all granted, but you are evaluating only one dimension here. obviously the conventions aren't going to be ideologically representative, but from what i have seen in political science papers the socioeconomic profiles of party delegates are way upscale. even the dems tend to be professionals.

but yeah, the republicans are to a great extent a white party now. if we're going to get racial balkanization in terms of political parties whites will still be the largest group in 2042. there's a fair amount of social science data that the more blacks there are in an area of the south the greater the republican vote from whites. just a taste of the future i guess. when everyone is a minority then everyone is fighting for their privilege.

White vs. Left wing?

pure ideological voting is often said to be a "luxury good." black americans as you know tend to be very pro-government and see the democratic party as a guarantor of their rights as citizens. but they are also more religious and more likely to be creationists than whites, and not necessarily as pro-gay as a 80-95% dem voting group would imply.

but yeah, the republicans are to a great extent a white party now. if we're going to get racial balkanization in terms of political parties whites will still be the largest group in 2042. there's a fair amount of social science data that the more blacks there are in an area of the south the greater the republican vote from whites.

America has never in its history been 93% White, except perhaps on TV. Instead, I think it reflects a certain self-conception within the party today - that real Americans are White Americans.

well, this is almost certainly true, but that is not likely to be the main predictor for why minorities don't go republican, right? from what i have read latinos vote like thomas frank wants them to vote; the rich ones vote repub., the less rich dem. since they're generally less rich, they do dem. there are historical and policy reasons why blacks would align with dems. and asian americans are invested in immigration issues broadly, and brownz are turned off by republican attitudes after 9/11 re: war on terror.

there are substantive reasons why most minorities aren't going to be attracted to the republican brand aside from the real-america-is-iowa factor.

That social science data is valid for blacks versus whites in the South -- I read recently that if the black population is more than 18%, the white population starts becoming increasingly Republican. But it isn't necessarily true for non-black non-whites. California suggests otherwise.

Anyway, a more interesting question is the extent to which each party's delegates reflect its supporters? Are 93% of people who vote republican white? Quick googling (CNN exit polls) and some math suggests that 87.5% of 2004 Republican voters were white. Which means that whites are only slightly overrepresented, blacks (2.38%) about right, latinos (6.9%) significantly underrepresented. Asians don't even exist. They are a figment of Barack Hussein's imagination.

Running the same figures for democrats in a second, if I have time.

Still, it's foolish to alienate Latino voters when whites will be a minority in the future and it's a two party system.

but the future is nearly 2 generations away. the republicans alienated immigrants in 1924, but by the 1950s they started peeling away white ethnics. in any case, what alienates latinos, the immigration rhetoric, right? but when i looked at the data projecting that whites will be a minority in 2042, it was predicated on current immigration trends. change the immigration trends through legislation and republicans don't have to be so terrified of being the white party.

i think there are two strategies to "win" then. republicans can go along with the democrats in promoting the current immigration status quo, and so eliminate their disadvantage vis-a-vis latinos, who unlike blacks don't seem to have an allergy to the republican party if the parameters of the debate shift (e.g., rich latinos vote republican a lot more than rich blacks). or, republicans can change the immigration system so that fewer immigrants bolster the numbers. as it is, 2nd and 3rd generation latinos intermarry at high rates so they are plausible future "white ethnics."

Besides being creationists and anti gay rights, a large majority of blacks also tend to be as rabidly anti amnesty for undocumented immigrants as any minuteman.

At some point in the near future, these issues will compel the Democratic party to say bye bye to the Black or the Hispanic vote blocks.

OK -- For dems, Whites are significantly underrepresented as compared to the proportion of white dem voters in 2004 (66%). Blacks are overrepresented (20%), as are Hispanics (8.8%) and Asians (2.3%)

Note also, 57% of dem voters were women -- so even at 50% women are getting shafted.

So -- why do Democrats hate white women? (The junior senator from New York would like to know.)

Besides being creationists and anti gay rights, a large majority of blacks also tend to be as rabidly anti amnesty for undocumented immigrants as any minuteman.

that's exaggerated. it isn't that blacks are raving social conservatives; it's that the only other group in the dem coalition that votes like them, or close to them, are jews, and they are what you would "expect" in terms of adhering to the social liberalism dominant in the dem party.

At some point in the near future, these issues will compel the Democratic party to say bye bye to the Black or the Hispanic vote blocks.

i doubt this. what do republicans have to give blacks? granted, working class blacks are facing a lot of labor competition from latinos, but the republicans aren't going to out-democrat the democrats in the welfare state and other social democratic measures.

