concise speaker.

Damn, did I leave a href tag open?

chris is not brown.

I sometimes tried to find out what their other Political Identity Hats were, get them to put it on, and then show them how much they had to be involved for...

That's what I do in my trainings, too! It's all about making politics accessible. and cool.

Damn, did I leave a href tag open?

Nope. ;)

(missed you at the SF meetup!)

Why should any party cater to desis. Whether an Election is gimme or not, desis generally register and vote as Democractic. If more Desis register as Independents or Republicans and become swing voters, there will be interest in us.

Is it really true that most Desis are Democrats? My (admittedly anecdotal) experience is that the community is pretty evenly split between liberal and conservative...

Is it really true that most Desis are Democrats? My (admittedly anecdotal) experience is that the community is pretty evenly split between liberal and conservative...

yes, it seems true. (though most does not imply 90% as the SAALT survey from last year suggested)

In the North East there are a lot more fund-raisers for Democrats than Republicans. My unscientific survey indicates that Desis in the North East are mostly Democratic.

my conjecture is that propensity toward being democratic/liberal is proportional to assimilation/political awareness. also, 'natural republican' browns who are religious are, i suspect, driven away by the sectarianism of the social conservative wing of the party because they tend to be non-christian. libertarians and moderates are (like me) turned off at this point because of the nature of bush 'conservatism.'

Every vote counts is a myth.
e.g; In New York, If you are planing to vote Republican in the Senate or Presidential election - don't bother.

Pragmatic: Unfortunate that Presidential Elections are based on votes in OH, PA & FL, the rest are pre-determined or inconsequential.

(some day I will figure out how to quote you on this blog)

From my anecdotal evidence:

H-1B Warriors: Most likely to be Republican
1/1.5 Grad students: Most likely to be Democrats.

H-1B Warriors: Most likely to be Republican

that would be pragmatic 8-)

H-1B Warriors: Most likely to be Republican

that would be pragmatic 8-)

That’s actually very true especially considering the fact their job security is more threatened by the Dems than by the Reps. Also the whole laborious process of gettin labor certification etc. is the handiwork of union supporting democrats. Now family re-unification is something where the Dems have a better record than the Reps. Of course we are here presuming that immigration is the most important issue to an H-1B which is probably not true in a lot of cases.

H1B => support republicans?
undocumented worker => support democrats?

ah, now i recall why i have not lapsed in my registration as a republican....

Every vote counts is a myth. e.g; In New York, If you are planing to vote Republican in the Senate or Presidential election - don't bother.

Not true at all. While it may seem like "NY is the most liberal place imaginable. It could not possibly be more liberal," believe you me, it's people who vote republican or for moderate liberals who keep NYC from becoming a socialist/communist state. Hilary and Schumer are far from the most liberal senators in America and their level of moderation is partly driven by the fact that NYers will actually vote for a Republican if the democrats make the mistake of positioning themselves as crazy, radical leftists.

Part of the reason why NY doesn't have politicians who are even more liberal is that Wall Street carries a lot of clout and they keep the dems in check (even w/o getting a repub elected).

However, I should point out that in some instances, the way to maximize your voting impact is to register as a dem (say, if you're a repub in NY) and vote for the most moderate liberal in the primary. Sometimes, the entire election is based on the primary.

voting is not a sufficient condition to affect political change, but unless you are a billionaire it is a necessary condition.

Unfortunate that Presidential Elections are based on votes in OH, PA & FL, the rest are pre-determined or inconsequential.

Not true. While there may have been a handful of states in which $0 got spent by the presidential campaigns, candidates did spend precious campaign resources in the vast majority of states. Every dollar Kerry had to spend in CA was a dollar he couldn't spend in OH, PA or FL.

Furthermore, the voting margin establishes the kind of mandate the winner has. Bush won by the slimmest of margins but acted like he had a solid mandate, hence the drop in his popularity. Smarter politicians pay closer attention to how people voted. You might say that Bush doesn't care about popularity because he's not running again or he doesn't mind being unpopular in places like CA and NY, and while this may be true, it's very dumb. Bush's lack of popularity is dragging down both Repubs in liberal states, as well as moderate liberals in the upcoming mid-terms (see Lieberman).

Are Desis Democrats?

In LA County, the answer is yes. I was going to wait till the report I'm working on went to press- but if interested you can pick up a prelim of the report at www.demographics.apalc.org - It's a report called Asian Americans at the Ballot Box. I've been working all summer on the Asian American Youth Vote supplemental report. Our analysis is based on the voter file (back to Umang's point of why it's important to register- for data's sake) and we pulled names based on an intricate names analysis (which is really, really cool for any wonks out there) and weighted accordingly.

Anyways, I don't have the report in front of me, nor do I think the online version has the desi numbers (final version will) - but, if memory serves correctly... (I had been working on 18-24 age group desis, and 25-34 age group, and was doind a gender analysis, on this particular day)

For LA County, 13% of desi males 18-25 are registered republicans compared to 10% of 18-25 females that are Republican. For 25-34 age - 16% of desi males are Republican and 11% of desi females are Republican. 48% of all desis 18-25 are dems. 49% of all desis 25-34 are dems.

While we're at it- though across all groups I've worked with, "youth" "all ages" "pan asian" "individual ethnic asian i.e. chinese, Filipino, etc..."-- well, in all these groups, females register more, and vote more than males. All except, in the desi category. what's up with that?

We will be having our press event for the launch of the reports on Septenber 26th here in LA. All are welcome.

But I am not a visitor in this country. I was born and raised here, and I'm a citizen

your previous comments led me to believe you would hold that south asians will always be 'racial aliens,' much as some white nationalists do. and so you aspire to move back to your "natural" homeland.

Did they lose their right to have a say in India when they decided they would be moving to America or the UK later on in life?

some would say they did, some would say they did not. at least that's what i've heard.

Why should any party cater to desis. Whether an Election is gimme or not, desis generally register and vote as Democractic. If more Desis register as Independents or Republicans and become swing voters, there will be interest in us.

This is not true in reality, but in theory, desis would have less influence if they all voted the same way all the time. This is true of the African American vote which is somewhat taken for granted by the Dems and ignored by the Repubs. Desis are far from as reliably Dem as AAs but even if they were, at least you'd see candidates spending the time to listen to their issues and try to better represent them.

For example, a friend of mine who's running for office (www.kleinformaryland.com) has made it a point to visit with the Indian-American community in his district and make our issues a priority. He's appeared on an Indian-American TV program (Darshan TV) and met with leaders in the community to understand our issues far better than anyone else has bothered. Perhaps next time our community needs regulatory help with building a temple or with stopping racist policemen, we'll have someone with political power representing our viewpoint.

Umang,

You don't need votes to determine if a State is left or right, the polls take care of all that.
Thus, Pragmatic's statement is correct, votes do not matter in many states.