So -- why do Democrats hate white women? (The junior senator from New York would like to know.)

women were the majority of the primary electorate. so the question is "why do women hate women?"

easy way to find data
http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss06

the variable for race is "RACE." to filter, 1 = white and 2 = black.

Definitely, the RNC looks like the last stand of the old white wrinklies of both sexes. Amazing to see old women dressed up -- in their manner, whatever-- and shouting "Boo-oo--oo--oo!" Sarah Palin subscribes to the dress code, of course, with those little suits and teased and coiffed hairnest or basket. Also, it seems to have become at last the party of rednecks, what with Palin's youngest daughter Piper giving her brother the lickety-spittle treatment. Cindy McCain being the first in her family to go to college fits right in, and after all, the money comes from distributing Budweiser. Another no-class act is no holds barred on juicing 9-11 for all it's worth, with a video on display, as if it were a party event or showing Cindy McCain with Mother Teresa to juice the America-as-charity-worker angle! All that coded racist language too-- "elite" for "uppity" comes to mind first, but there is more....I've always found it strange that sexual mores are so closely bound into the RNC platform, so that shortly after we go and bomb the infrastructure of another country's economy to smithereens, word is that the main concern of the American public is whether gay marriage should be allowed.

So from watching the Dems, it would seem all Democrats have much better hair. I find even the older white Democrats look pretty good, and I mean pretty, like Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden, who is, after all, enjoying the mood Obamanation now, or as the racists will have it,"carrying water" for Obama.

ok, some respondent info from the general social survey....
whites
extremely liberal 2.2%
liberal 10.3%
slight liberal 12.7%
moderate 38.8%
slight conserv 17.3%
conservative 15.7%
extrem conserv 3%

blacks
extremely liberal 4.9%
liberal 16.4%
slight liberal 14.6%
moderate 37.8%
slight conserv 12.3%
conservative 10.7%
extrem conserv 3.8%

whites
strong dem 11.8%
not strong dem 20.2%
indep-near dem 11.7%
independent 14.5%
indep-near repub 10%
not strong repub 18.9%
strong repub 11.4%
other party 1.5%

black
strong dem 38.5%
not strong dem 28.8%
indep-near dem 11.2%
independent 11.8%
indep-near repub 3%
not strong repub 3.9%
strong repub 1.9%
other party 0.8%

all liberals
white 77.3%
black 17.0%
other 5.7%

all conservatives
white 86.2%
black 9.7%
other 4.2%

all dems (includes leaners)
white 73.7%
black 21.3%
other 5%

all repubs (includes leaners)
white 93.8%
black 3.3%
other 2.9%

You know what.. I don't give a crap.

Most of my elementary school education was given by black teachers. Most of my education from then on was from by white teachers. I don't bitch and moan that I never had an Indian teacher. It's all the same to me and I'm grateful to all of them.

I don't give a f^&* what color my politicians are either. I want the same thing that almost everybody wants - a safe place to live life as I want.

Is this the kind of racial unity the Obamessiah is selling? your party is all white.. then the second someone comes out who is not white.. PROP.. TOKEN...UNCLE TOM. No thanks. I'm not buying.

also, remember that just cuz whites are in a minority, they won't be a minority of voters. they're older, and less likely to be immigrants. e.g., 2006 exit polls showed whites were 67% of the electorate in california though they are less than 50% of the population.

I don't give a f^&* what color my politicians are either. I want the same thing that almost everybody wants - a safe place to live life as I want.

Agreed on this, mostly. But the RNC was hardly color blind, nor did it eschew the politics of representation. Palin was held up as an example that the RNC was the party of small town America because it had a candidate from a small town. If that's their argument, then I'm going to keep drawing inferences from other characteristics of the party.

They can't have it both ways. Either candidates are chosen purely on their credentials or they're chosen based on their symbolic value. The RNC has said loud and clear that they believe in the latter, and that's how I'm analyzing them.

They can't have it both ways. Either candidates are chosen purely on their credentials or they're chosen based on their symbolic value. The RNC has said loud and clear that they believe in the latter, and that's how I'm analyzing them.

agreed.

I would like to see data on what proportion of white Republicans have a college education vs white Democrats. It seems obvious to me that white republicans on average are significantly dumber than white Democrats.

white dems
LT HIGH SCHOOL 24.5
HIGH SCHOOL 51.7
JUNIOR COLLEGE 4.4
BACHELOR 12.2
GRADUATE 7.2

white repubs
LT HIGH SCHOOL 15.6
HIGH SCHOOL 53.9
JUNIOR COLLEGE 5.6
BACHELOR 18.3
GRADUATE 6.7

from the GSS

I think it's more apt to view this as the "Multicultural" vs. "The White." I don't think you can overlook the fruits of affirmative action and the ethos behind it- Obama and Palin are sort of the Mayawatis of the U.S.

16 · Ennis said

But the RNC was hardly color blind, nor did it eschew the politics of representation. Palin was held up as an example that the RNC was the party of small town America because it had a candidate from a small town. If that's their argument, then I'm going to keep drawing inferences from other characteristics of the party.

Sorry, but I don't get this. Palin wasn't chosen because of her color as far as I know. She is a solid conservative who allows McCain to simultaneously move toward appealing to independents while taking the change mantle by turning it into reform.

And I'm not really sure why playing to small towns is "politics of representation" but Obama's talk about how much McCain doesn't get it because of his houses is not. Are you saying non-white folks don't live in small towns? Are you saying the vast majority of Americans, regardless of race, who live in small towns shouldn't have representation? This whole argument about how this somehow reflects poorly on the Republicans eludes me.

To add, it is very sad that Democrats have somehow managed to make themselves the party for all minorities, blacks in particular, because despite everyone's misguided beliefs, the Republicans have long been the party that advocated for equality (slavery, civil rights, affirmative action) and a society that looked at people as individuals, not as members of insert group here.

People throw out comments saying Dems have helped black voters and I really want to know where they have done so. By passing laws that made crack offenses more harshly punished than coke crimes? By building housing projects that have subsequently becomes dens of poverty and drug dealing? By passing welfare laws that required men... fathers to be absent? Democrats run every majority black city, including NOLA, but the blame for Katrina gets put on Bush. And on and on.

Please, point me to even one instance in the past 20-30 years where a Dem got elected and life significantly changed for the better for any racial minority.

white repubs on a vocabulary test, 0 right to 10 right

0 .4
1 1.0
2 1.7
3 4.2
4 8.4
5 14.8
6 22.5
7 18.4
8 13.0
9 9.2
10 6.3

white dems on a vocabulary test, 0 right to 10 right
0 .7
1 1.4
2 2.9
3 5.5
4 9.1
5 16.1
6 21.3
7 16.2
8 10.5
9 9.0
10 7.2

haha, who's the cracker now??? ;-)

Hmmm, that does not jibe with Obama's significantly higher support among the college educated and the higher earners vs the Republicans blue collar white evangelical and catholic support base.

Hmmm, that does not jibe with Obama's significantly higher support among the college educated and the higher earners vs the Republicans blue collar white evangelical and catholic support base.

most journalists create overly simple narratives. since white catholics voted dem 50 vs. 49 in 2006 are generally a swing vote, not solidly repub like evangelicals, you are either listening to really ignorant people, or, you need to do some data digging and leave your uninformed preconceptions at the door.

Hmmm, that does not jibe with Obama's significantly higher support among the college educated and the higher earners vs the Republicans blue collar white evangelical and catholic support base.

if you substituted "Republican" for "Hillary's" you would be totally spot on. but the democratic primary can not be extrapolated to the general election. even in the dem primary there was variation; in the south obama won the poor and churchy because of black support. his appeal to the upper class is in places like vermont and oregon.

white liberals
LT HIGH SCHOOL 17.6
HIGH SCHOOL 48.6
JUNIOR COLLEGE 5.4
BACHELOR 17.9
GRADUATE 10.5

white conservatives
LT HIGH SCHOOL 16.4
HIGH SCHOOL 52.7
JUNIOR COLLEGE 5.7
BACHELOR 18.0
GRADUATE 7.1

white conservative vocab
0 .3
1 1.0
2 2.0
3 4.6
4 8.5
5 14.6
6 22.0
7 17.5
8 13.2
9 9.3
10 7.0

white liberal vocab
0 .7
1 1.2
2 2.6
3 4.5
4 8.0
5 13.3
6 19.4
7 16.0
8 11.5
9 12.1
10 10.6

to replicate, go here. you want to put WORDSUM or DEGREE into COLUMN. to FILTER
RACE(1) = RACE WHITE
POLVIEWS(1-3) = LIBERAL
POLVIEWS(5-7) = CONSERV
PARTYID(0-2) = DEM
PARTYID(4-6) = REPUB

you will note that the N's are large.

Are you saying non-white folks don't live in small towns?

rural america is mostly white, outside of the south. i have lived in small towns most of my life. that's how it is. not ALL white; i bring some chocolate love to the game ;-) you know wut e-man meant, don't strawman.