I don't think Bush's slim 3% mandate has affected the GOP agenda.

Personally I think US has gone too far right and India is still far too left. Thus supporting Democrats in US and BJP in India makes sense to me.

Generally my point is, white people own and run this country for themselves, and if you can't get used to it, you should leave.

i disagree with the force and simplicity of your first point, though there is obviously a lot of truth in this. but, i agree for pragmatic reasons with you on the second, though i won't lie and say that i think you are wrong to give up on america and assume that it is unchangeable as it is.

My point is always, if you are sensitive to racial stereotyping and subtle prejudices (which I am) then you are probably better off moving to a more tolerant environment

just to clear, more tolerant if you are of the majority, right? \

But who knows, something like 9/11 could happen or the economy could tank, and I might end up in Peru or China or South Africa

1) i have a cousin who lives in venezuela. if you don't want to experience prejudice because you are brown skinned you might want to bring a lot of $$$ (or marry into money, as my cousin did). yes, i know venezuela is pinko and ruled by a brown dude, doesn't mean that the white "latino" elite isn't racist.

2) china? you gotta be kidding. there was a race riot against african students in the 1980s because of rumors of raping chinese women.

My point is always, if you are sensitive to racial stereotyping and subtle prejudices (which I am) then you are probably better off moving to a more tolerant environment

Your post has too much irony for a Thursday evening. You believe in majoritarianism, are bothered by subtle prejudices, yet want it for yourself but only when you are in the majority with no regard whatsoever for the minority. What about the people who dont have the ability to move or the people who are not a majority anywhere in the world?

"And yes, obviously if you are the majority, people will be more tolerant. That's precisely my point; if you're one of those people that can't stand being a persecuted minority, then go somewhere where you aren't a minority."

Actually, being in the majority removes the entire question of whether you are "tolerated" or not. By definition, those in the majority are tolerated. White people stand to transform from a majority to a plurality within the next decade or so, but not amongst the corporate and financial leadership leadership.

By definition, those in the majority are tolerated

blacks in south africa were tolerated? the indigenous in peru are tolerated? vodun worshippers in haiti are tolerated? the dark skinned in india are tolerated?

it's easy to be lazy and unreflective when the zeitgeist is always patting you on the back huh?

"blacks in south africa were tolerated?"

Until the Dutch came, yes.

"the indigenous in peru are tolerated? vodun worshippers in haiti are tolerated? the dark skinned in india are tolerated?"

Are these truly majority? And your "dark skinned" example is a bit too difficult to discern, there's no scientific method to establishing one's dark skin-ness. There's no CMYK profile for the dark skinned threshold, neither is there for white and black, but I think the distinction is far more pronounced in the white-black case.

I meant patriotic Indian-american,

I am firstly an American, but like you and several others here I also consider myself an India supporter, and would probably compromise my generally left of center viewpoint if I felt doing so would help India greatly.

Until the Dutch came, yes.

by definition doesn't imply contingency. perhaps you should add that to the model.

there's no scientific method to establishing one's dark skin-ness.

yes there is. skin reflectance. if you want me to be precise, the "ideal" skin color in most south asian cultures is deviated away from the median toward the light side, ergo, the minority is the dominant aesthetic ideal (if you want me to be more precise, i would say that it is at least 1 standard deviation lighter than the median, and assuming gaussian that means 85% are darker than this ideal that i am contending).

the point of my comment is that you often argue like a scholastic, from a priori definitions from which you can infer the world. but not everyone shares your axioms. it so happens that the central tendency here of late has been toward your axioms, so i don't think you are very reflective about the fact that not everyone believes that your priors are particular relevant or accurate.

"the indigenous in peru are tolerated? vodun worshippers in haiti are tolerated?

CIA factbook says that indigenous are 45%. so not strictly, but the 15% that is white traditionally dominates the country and there are nasty instances of discrimination against dark-skinned people (blacks and mestizos are on this group) in lima in public accommodations on the assumption they won't be affluent enough to make the establishment happy. as for vodun, it is to my understanding the normative worldview of most haitians in concert with nominal roman catholicism. a "pure" form of roman catholicism is practiced by the elite (disproportionately mullato), and this tradition has often persecuted the practice of vodun which is adhered by the lower classes.

yes there is. skin reflectance. if you want me to be precise, the "ideal" skin color in most south asian cultures is deviated away from the median toward the light side, ergo, the minority is the dominant aesthetic ideal (if you want me to be more precise, i would say that it is at least 1 standard deviation lighter than the median, and assuming gaussian that means 85% are darker than this ideal that i am contending).

That's an aesthetic bias. But I don't think the same bias would be reflected in politics (like looking at the Indian cabinet -- center or states), or in industry (like looking at workers from mid-management and up), though it may vary with region, but I may be wrong. And colorism is a dangerous topic here :)

And colorism is a dangerous topic here :)

yeah, my bad...i haven't been reading the site much lately. just checked some threadz....

china? you gotta be kidding. there was a race riot against african students in the 1980s because of rumors of raping chinese women.

Yes and many south asians, particularly sri lankans, got caught up in that race riot. The chinese couldn't tell the africans and south asians apart apparently...

i have NEVER met a republican desi in my life. Most desis in edison are democrats

You don't need votes to determine if a State is left or right, the polls take care of all that. Thus, Pragmatic's statement is correct, votes do not matter in many states.

First of all, if you have the opportunity to participate in a poll, you should absolutely do that. Your vote in a poll is far more powerful than your vote in an election (because the universe of participants is smaller). However, polls don't carry as much weight with politicians as actual elections. Elections have far more validity than polls -- to get statistical on you, an election is a "census" while a poll is merely a "sample."

So, Pragmatic's statement is not correct but I would agree that someone who participates in a poll AND votes exerts more influence than someone who merely votes. That said, someone who participates in a poll AND votes AND writes a letter to their representative (AND donates money, AND so on, etc.), exerts even more influence.

A note on writing letters to reps: while all you get back is a form letter, don't think that your letter is ignored. Letters on each topic are carefully counted and ratios such as 1 letter = 1000 votes are often used to help guide officials. For example, the NRA's highly organized letter/postcard writing campaigns account for much of their influence.

Why the "Desi Vote." Pakistanis and Indians don't have the same interests at all, and lumping them together in the belief that desis must stand united is misguided and detrimental to both sides. And lets be honest here, the establishment of a "South Asian voting bloc" is more strongly promoted by Pakistanis then by Indians, being they are the smaller and weaker party. Will Pakistani-Americans stand with Indian-Americans on the nuclear deal? Its difficult enough for me to see why some Pakistanis I know are so obssesed with Israel, so now Indians have to get dragged into this? Do I want to get dragged into groups like CAIR and others who seem to be stonewalling anything that wants to look into terrorism in the Muslim community? If I was a Pakistani I would feel the same way on a bloc with Indians - what interest would it have for me?