To add, it is very sad that Democrats have somehow managed to make themselves the party for all minorities, blacks in particular, because despite everyone's misguided beliefs, the Republicans have long been the party that advocated for equality (slavery, civil rights, affirmative action) and a society that looked at people as individuals, not as members of insert group here.

political parties are changing coalitions. e.g., ramesh ponnuru points out that the republican party in the south before 1980 was mostly country club whites who were pro-choice. the dems of the 1960s had a lot of dixiecrats, who are not republicans. the republicans had a lot of liberals jacob javits. that's why more repubs voted for the 1964 civil rights act. it split on regional, not party, lines. let's not play these dumb games.

Please, point me to even one instance in the past 20-30 years where a Dem got elected and life significantly changed for the better for any racial minority.

i think it can be argued that the black middle class is built on affirmative action at large corporations and government. look at what repealing affirmative action does at elite universities. this doesn't entail that a black middle class wouldn't exist, but it is currently heavily dependent on gov. either through the EEOC's threats toward large corporations in regards to representation, and, employment in all levels of the public sector.

i was pretty much wrong above re: gov. jobs. 18% of whites work in the public sector vs. 19.5% of blacks according to the GSS. that being said, while 28% of whites with college or grad degrees worked for the gov., 50% of blacks with those quals did. so i think you can see a reason why the black elite might have interests with the party of government and public sector unions.

Palin wasn't chosen because of her color as far as I know.

In any case, she wasn't chosen for her accomplishments, she was chosen for her symbolic value. Here's conservative writer David Frum on Palin:

it turns out that many conservatives care as little as ever about administrative skill and executive accomplishment. Our party and our movement overwhelmingly respond to symbolic cues. Sarah Palin is exciting and appealing. But what kind of executive is she? None of us have even the remotest idea. [Link]

Palin was chosen for what she symbolizes rather than for what she has accomplished. The GOP has every right to do that, but it does mean that I'm going to judge them on their other symbolic decisions as well. They're invoking the politics of representation and identity, so that's one criterion I use to judge them.

Even if you don't believe that argument, what about the fact that this year their convention was significantly whiter than years before. That wasn't an accident, it means something.

in the south obama won the poor and churchy because of black support. his appeal to the upper class is in places like vermont and oregon.

The question was about white support exclusively. Why bring blacks into the discussion?

The Republican base is white blue collar evangelical who also happen to be the least educated of white americans. The blue democrat states have higher educational levels than the red republican states. What does that tell you?

Once you get out of the metropolitan areas America is probably close to 93% white and thus largely republican.

Here's a very useful map of the 2004 election returns by county. Most places aren't strongly red or blue, but you're right that urban areas are more democratic and rural ones more republican.

27 · razib said

you know wut e-man meant, don't strawman.

I don't see the straw man. Immediately jumping to the conclusion that small town references is an appeal solely to whites seems really disingenuous considering the fact that most Americans don't live in large cities. Especially in flyover states that typically help the GOP win presidential elections. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out the racial differences in party makeup, but I do think it's unfair to take every innocuous appeal and try to turn it into some covert racial barb towards minorities.

political parties are changing coalitions... that's why more repubs voted for the 1964 civil rights act. it split on regional, not party, lines. let's not play these dumb games.

Parties do change, but that really isn't the point when people constantly try to say it's Democrats who have historically been the party for minorities in America. I don't think either party can really stand up to that argument, but I give credit to Republicans where credit is due. And If we are going to acknowledge that parties change, people should focus on recent party platforms, in which case the Democrats still have a relatively thin record on actually making real policy change that favors minority groups, especially for blacks.

You mention Aff. Act. as one good thing, and I'll concede the fact that the initial purpose was a great boon for blacks (even though you still don't seem to want to give any credit to Nixon for laying some of the initial groundwork). I'd argue more against the idea that A.A. continues to be a great help, but that's another thread for another day.

I don't see the straw man. Immediately jumping to the conclusion that small town references is an appeal solely to whites seems really disingenuous considering the fact that most Americans don't live in large cities.

No, most Americans live in suburbs. Have you spent much time in a small town? If you have, you'll know what people mean when they say "people like us who are from small towns"

Maybe this says just as much about the peer pressure that minorities face to 'conform' with the 'community' that belongs to the Democrat Party. It's very complicated, as others have mentioned.. no single reason why whites are the majority in Republican Party, other than the fact that mostly it's an issue of world view and culture. Republicans see themselves as guardians of traditional family values, whereas Democrats see themselves pushing everything 'liberal and progressive'.. culture war. Republicans are trying to maintain an America largely lost to changing demographics and the impact on pop culture raising kids instead of traditional values.. it's also the 'rural vs. metro' dynamic, but seems you're saying the Republican Party is racist.. you could say the same for Democrat Party, as being 'anti-White'.

The reason you dont see too many blacks in rural areas is because they were cheated out of the promise of "40 acres and a mule" after the end of slavery. Instead, the anglo elite brought in immigrants from northern europe who they considered the closest to themselves in racial stock, germans and scandinavians, to cultivate the vast acreage of America. You dont see too many greeks, italians etc either in rural areas.

35 · karakara said

but seems you're saying the Republican Party is racist..

hey, even ken mehlman agrees.

34 · Ennis said

If you have, you'll know what people mean when they say "people like us who are from small towns"

35 · karakara said

Maybe this says just as much about the peer pressure that minorities face to 'conform' with the 'community' that belongs to the Democrat Party.

You know karakara, that's the most evenhanded comment I've seen here in the past few days. It's ironic to see people on this very thread jump straight to allegations of racism while simultaneously wondering why the Republican party doesn't include more minorities. Right or wrong, it is really hard to reach out to people who assume your party affiliation means you secretly belong to stormfront or the aryan brotherhood or whatever. If the first instinct of minorities is to call white republicans racists it doesn't leave much room for dialogue. I can only do it because my ethnic background makes me unafraid of racial charges, and even that took some time.

Instead of looking that the GOP platform and wondering why it may not have broader appeal, people commenting in this thread have gone straight to calling white republicans "crackers" who are uneducated, vicious Christians. People freely mock creationist views, but would undoubtedly be P.O.'d if GOP members openly mocked the quaint beliefs of Hindu and Muslim parents and grandparents.

And if you look at the core beliefs of conservatism (which the GOP is largely founded on), none of the tenets are overtly or covertly racial. Belief in the power of the individual to help themselves, belief that the government should be blind to race (I know of no conservative that says you can't keep up your cultural practices at home), belief in the sanctity of life, acknowledging the value of traditional families that aren't quick to divorce, etc. etc. There are bad apples in every bunch, but my experiences with conservatives and republicans has been overall very pleasant and it sucks that so many here are quick to give people like them a bad name.

Even if you don't believe that argument, what about the fact that this year their convention was significantly whiter than years before. That wasn't an accident, it means something.

I don't think the Republicans, even as craven as they are, set out to mount a 93% white convention. It just turned out that way because they don't really care about the issue, except as a political prop--and in this case, it wasn't necessary. Obama is the black guy, so why confuse the voters? Loyalty and conservative bona fides are all that matter. John Yoo (torture memos). Albert Gonzales (Bush's personal lawyer), Condi Rice (lightweight), Colin Powell (loyal soldier) -- to cite some non-white senior Bush administration officials -- prove the point.

38 · NotADemocrat said

it sucks that so many here are quick to give people like them a bad name.

what can we say? we are the hollywood angry left who would rather win an election than win a war.

But Preston, that's why the difference between the last two elections (2000 and 2004) and this one is instructive. Bush / Rove reached out to minority voters, McCain does not seem to be doing so. Why is this? Well, they've given up on the black vote for this round and with immigration being such a hot button issue (a) there are fewer Latino Republican activists and (b) they didn't want to put them in prominent roles and remind the base of McCain's support for immigration reform.

I think that if McCain wins, his administration will be considerably whiter than Bush's.

Ennis - you are way off base here. Small towns refers to small town values, etc., patriotism, hard-work, 'I'm as good as you fancy educated lawyer guy'. Classic populism.

*I guess if all you have is a hammer.....

**What genius in the Obama campaign thought it was a good idea to bring up the red-blue divide by making fun of Gov. Palin as a small town mayor? Sheesh, send out smarter surrogates in the future.

Maybe this says just as much about the peer pressure that minorities face to 'conform' with the 'community' that belongs to the Democrat Party.

More on that here:

Obama giving some black Republicans 'heartburn'

Armstrong Williams is an African-American conservative commentator who is thinking about making a decision that he says is so agonizing, it gives him heartburn.

This fall, he may vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee.

The nationally known radio talk show host is a proud third-generation Republican who chuckles when African-American friends tell him it's time to "return home" to the Democratic Party.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/obama.black.republicans/?iref=hpmostpop

43 · Vikram said

Armstrong Williams is an African-American conservative commentator who is thinking about making a decision that he says is so agonizing, it gives him heartburn.

boy, it must be agonizing for somebody with such moral integrity to split with the repubs.

People freely mock creationist views, but would undoubtedly be P.O.'d if GOP members openly mocked the quaint beliefs of Hindu and Muslim parents and grandparents.

Creationism isn't just a private belief, but something which is being taught in schools as equivalent to evolution. Do you think that should be so?