There are very few issues that affect South Asians as a whole. On issues like terrorism, relations with China, Middle East relations, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans are fundamentally opposed to each other. What other issues are there? Racial profiling? Maybe, although you will actually find a good number in the Indian crowd that would take it a step further than anything people on Frontpage say.

Pakistanis and Indians don't have the same interests at all is different from Pakistani-Americans stand with Indian-Americans :-)

it's easy to be lazy and unreflective when the zeitgeist is always patting you on the back huh?

I like this image, razib.

On another note, I'm wondering what people think about the "no point in voting" attitude that some people have. Sepiamutiny readers seem to skew in a particular direction, but I've always felt that some people don't just vote because of their perceptions of odds, but rather because they don't feel like any of the options before them are very good.

Razib:

yes there is. skin reflectance. if you want me to be precise, the "ideal" skin color in most south asian cultures is deviated away from the median toward the light side, ergo, the minority is the dominant aesthetic ideal (if you want me to be more precise, i would say that it is at least 1 standard deviation lighter than the median, and assuming gaussian that means 85% are darker than this ideal that i am contending).

desitude jumped me to the point. It's an aesthetic ideal, because it's always in someones mind what's considered "too dark" and irrespective if the median skin reflectance is 28% or whatever. Either way, no statement is absolute I agree, congrats you pulled the 2 or 3 instances where a majority happened to be oppressed by an invading group, which then consisted a minority.

My statement pretty much still stands though, although I can alter the wording to say, a person who is in the majority, when the majority is in power, never has to deal with the issue of being "tolerated" or not. Because by definiition. he is.

the point of my comment is that you often argue like a scholastic, from a priori definitions from which you can infer the world. but not everyone shares your axioms. it so happens that the central tendency here of late has been toward your axioms, so i don't think you are very reflective about the fact that not everyone believes that your priors are particular relevant or accurate.

My statements are my opinion unless otherwise stated, just like everyone else here. I think it becomes tedious to state "IMO, or IMHO" or "I believe" or "I think that" for every sentence. Sorry if it bothers you, but I plan to push forward anyway.

On issues like terrorism, relations with China, Middle East relations, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans are fundamentally opposed to each other.

That's straight BS. Most of us who put the "American" before the Indian or the Pakistani (as we ALL should if we have the right to vote) see many more issues in which we have a fundamental agreement.

My statements are my opinion unless otherwise stated, just like everyone else here. I think it becomes tedious to state "IMO, or IMHO" or "I believe" or "I think that" for every sentence. Sorry if it bothers you, but I plan to push forward anyway.

you missed my point here though: i would contend that your opinions are almost a perfect reflection of a particular stream of thought. e.g., "by definition" etc. etc. etc. it isn't like you are making up definitions and asserting them as true. my point is that your mode of discourse works best when you share more common assumptions with others than you sometimes do. as it happens it might work on SM since i think many more than not do share your assumptions, but convincing those with whom you already agree with is somewhat like running in place. instead of attempting to validate and support your axioms you often take them as truths from which to derive "obvious" conclusions.

That's straight BS

Abhi, You are an American. Let me ask you a simple question: "What is your view with regards to the US strategic relationship with Pakistan presently and in past (going back to 50s, cold war, Nixon-Kissinger era, Afghanistan, 9/11, etc)?"

If you are critical of it as an American, Aok Jose. You might be very supportive of it in the entire context. Who knows? Maybe, in your view Kissinger's support for Pakistan was the most important thing for USA with regards to USSR, China, India then. Maybe, Kissinger is your real politick hero. Who knows again?

Now find me an American of Pakistani origin/ descent who is deeply critical of US-Pakistan special relationship, I will eat my hair. They maybe critical of General Musharraf mildly but all of them see a special relationship between them, Hint: Pakistan's role in Ping Pong Diplomacy. There is nothing wrong with that. I have close Pakistani American friends. I would be the same if I was a Pakistani American. Also, find me a Pakistani American who supports Indo-US Nuclear deal. Maybe, maybe, 10 in entire US.

Head in the sand my man, maybe it makees you feel goood. In country like US, foriegn policy means a lot, especially with respect to China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Sometimes, we all live in a lalaland. Agreement, Shgreement

But Kush,

does your opinion on those particular issues mean that you think uniting to build the power of a potential desi voting bloc is moot?

-t

taz,

a point of note, 2/3 of south asians in south asia are indian. but 9/10ths of south asians in the USA are of indian origin). the block is mostly an indian american chunk of cheese....

correction: 3/4 of south asians are indian in south asia.

Kush, the South Asian voters I am talking about (most that were born and brought up in the U.S.) put U.S.-Pak relations and U.S.-India relations near the bottom of the heap in terms of importance. I care much more about domestic policy issues that affect me and my fellow Pakistani-Americans every day. Its not that I have my head in the sand but that our priorities are WAY different. It is the same way that many people go out and vote on only the abortion issue thinking that America's future hinges on it. I expect our priorities to be different though. This is the same 1/1.5/2nd gen split we always see on these boards.

does your opinion on those particular issues mean that you think uniting to build the power of a potential desi voting bloc is moot?

Please don't get me wrong. I believe in unity here among South Asians and even back in Indian subcontinent/ South Asia. In US, there are common trials and tribulations that does bond them.

But one has to acknowledge that at some pint we will diverge, and knowing it is awareness.

Hint: Like Kashmir, we will agree to disagree be it here or there (back in Desh).

Uh, Abhi, what? I bet lots of people who grew up in the States favor India or Pakistan in foreign policy depending on whether their parents immigrated from Pakistan or India. And since serious immigration only started in the mid to late sixties, uh, that's pretty significant. There aren't too many people several generations removed from the subcontinent. That's probably what it would take for people to blur the boundaries, but maybe not. Look at Latino or Hispanic or whatever the term du jour is. Cuban American versus Puerto Rican American anyone?

Kush, the South Asian voters I am talking about (most that were born and brought up in the U.S.) put U.S.-Pak relations and U.S.-India relations near the bottom of the heap in terms of importance.

but aren't most south asian american voters still foreign born? SAALT's number was 88%, though i think that is a high number because of their lack of sampling in some states.

That's probably what it would take for people to blur the boundaries, but maybe not.

the new jews?

strong ethnic communities by definition have overseas concerns. the german ethnic identity was smashed in large part during world war I because of perceptions of conflicting interests. america and england have a 'special relationship.' why? armenia gets A LOT of foreign aid. why?

welcome to the multicultural utopioa yall :-)

razib,

i thought you'd figure out how to get those numbers with census - if LA County is any reflection of national 88% is too high.