And if you look at the core beliefs of conservatism (which the GOP is largely founded on), none of the tenets are overtly or covertly racial

Not overtly, no. There are prominent conservatives of all races. However, they are culturally biased. According to John McCain, America was founded as a Christian nation and the President should be a Christian:

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith," [Link]

And many conservatives think that while Christianity should have an official role, no other religion should:

The Family Research Council, the most powerful lobbying organization of the religious right, spoke strongly against religious pluralism when a Hindu priest offered an invocation for Congress. They wrote:

"(W)hile it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage."

"Our Founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

Beyond that, there are plenty of issues which are not in the ideology but in the practice of politics. Plenty of blacks are very conservative Christians, but will not vote Republican as long as the GOP keeps playing nasty racial politics. For example, recently a GOP congressman called Michelle and Barack "uppity" and when asked to confirm if he meant that, said he did.

I agree, Ennis. It's also the case that Republicanism as McCain/Palin 2008 presents it has now been reduced to a few simple memes. Sarah Palin is little more than a Fox News talking head -- Laura Ingraham, with a little Harriet Miers thrown in for good measure. McCain himself, despite whatever personal and political courage he might have once displayed, has withered into a crusty angry shell. There just isn't space for anything beyond resentment and aggression, which requires enemies. And enemies are brown.

MD - The small town == white thing is a digression. What do you think of the point made in the post overall, that this is the whitest RNC in decades, whiter than the population as a whole by far.

The Republican base is white blue collar evangelical who also happen to be the least educated of white americans. The blue democrat states have higher educational levels than the red republican states. What does that tell you?

not as much as actually looking at the independent variables themselves. perhaps you just aren't bright, so let me make it clear for you

state blue - 60% dem and 40% repub
state red - 60% repub and 40% dem

state blue - 25% college grad
state red - 15% college grad

just because the more dem state is more well educated does not entail that dems are more well educated. do you see why? if you don't, you do something like read a book, for example:
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do, which shows interesting patterns.

34 · Ennis said

No, most Americans live in suburbs. Have you spent much time in a small town? If you have, you'll know what people mean when they say "people like us who are from small towns"

building on razib's point, these culture war buzzwords/phrases seem to resonate more according to wealth and less according to education. Once white households make it to over $50K, McCain sounds like a good deal, under $50K, more like Obama. Non-college whites making over $100k are for McCain by whopping 62%-32%.

42 · MD said

Ennis - you are way off base here. Small towns refers to small town values, etc., patriotism, hard-work, 'I'm as good as you fancy educated lawyer guy'. Classic populism.

Who lives in small towns? I think that would settle the truth-claim here.

If you have, you'll know what people mean when they say "people like us who are from small towns"

to be fair, people mean different things, and people take things differently. that's why these debates can be frustrating, because

1) someone could be using "code" language, and the audience might not get it
2) someone could be using "code" language, and the audience might get it
3) someone could be using language which is misinterpreted as "code" by the audience (there was a few moments when guliani mistakenly seemed to trigger reactions at the convention that he didn't get because he wasn't consciously using code, he just stumbled into it)
4) someone could be using language in a way which totally is clear to the audience

IOW, reasonable people can disagree, and agree that it's complex and there probably isn't one answer. this is language we're talking about, not the rate of acceleration of an object.

Uh, I dunno. The restrictionist R base pissed off Hispanics and blacks have a chance to vote for the first black President? The base is predominantly suburban, exurban and small town, and those are the demographics of suburbia, exurbia and small towns?

The real story for me this election is the way that McCain, even while likely losing the election (Hey, everyone is tired of the Republicans, even the Republicans), will manage to re-ignite a demoralized base. See, I can do boring conventional wisdom as well as the next useless pundit :) Sarah Palin will, like all politicians, disappoint, but I find it refreshing to break free, a bit, from that awful, dull, senseless nonsense of big government conservatism. I think some of the ecstatic reaction to Palin is the idea that the party can return to a more small government vibe. It's a rejection of what the R 'elite's have been shoving down the base's throats (or so I keep reading on righty sites).

I actually semi-like and semi-dislike both tickets and waver from day to day (about voting third party or possibly McCain. I will shock you by saying I've (very) briefly entertained voting for Obama, very briefly, and then I break out of it as if out of a fever or illness......they are a strange bunch. I've never seen anything like it.)

I think some of the ecstatic reaction to Palin is the idea that the party can return to a more small government vibe.

hm. from what i have seen in the media it is identity-politics identification as a christian conservative. and i just got done listening to a radio show and it seems that a lot of republican politicians in alaska are peeved at because she is too fiscally centrist (e.g., they want to save the surplus revenue for later, while she wants to spend *some* of it on modest entitlements).

Sarah Palin will, like all politicians, disappoint, but I find it refreshing to break free, a bit, from that awful, dull, senseless nonsense of big government conservatism.

it's not that she will/would disappoint, but that her state is in no way an exemplar of small-gov't conservatism. In fact it's pretty much impossible to conceive of small government-conservatism there since they don't have a diversified economy (Oil, oil, oil....and commercial fishing) and pull $1.87 from the Fed govt for every $1 they send back.

41 · Ennis said

But Preston, that's why the difference between the last two elections (2000 and 2004) and this one is instructive. Bush / Rove reached out to minority voters, McCain does not seem to be doing so. Why is this? Well, they've given up on the black vote for this round and with immigration being such a hot button issue (a) there are fewer Latino Republican activists and (b) they didn't want to put them in prominent roles and remind the base of McCain's support for immigration reform.

Actually, McCain's record on immigration is far more liberal than you allude. Also, I can understand them not focusing on black voters as much since they really haven't got a shot in hell of winning much of that vote this election. While I do think the GOP should do more outreach, I don't see a reason to throw good money after bad in this election. Especially given the number of easily swayed black republicans contemplating voting against nearly every one of their values just to get Obama in office.

BTW, McCain HAS done a few things that many republicans haven't done, including address the NAACP and the Urban League.

53 · razib said

identity-politics identification as a christian conservative

wasn't she in Assembly of God churches since childhood? They tend to toe the "Catholic Church is the Great Whore" line. Which is a message that resonates very strongly with a Hagee-like congregation.

And If we are going to acknowledge that parties change, people should focus on recent party platforms

So your first salvo is the abolution of slavery, how recent was that? (#21)

To add, it is very sad that Democrats have somehow managed to make themselves the party for all minorities, blacks in particular, because despite everyone's misguided beliefs

Vote early, often, & for whom you like. I'll agree partly with KaraKara and say,some people may feel peer pressure to vote one way or the other. I heard a black Clinton delegate give an interview, at the DNC and she mentioned the horrible names she was called for sticking with Hillary over Obama. It is a generational thing,how some African American "elders" have seen themselves, whites and others. (note Jesse Jackson Jr. and son). The patronizing attitude of some minority Republicans who have 'seen the light' is just as dismissive, as if the voters just don't get it- as to who's looking out for their real/perceived needs.

Republicans shy away from admitting a class bias in their policies-- yet people feel it. Others have measured it. For historical reasons we know race has been shorthand for class ,so its no wonder to me about the racial disparity(only speaking of b-w.)

To the larger "values" argument- if any one was so naive as to think one group or the other had a lock down on conservative vs liberal and what a real American looked like- I think Mark Penn, the New Yorker cover, etc laid that to rest,--though I don't think anyone was shocked.

That's why Michelle was called bitter- because she couldn't just be a 'gal from a hardworking, blue collar family' talking about the changes that have made her climb difficult for those who will come after. She was attempting to speak like any American- forgetting that the only un-hyphenated Americans are white Americans. How could she complain after all the gains 'the black people', (with her affirmative action education ;-) have made. At any rate--- I'm hoping the symbolism will shortly turn to 'the real' job of what comes next, and what we---all Americans, are going to do about it.

54 · Nayagan said

and pull $1.87 from the Fed govt for every $1 they send back.

not just alaska as a whole, her small town wasilla lived on federal funds and earmarks. and despite that she managed to leave it with a budget deficit of $20m. small government, my foot.

Nayagan: Who needs it to be an exemplar? Just a rebuke to the general idea, even if only rhetorical. Anyway, she didn't make all those lands federal and I think it's hilarious to sell planes on e-bay. It may have been a gimmick, but, well, I'm in Chicagoland where the politicians don't even bother to pretend they care about governing well. They just take the money. Palin has put a lot of noses out of joint, including some on the right, like David Frum over at NRO. Boy, he does not like the Palin pick. He's now very putting up e-mails from pro Obama types. Pundits!

Pretty much what I expected in terms of numbers.

Once the Baby Boomers -.5 generation pass, the country will change the conservative religious ideology that has been mainstream for the past twenty years.

Boy, he does not like the Palin pick.

Peggy's not feeling it eiether or has she recanted for her heresy of calling "country fried first" a gimmick

Oh, dear. Who knew so many Sepia Mutiny commenters were such fans of small government conservatism? Why, I think I have misjudged you all.....it seems the love of Sen. Obama is a love of small government, exemplified by, er, a lifetime in government. Well, that goes for the other two Senators, too, so you have me there. Like I said - they are an odd bunch.

Also, good job on the community organizer comeback, Sen. Obama's surrogates (I actually like the guy, just disagree with him on a lot of stuff). What did you say? Jesus was a community organizer, too? Yeah, that'll work. Take that line. Sure to go down awesome with the general public. Jeez. Is Axelrod on vacation or something?