Uh, Abhi, what? I bet lots of people who grew up in the States favor India or Pakistan in foreign policy depending on whether their parents immigrated from Pakistan or India.

I'm not denying that. Look at the original statement I was replying to (what I termed BS):

Why the "Desi Vote." Pakistanis and Indians don't have the same interests at all...

There are very few issues that affect South Asians as a whole. On issues like terrorism, relations with China, Middle East relations, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans are fundamentally opposed to each other.

It is telling that this comment says Pakistanis and Indians and not Pakistani-Americans and Indian-Americans (as if there is no difference).

taz,

as sid would say, off to you sister 8-) but then i am one who believes that the structure of numbers can elevate discourse, so we all have to do our personal cost vs. benefit calculation. me gotz to finish up a class with some functions....

Anyway, context is everything when talking about coalitions of South Asians: hanging out, being friends, dating, marrying or forming political partnerships are completely different things.

BTW, I once dated the most handsome Pakistani American guy (I have to brag, it was a small victory for nerdy old me which is totally unenlightened, but that's what I felt). He was a bad desi like me and was thoroughly Americanized. What a great guy.....we never talked politics, thank God. What a waste of time that would have been!

abhi, taz might know. Do Pakistani-Americans and Indian-Americans trend the same on domestic issues? Which ones do they differ on?

Do Pakistani-Americans and Indian-Americans trend the same on domestic issues?

correct for SES! indian-americans are higher in SES.

but also decompose born abroad and born here and 1.5ers.

Needless to say, I did NOT write comment #49. That ain't me. Just for clarity sake. Plus, I disagree with the sentiment expressed in comment #49. Bah!

Abhi wrote: That's straight BS. Most of us who put the "American" before the Indian or the Pakistani (as we ALL should if we have the right to vote) see many more issues in which we have a fundamental agreement.

If you put the "American" before the Indian than you wouldn't support a "Desi" voting bloc at all because it puts the Indian/Pakistani before the American.

Tell me what issues are we in fundamental agreement? The ones that matter and are central to the respective communities? You are confusing cultural values with political values. Culturally, Indians and Pakistanis are fairly similiar although diverging. This works well for South Asian Awareness Week, or South Asian Mela fairs or college parties. It doesn't work in the political sphere. I am Indian-America any I don't want my country's foreign policy objective to include kissing up to Pakistan. Sorry.

What are the extensions? Should a group dominated by Hindu Indians be forced to extend out toward Muslim groups? Its undeniably true that for most Muslim countries, nation = religion. Many Indians feel the same about Hinduism, but its less visible. Should Muslim grudges against Israel enter into the picture, then what?

Furthermore, most Indians are machine Democrats. I can't speak for Pakistanis. They come to Democratic cities and vote straight up for the guys who bruoght them here and help them set up. The big issues that drive Americans - like abortion, death penalty, Iraq War, they don't really drive Indians to the polls. Its the guy whos giving out H1-Bs. For the most part, Pakistanis in America aren't as much of the techie type as are Indians here, so what congruency is there on this issue?

Building a political bloc of desis is moot until you give us some issues that are central to and unifying for both communities, along with the small Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan and other communities in America. Rising up against being called Macaca isn't gonna do it.

18-24 yr. old native born rate of LA County desi registered voters = 75%, second only to Japanese-Americans (within the asian am ethnic groups) - the native born rate of desis is higher than that of pan-asian numbers too. (looking at a graph, don't know if those words made sense.)

As for common domestiv issues? As a BANGLADESHI-American blogging on South Asian American blog, reading comments of anti-anything but indian american issues is frustrating. Mainly because I feel that if you read my post and are compelled to comment on it, than don't we speaking as Bangladeshi Americans to an Indian American have common issues?

No one has done a study on domestic issue diff. of different South asian ethnic - american. It's hard enough to get data on South Asian Americans, period. There are finer distinctions between bangladeshi, pakistani, and indian - americans at the LA County level (only resarch at fingertips today, sorry) - such as education levels, poverty level, per capita level. lsnguage assistant need, health care. And these are all issues I feel that we can improve if we have a desi-american politicial voice, for the desi community here as a whole.

1. Sorry metric, I just started posting here. I changed my name to avoid any confusion.

It is telling that this comment says Pakistanis and Indians and not Pakistani-Americans and Indian-Americans (as if there is no difference).

Oh take it easy, I forgot to add -American after every ethnic name. Big deal. I'm talking about the same thing.

Now give me something that "Desis" are going to rally around.

Oh take it easy, I forgot to add -American after every ethnic name. Big deal. I'm talking about the same thing.

your point is taken, but really dude, if you just started posting you don't know how loaded these terms have been in the past. best to stay precise and clear :)

Tell me what issues are we in fundamental agreement?

Civil Rights, Immigration, Health-care policy are all areas in which we have many common interests. Just for the record I don't think there is yet a bloc but I also think that you separating the group into two corners is forwarding a false reality.

As for common domestiv issues? As a BANGLADESHI-American blogging on South Asian American blog, reading comments of anti-anything but indian american issues is frustrating. Mainly because I feel that if you read my post and are compelled to comment on it, than don't we speaking as Bangladeshi Americans to an Indian American have common issues?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. People reading this blog have common interests. Now looking through the front page, it would revolve around movie actors, music, literature, why people can't pronounce our names properly, some issues with properly treating women, discrimination. Aside from the last, its all CULTURAL news items. NOT POLITICAL.

Now give me something that "Desis" are going to rally around.

Since you just started posting here- the answer to that is simple. Go to the SM main page. go to the sidebar. Click on categories. Browse through the subject "issues".

;-)

but seriously, what unites brown americans as a block, what issues? i mean, racial profiling in airplanes for example is a specific issue. you could say immigration and what not, but that is a big issue for latinos and other asian americans too, so that isn't fundamentally and specifically south asian american. general issues like health care and what not might or might not have particular south asian salience, but your attitude is probably shaped by whether you are a liberal, conservative or whatever, not whether you are brown or not. i guess you could say you are anti-racist, but so are many whites and other minorities.

i think the idea of a south asian american block is a non-starter because we are first liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. being brown is not an ideology or set of beliefs, it is a genetic commonality correlated with cross-cultural sensibilities.

razib is correct; if you are serious about building a bloc because you want to mobilize voters than you have to pick a few common issues to rally the troops behind, eh, oh forget about the mixed up metaphors. I mean, a bloc implies a common interest or goal. Data is scarce at this point, and that is probably the place to start. Collecting data, I mean. Which taz is trying to do, I know.

For the record, I have been reading the posts for a while and just never really care to comment much.

Civil Rights, Immigration, Health-care policy are all areas in which we have many common interests. Just for the record I don't think there is yet a bloc but I also think that you separating the group into two corners is forwarding a false reality.

True, I was wrong to say they are fundamentally opposed to each other. However, unifying groups on the basis on skin color is not very productive either. In the long run, I think "You are Indian, so vote with us" is a step backward, but "You are brown, so vote with us" only takes further steps back.

Honestly, I think it is a big mistake when minorities band together simply because they are minorities. On many scales it is crucial, like civil rights you mentioned, but not on others. Ask any low-income black worker what he thinks of illegal immigration. Chances are he is a democrat just like most grassroots immigration advocates. I guess thats the biggest weakness about my party, but its also the reality.

I think you might be onto something in regardless to healthcare and immigration, though you should be careful to separate what perhaps you want the concensus to be with what the reality is.

Also, taz
As a BANGLADESHI-American blogging on South Asian American blog, reading comments of anti-anything but indian american issues is frustrating.

If this is the case, how well do you think you would get along in a political activist group likely to be dominated by Indians? I think you just made my point.

...if you're brown...stick around....

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. People reading this blog have common interests. Now looking through the front page, it would revolve around movie actors, music, literature, why people can't pronounce our names properly, some issues with properly treating women, discrimination. Aside from the last, its all CULTURAL news items. NOT POLITICAL.

Whatever, do a search on Taz blogs and you'll get 75% political blogs on this thing. Listen. The whole point to this initial post is how we don't have a desi voting bloc yet, but we want to build the potential power. Just think back to 9/11 five years ago when we didn't have any of these networks and resources for desis-americans we do today. Our communuity is a lot better prepared politically now than it's ever been before.

It's election season- and I ask for an open mind in the next 8 weeks- your right, it is a "cultural" blog - but I only started blogging "elections" a couple weeks ago. I already said I was committing to blogging "election coverage " for the next two months. Have an open mind for the next two months of reading SM and let me prove to you by blogging on multiple political issues affecting the DESI community that there is indeed potentially politically unifying issues for DESI- AMERICANs. (that hyphenating needs to never "be understood", especially on this blog- best that you spend that extra time typing it)

Two months. Accept the challenge. [And I really need to work and finish this report]

DESI- AMERICAN

brown americanz :)

taz, what can a right of center desi like me expect from the election coverage, if SM is going to be more political? I mean that as a serious question and not in any snarky way, although I know I can be kinda mean in the comment sections sometimes (don't answer, do your report first :) )

Conjecture:

Blocks will be formed around religion. To the extent that Hinduism is a force among Hindus of whatever generation, there will be an Indian American lobby, because they view India as central to their religion, a holy land even, and that is a natural "extra national" interest, just as Armenians, Greeks and Jews seem to have extra national interests. Note, others will also be pro-India, just that the bias will be highest among Hindus.

To the extent that they are not religious, they will be South Asian. They will also marry out quicker and become, simply, Americans.

Muslims have their own interests, and I suspect those interests will be salient for a very long time. They will become Muslim Americans.

what can a right of center desi like me expect from the election coverage

the projections for this fall pan out, happiness for taz & sadness 4 u :-) && 8-(

i think risible is correct. re: Note, others will also be pro-India, just that the bias will be highest among Hindus. you can see this dynamic in the jewish community, jewish religious practice & belief correlates strongly with pro-israel sentiment. secular jews are generally less pro-israel.

As a BANGLADESHI-American blogging on South Asian American blog, reading comments of anti-anything but indian american issues is frustrating.

If this is the case, how well do you think you would get along in a political activist group likely to be dominated by Indians? I think you just made my point.

And on that note-

Oh, razib, I may not be that sad and there are theories that Bush might not be either :) I'm a 'Ryan Sager lets not forget the libertarians' type, myself..... :)

To be more explicit: I don't mind if some of the rightys lose.....

MD,

wait, not all republicans think the same??? there is a big difference between social democrats and democratic socialists, but between ayn rand objectivists and pro-life catholics, who would of thunk!?!?!

there are some things that we organized together on and some we didn't. It was all good.

You nailed it. They will be many common grounds (even with other fellow beings - African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Africans, Europeans, people of the world), sometimes not. I think voter mobilization is one of them.

Naseer like pan-identities often does not work.....sometimes, it is for the Naseers of the world a vechicle to power and influence.

As if,we are the horses from Orwell's Animal Farm.

Background matters, ask any Muslim-American or Jewish-American or Middle Eastern-American about present crisis in Middle East and US/ Iraq War/ War on Terrorism, their background factors in heavily.

Okay, the last of my polluting this section: the coburn-obama database bill passed the Senate....see what bipartisanship can do, peoples? This could be profound.....

how come sf bay area is not in the top 5 metros for s.asians...? w/ santa clara w/ a sa pop of 73K

It looks like not all the places listed in the metro area list were actually calculated as metro areas, but as city proper. There's an SJ, SF, and Oakland listed separately, and not sure if suburbs factored into the calculations for those 3 cities. Just Indians alone in the 7 Bay Area counties add up to 140,628, putting the Bay at easily the #2 SA metro. SoCal is #4 if you count OC.

Whatever, do a search on Taz blogs and you'll get 75% political blogs on this thing. Listen. The whole point to this initial post is how we don't have a desi voting bloc yet, but we want to build the potential power. Just think back to 9/11 five years ago when we didn't have any of these networks and resources for desis-americans we do today. Our communuity is a lot better prepared politically now than it's ever been before.

Seriously man. My main objective for blogging on this site (and I do not speak for my co-bloggers) is politics. This is the second time in a week I've had to link here. Everything else I write about is just blog-crack to hook the kiddies so they won't know it.

taz, what can a right of center desi like me expect from the election coverage, if SM is going to be more political? I mean that as a serious question and not in any snarky way, although I know I can be kinda mean in the comment sections sometimes (don't answer, do your report first :) )

I can answer that MD. A right-center desi like yourself will be pulled towards the center by a blogger like me. It is the same way in which I try to pull the fringe lefties that embarass me closer toward the center. I suspect you already want to be in the center but just don't want to share that space with people who arrived there from the left. Besides, you know my coverage is always tough but fair :)

i think the idea of a south asian american block is a non-starter because we are first liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. being brown is not an ideology or set of beliefs, it is a genetic commonality correlated with cross-cultural sensibilities.

I agree.

There isn't critical mass on any one issue that dominates the subcontinental community, which would facilitate the creation of a bloc around such an identity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but successful voting blocs have generally been galvanized by certain issues that have absolutely dominated the collective group experience to the point where said community moves in lock step.

We're spread thin on a geographic, social, economic, and cultural basis. You may see subsets of these communities forge themselves into minor voting blocs that have more impact on local politics, particuarly where the population density permits such activity. I think it is good to get the word out and mobilize people to vote. However, attempting to amplify and gain power as an american community of subcontinental roots is doing so for the sake of gaining power. Many of the issues mentioned align with larger communities, diffusing the necessity of a 'bloc'.

A right-center desi like yourself will be pulled towards the center by a blogger like me.

abhi, but centrism does not a "block" make.

a) there are the set of issues which pan-brown relevancy
b) there are the set of issues which have particular pan-brown relevancy
c) there are a set of issues which have particular brown relevancies
d) there are a set of issues which have pan-communal relevancy

set b is only a tivial portion of set a.

set c does not unite, because particular fixations on pakistan vs. india, bangladeshi workers in the UAE, etc. tend to not be broad enough to rally cross-community support. set a is not enough to create a brown block per se, as many other groups get slotted into the picture, as set a is often just a subset of set d.

a few issues are disjoint between set d & a, as well as intersecting between b & c. racial profiling on airplanes is one. but that just isn't like the existential threat faced by israel is for american jews.

and abhi, for the record, the blog seems to have gotten less political. i remember feeling irritated a lot more back in 2004 than i do now with the tenor of the posts, so get to work on it man!

abhi, but centrism does not a "block" make.

I am not advocating a block anywhere in my comments. I was trying to rebut a claim up above that I thought was BS (for reasons that I listed). What I am advocating are "icebergs" (a new political term invented by me just now). Icebergs are political blocks that come together for certain issues and then diverge again. That is do-able.

and abhi, for the record, the blog seems to have gotten less political.

That is only because Abhi has 12 weeks to defend or have his dreams shattered.

icebergs it is.

...or, brownbergs???

...or, brownbergs???

Ummmmm. No. ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It is the same way in which I try to pull the fringe lefties that embarass me closer toward the center

I hope you were not referring to me ;)

...or, brownbergs???

Ummmmm. No. ;)

Way to go for "blog-cracking" the thread for the kiddies....

won't be surprised to see Daler Mehndi become a Guvnor some day Eh!

One could argue that most desis have bought into the popular liberal social narrative that minorities are hurt from current status quo which favors the majority and thus all minorities have a vested interest in seeking social justice as in the current system the cards are perceived to be stacked in favor of the majority. Now before Razib brings out the ammo on cuban americans, jewish americans, the education/per capita income of asian americans, let me clarify: I am not suggesting that cards are indeed stacked against all minorities in the US in all cases. The issue of course is pretty complex. What I am suggesting is that the minorities are more likely to buy into this narrative and thus might gravitate towards liberal politics. Now for some minorities it might make actual factual sense to support the expansion of the welfare state, open borders etc. but that is probably not the case for all minorities.

I also think that for most desis, the US foreign policy vis-a-vis their countries is not that high up in importance. What US does with India or Pakistan has little impact on the lives of the desis in the US (except for immigration) Some people here read too much into the differences between Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi-Sri Lankan Americans. At a certain level its a little distasteful for Americans to focus too much of their attention on the US foreign policy towards their country of origin.

Everything else I write about is just blog-crack to hook the kiddies so they won't know it.

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA my stummy hurts!

p00p.

I for one applaud all political posts here and wish that the blog becomes more political! I of course love the non-political posts as well, except for the ones on Bollywood :(

Wow...Urban Dictionary thank you for putting me off my food!

I don't think it's good to push for the blog being more political, political discussion and debate is best when it happens naturally and it seeps into convos on almost everything anyway :-)

I think Taz is tapping into a great idea here though. People (inc desis themselves) seem to think that South Asians are non-political because they've seen what a sideshow politics is back in the old countries, but I think our generation (here's where I get all Al Gore-like in my hope for the future)...can be the one to get back into it :-)

Immigrant groups can def have a powerful voice, blocs or ice-bergs or brownbergs aside

"but you're a visitor in this country, so i wish you to the best of luck expediting your emigration back to where you belong."

Are we now allowed to say this to the Muslims as well? Esp, the ones who consider themselves to be Muslim first, and Americans second.

i think the idea of a south asian american block is a non-starter because we are first liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. being brown is not an ideology or set of beliefs, it is a genetic commonality correlated with cross-cultural sensibilities.

Just to intrude a bit: I totally agree with the above.

I think its a great idea to try and encourage south asian americans to register to vote, but trying to rally a block isn't the best idea... at least, not for the present time period.

It pains me to no end to see black voters align themselves so staunchly with liberal dems who only pretend to have our best interests in mind. I think that in the past there was a need for cohesiveness, but these days this type of psuedo monolithic thinking only leads to stagnation and endless discussions on how if you are not a democrat, you need to have your black card revoked.

Its good to rally around a single cause as an ethnic group, but I would strongly caution against becoming predictable.

you missed my point here though: i would contend that your opinions are almost a perfect reflection of a particular stream of thought. e.g., "by definition" etc. etc. etc. it isn't like you are making up definitions and asserting them as true. my point is that your mode of discourse works best when you share more common assumptions with others than you sometimes do. as it happens it might work on SM since i think many more than not do share your assumptions, but convincing those with whom you already agree with is somewhat like running in place. instead of attempting to validate and support your axioms you often take them as truths from which to derive "obvious" conclusions.

really? a particular stream of thought? What stream might that be? I thoroughly have no clue what you're talking about. But let me clarify my point a bit more

instead of writing "It is my opinion that majority members do not have to worry about being tolerated" - conclusion
"because in my opinion the majority are already tolerated by virtue of being around most of their kind" - proof

I concisely wrote, what I wrote above.

As for most people agreeing with me here I honestly haven't taken notice, so I couldn't tell you. But it wouldn't affect my statements a single bit, like I said. I place my opinion here just like everyone else.

I think its a great idea to try and encourage south asian americans to register to vote, but trying to rally a block isn't the best idea... at least, not for the present time period.

Exactly. South Asians should let their opinions know through the polls and joining groups that are in their best political interests, not to their racial interests.

Holler out to Kunjan for the voter reg icon on the sidebar! Sweeeeeeeet. Now it will always be there (through elections) as a remind to register. Mua haha... ;-) Thank you!

I'm only lurking if not outright skimming these days, but this:

To be more explicit: I don't mind if some of the rightys lose.....

confirms for me that MD is *nothing* if not thoughtful, and this:

I mean that as a serious question and not in any snarky way .... don't answer, do your report first :)

that she is respectful even if she thinks she is "mean." ;) Glad the threatened hiatus is thus far only that. :)

I bleed Democrat Blue (not to mention Blue & Gold), and I have to agree that I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of a South Asian voting bloc as a functionally pursued goal. I don't want to do politics as a South Asian American nearly as much as I am interested in doing it wearing a number of other hats--science geek, journalist, environmentalist, Californian, you name it. However, what I am interested in is what Taz is doing---enlivening politics by taking advantage of all my hats, and all their attendant communities. Community-based channeling of anything is more powerful and more effective. We reach through our identities to our communities to relate to and engage with our fellow -----s, and that's a particularly vita and necessary for politics.

I don't know about Pakistani-Americans who don't fundamentally like current American-Pakistani policy (please don't eat your hair Kush), but just b/c that is the way it is doesn't mean it doesn't have to be, or that an Indian-American propensity towards favoring a friendly Indian-American relationship is necessarily jingoistic and parochial. I'm entirely comfortable with favoring a friendly Indian-American relationship on generalist grounds--it's the world's biggest democracy, it's trying to be secular, it has a lot to offer. Thousands of non-invested white people will make the same argument. You can tar it when it comes from my mouth b/c I'm Indian-American, but I don't really care. And does it effect me? Hell yes. Just b/c I'm American---and I'm 100% American--I'm not going to care slightly more about the well-being of 90% of my relatives, the location of my religious holy sites, and the bastion of much of my culture, then, about, say, some other random country. THAT's the comparison you should be making. Should Indian-Americans hold Indian needs over American needs? No, not calibrated for fairness. Should they hold Indian needs over other country's needs? Why the hell not, everyone else has done it, down from the English to the Irish and Italians and the Cubans and the Chinese. It would be a lie to say that India is not more important to me than most other countries. But it would also be stupid for me to think that it should be the deciding factor in my American vote--especially since we voters have even less to do with foreign policy than we do with anything else.

Everything else I write about is just blog-crack to hook the kiddies so they won't know it.

Heh. I pretend to be fooled by Abhi, but I always knew he was just another guy with an agenda posing as a rock climbing scientist.

wut about bleeding some brown? :-)

good comment.

It would be a lie to say that India is not more important to me than most other countries. But it would also be stupid for me to think that it should be the deciding factor in my American vote--especially since we voters have even less to do with foreign policy than we do with anything else.

Saheli,

I won't eat my hair yet. Professionally and personally, I interact with Pakistanis and Pakistani Americans. I just wanted to highlight they are very aware of history and present with respect to Pakistan and USA, as they should be. They are not nonchalant***. They are concerned about American soldiers near Pakistan border right now for last 5 years - either for or against, it depends individually - however, it does weigh in heavily in their political thought process even here. Same with Muslim/ Middle East origin Americans for many events around, like Lebanon. As they should.

I am not going to argue that what makes you decide your vote - it is a very personal thing.

However, foreign policy plays a dominant role in almost all the modern american elections - be it to isolationalist or not - to join ww I - to be or not to be in league of nations - to join ww II - to bomb china - berlin blockade - marshall plan - is general macarthur an american ceaser or a crazy dude - cold war - nucklear race - red scare - are you a pinko - u2 - cuban missile crisis - domino theory - vietnam war - evil empire - iran crisis - oh my god, japan will overtake us - iraq and the unfinished job - nation building or not - iraq again. even in the height of civil rights movement, electoral politics was more about Goldwater's mushroom clouds - cold war - draft and vietnam war.

Both the parties have put domestic issues (immigration etc.) on the back burner and brought out Iraq on the forefront - a foreign policy for elections. Barring state and city politics, national politics is not fought on domestic issues. The only exception is abortion.

However, I do know Cuban Americans pay a lot of attention to Cuba - vis a vis - Amreeka. Especially, those rich ones in Florida. So do the publishers of New York Times for Israel.

PPS: Holding American needs over India was not even an issue for a minute in our discussion. Issue was whether one factors (again not a deciding factor) in India or Pakistan or country of your forefathers in one's political evolution/ journey, preferences, foriegn policy thoughts - as yourself said, will always be.

*** that was my beef - nonchalance. In many ways, I was complimenting Pakistani Americans.

However, foreign policy plays a dominant role in almost all the modern american elections

my recollection of CW is that foreign policy can hurt (e.g., goldwater and the flowers commercial) but not help (e.g., ask bush sr. vs. clinton).

my recollection of CW is that foreign policy can hurt (e.g., goldwater and the flowers commercial) but not help (e.g., ask bush sr. vs. clinton).

Help or hurt, it plays a major role. It tends to reduce other issues in the background, ofcourse barring race and abortion.

I do not think national elections are about health care policy or things like that, as it was made out in earlier comments. Not yet, not in a long time.

Razib, you're like a sheep with Desi Tourette's.

"Baaaarown......Baaaarown....."

;)

Okay, I'm just kidding. Excellent discussion, everyone. Carry on.

Top Counties of High Concentrations of South Asian Americans [link]

Sutter, CA (sa pop=7,914 percent=10.03)
Middlesex, NJ (sa pop=61,485 percent=8.2)
Queens, NY (sa pop=164,636 percent=7.84)
Fort Bend, TX (sa pop=16,941 percent=4.78)
Santa Clara,CA (sa pop=73,840 percent=4.39)

I'd like to point out (for those not familiar with the area) that Fort Bend county is adjacent to Harris County - which encompasses Houston. And there's been a tremendous South Asian American presence in the greater metro area for years. It's amazing to see not just cultural, but social & political activism in the Houston area as well among desis, and from individual desis' (in/campaigning) for office.

Kush:

Even if foreign policy is important in Presidential elections, there is no major disagreement between the Dems and the Reps on how to deal with India/Pakistan. The nuclear deal is done and I am not sure if the two political parties differ greatly on how to deal with these two nations.

Saheli:

First, apologies for my long comment….

I take it you are arguing (and please do correct me if I’m mistaken) that Americans—whatever their ethnicity—should keep American well-being foremost in their minds while voting. Put this way, your argument seems almost tautological; while some may demur, I agree that America’s well-being must be central in American politics. Yes, American interests must take precedence over India’s interests (or Cuba’s, or Pakistan’s, etc.) for Americans.

However, I don’t agree with the conclusion you draw from this principle: “…it would also be stupid for me to think that…[India]…should be the deciding factor in my American vote.”

It all depends, I would argue: India’s well-being may matter to America sometimes. For example, what if General Musharraf re-enacts a Kargil-like invasion of India? Indian and American interests might coincide in such a scenario.

My concern about India is ‘parochial’, of course. For someone like me, an Indian-American who is a Kashmiri Pandit, American foreign policy—America’s alliance with Pakistan, in particular--cuts close to the bone. My (extended) family lives all over the world now, post-1989. Some, though, live in Jammu district of J&K state. Their well-being is not an abstract matter for me, and I believe that pointing out the ugly, messy realities of the Pakistani state’s role in J&K plays a part (very small, no doubt) in safeguarding them, as well as safeguarding the interests of the KP community.

I constantly urge everyone I know, Indian-American or not, to take a politician’s views on (Pakistani govt.-sponsored) jihadi terror in J&K into account when voting: If all else is equal (say, both Democrat and Republican are against teaching creationism in biology classes, to take a 'non-Indian' issue which concerns me, as a would-be biologist), I most certainly think that a politician’s stance on such issues is legitimately a deciding factor while voting.

Such ‘parochial’ voting is acceptable so long as American interests are not harmed: I do not, for example, argue that America withdraw support from Pakistan. I simply argue that American interests—and, yes, the interests of my family & community in J&K--will be better safeguarded when American pols. are better informed about the nature of the Pakistani regime.

Regards,
Kumar

In your case, Kumar, your well-being is much more directly effected by American foreign policy. Therefore it should be a much greater deciding factor. THE deciding factor? Probably not---b/c besides taking into account the effect of American foreign policy on your well being (let us call this factor A), there is the effect of your vote on American foreign policy (let us call this factor B). Your vote is probably much more likely to change, say, the way pollution regulations get administered in your state than it is America's long standing psychotic foreign policy, so even though pollution may have less of a direct impact on you than the well being of the Jammu Pandit community, it should be more of a deciding factor in your vote. So even if A_1 > A_2, if B_1

Saheli:

I agree that, more often than not, a politician’s views on subcontinental politics will not (and should not) loom large in my votes. I simply think that your analysis of rational voting behavior for an American leaves more room than you realize for factoring in a politician’s views on such ‘parochial’ matters as jihadi violence in J&K, especially in primary elections.

For example, in my state there is a former federal politician running for a state-level office in the upcoming elections: An extremely sharp, well-intentioned fellow who is likely to do well for the state if he’s elected. He’s right on a lot of things, like pollution control, the dangers of teaching creationism in schools, etc.

And he also understands what’s going on in J&K: Years ago, some Indian-Americans approached him about the plight of KP’s languishing in refugee camps in India. He’s educated himself on the issue, after being approached by Indian-Americans. Obviously, he has not managed to effect substantive change in American foreign policy to Pakistan (by this I mean greater American pressure on General Musharraf to restore democracy in Pakistan). However, simply by talking to his colleagues about the realities of J&K, he has (I believe) moderated some of the wilder proposals emanating from, say, the State Department on J&K. I think that’s quite useful.

Suppose, counterfactually, another candidate from the same political party came along with an even better stance on teaching creationism in schools. Should I switch my support? I would argue not: After all, his stance on teaching creationism is ‘good enough’.

Once any two politicians—whether in a primary or general election--pass a basic threshold test on various issues of concern to me (environment, war on terror, taxes, funding the wonderful consortia of university and county libraries in my state, etc.), I see no reason to not use their stance on jihadi terror in J&K as a deciding factor.

Regards,
Kumar

Ideally, the Indian-American lobby should work to create a pro-India bias in both parties, so that the issue of switching and compromising need not arise.

Once any two politicians—whether in a primary or general election--pass a basic threshold test on various issues of concern to me (environment, war on terror, taxes, funding the wonderful consortia of university and county libraries in my state, etc.),

Kumar, in that case, I think you and I are in fact in agreement. To me the threshhold test is so barely passable by more than one candidate that the secondary considerations never come into play. Good for you for knowing that they are in play with your local candidates. That's excellent.

What I'm against are ----- - Americans sitting at home, not educating themselves about the education bills which will effect their grandchildren, the science defunding wreacking havoc on their children's careers, the pollution non-regulation that's choking their neighbors, etc.etc., and then picking up a paper, reading a tap-dance quote from an unhelpful politican about how we have to "be tought with Country X" and then slapping their coffee tables with a "That's the man I want to vote for!" I exaggerate greatly, but it's that kind of "deciding issue" that really bothers me.

What I also think would be wonderful if people like us--educated, privelaged, worldly--would take the opportunites to hobnob with our candidates and educate them about all kinds of foreign policy issues, and show them we care in a way that's not just about making our clans better off but about making America a better country. By all means, please do go and work for the betterment of your relatives inJ&K. But if you hear about a parallel situation in faraway Africa or South America, I think it would be great to walk up to that same person and say, "Remember how I said my situation sucks? This situation also sucks, and for the same reasons." But that's the next step.

Saheli:

"...What I also think would be wonderful if people like us--educated, privelaged, worldly..."

I'm afraid that your generous estimate of my attributes is somewhat off the mark, not least because I am most certainly not worldly. I am by instinct rather parochial in my concerns, which is to say that I care most deeply about what happens to my 'clan'--those nearest and dearest to me, to use that cliched phrase (other Americans, my family here and in India, the pandit in India who's written exceptional commentaries on Purva Mimamsa, etc).

"...show them we care in a way that's not just about making our clans better off but about making America a better country."

Yes, of course. America is a safe harbor for many KP's, and it has helped us immeasurably in so many other ways. Wishing the best for this country, trying to make it an even better place is entirely consistent with my parochial thinking.

"...please do go and work for the betterment of your relatives inJ&K. But if you hear about a parallel situation in faraway Africa or South America, I think it would be great to walk up to that same person and say, "Remember how I said my situation sucks? This situation also sucks, and for the same reasons." But that's the next step."

The world's a dangerous place: With limited resources, time and energy, I prefer to attend to the well-being of this country and my family. I don't mean to suggest that the suffering of those outside my 'clan' (whether in South America or Africa or so many other places in the world) counts for less. Like so many others in this country, we read about (and sometimes actively help to ease) the suffering of others. My focus, though, remains on my 'clan'. What sort of person would I be, if my 'clan' perished, while I was busying trying to help the rest of the world?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but much the same seems to be true for you as well, despite what you wrote in your latest comment.

"I bleed Democrat Blue...I'm American---and I'm 100% American...Should Indian-Americans hold Indian needs over American needs? No...Should they hold Indian needs over other country's needs? Why the hell not, everyone else has done it....It would be a lie to say that India is not more important to me than most other countries. But it would also be stupid for me to think that it should be the deciding factor in my American vote..."

You also seem to have a hierarchy of countries you care about, as you wrote in comment #120: You count yourself an American, first and foremost (and rightly so), but you wrote earlier that out of all other (non-American) countries, you care about India to a greater extent (again, you have every right to do so).

Given this, is your political behavior all that different from mine? I don't ask this as a rhetorical question, btw. If you have the time, I'd be interested in hearing a concrete example.

Regards,
Kumar

I'm not picking a fight with you Kumar, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying what I think the next step should be.

Saheli:

I didn't think you were in a 'fighting' mood;if the tone of my remarks seems combative to you, 'twas not intentional. Chalk it up to hasty writing on my part, between bouts of studying.

Regards,
Kumar

"i have NEVER met a republican desi in my life. Most desis in edison are democrats"

in the northeast town where I live, close to NH border, most desis are Repubs. There seems to be a trend for migration to Repubs from Dems as Repubs. seem more in alliance with India interests. It also seems to correlate with affluence.
I wonder if there is any statistics that would support this perception.