59 · MD said

to sell planes on e-bay.

for the record, it was not Ebay (Meg Whitman's company. Either just serendipitous or a brilliantly subtle talking point), but a private broker. Like us regular folks do. And it's hard for me to concentrate on rhetoric when there's so many inconvenient facts flying around. I found much of Obama's protectionist populism pump-up rhetoric unbearable. Good thing there was a puppy to play with.

I do get your point, however, about refreshment.

62 · MD said

Who knew so many Sepia Mutiny commenters were such fans of small government conservatism?

i don't need to be a fan of small government conservatism to point out the ridiculousness of the straw-grasping strategy of upholding sarah palin as the great white hope of limited government. and even pretending to be excited about it. at least let's be honest and appreciate the red moose meat she doles out.

Eh, Peggy's had a soft spot for Obama for ages. No one on the right (as in the base-y right) pays attention to her unless she accidentally says something complimentary about McCain. Look, you all have to realize that there has been a rift between the base and the R 'elites' (for lack of a better word) for some time now. They do not like the direction of the party and want a break in that direction and sense a break in Palin. That is one of the reasons the base has been electrified by Palin. They think the standard R pundits have gotten lazy and doctrinaire and stale.

southern strategy (with a blog name like that, I bet you are an Ayn Rand fan/sarc) - please. I can smell the talking points, so don't bother, okay?)

Okay, I'm done. Except for re-iterating the points I already made.

1. Sen. Obama - classic resume enhancer more interested in the next job than the one he is currently in.
2. Sen. Biden - classic political class 'lifer'
3. Sen. McCain - what the hey does Country First mean, anyway?
4. Sen. Palin - bright young thing, who the heck knows how she will perform? She's kind of doing the Obama thing on the right, right now, which makes me a bit afraid. I'd like to believe, I really would. And, seriously. Please sell off more of your stupid stuff on ebay, silly politicians. You can take the bus like the rest of us.....populism has it's pleasures!

62 · MD said

Oh, dear. Who knew so many Sepia Mutiny commenters were such fans of small government conservatism? Why, I think I have misjudged you all.....it seems the love of Sen. Obama is a love of small government, exemplified by, er, a lifetime in government. Well, that goes for the other two Senators, too, so you have me there. Like I said - they are an odd bunch.

I think the misjudging is due to a lack of slacking off from your real job and not reading every fracking comment :) I certainly don't love Obama (voting for Barr) and certainly do get mistaken for an ardent supporter all the time (since the anti-Obama rhetoric has been so egregiously thin and made porous by this acidic culture war atmosphere that has returned for the election season, I really can't resist. It's Tim-Tam's and Dilmah all over again!)

66 · MD said

with a blog name like that, I bet you are an Ayn Rand fan/sarc

no, just a party line republican. why are you arguing with my name rather than my point?

wasn't she in Assembly of God churches since childhood? They tend to toe the "Catholic Church is the Great Whore" line. Which is a message that resonates very strongly with a Hagee-like congregation.

she was baptized a catholic, her family switched to nondenominational christian (so protestant by default), she was with the assemblies as an identified member of years, and now she is simply a "bible believing christian" who still attends a christian center with assemblies affiliation. it's complicated.

Creationism isn't just a private belief, but something which is being taught in schools as equivalent to evolution. Do you think that should be so?

Not in K-8, but I think that in high school, our education system should leave room for intense debate and discussion over the merits of both arguments. If it has no scientific basis it will quickly fall out of vogue. I really don't care much about the evolution vs. ID debate, but it's interesting that people get all perturbed about the culture wars, but easily get apoplectic over the remote chance that the creationist perspective be presented for debate. It's such a small and insignificant issue when you look at how crappy our schools are.

According to John McCain, America was founded as a Christian nation and the President should be a Christian:

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith,"

That is QUITE a distortion of what he said. He said founded on Christian principles... which is about as innocuous and truthful as saying it was founded in Western traditions. I don't normally harp too much on the nuance of words, but "as a" Christian nation (with the implication to me that this country was founded specifically for Christians alone) has a completely different meaning that I'm sure McCain realizes is unconstitutional. And he didn't say the President should be Christian, he said that when HE votes, he votes for candidates who share his faith. That's not a mandate for other people to vote a certain way, its a personal conviction and decision.

And many conservatives think that while Christianity should have an official role, no other religion should:

Yeah, those people exist, but like Code Pinkos and Daily Kos nuts, these people are relatively fringe. This goes for both sides, but people need to be careful of accepting caricatures of the other side as fact. There are many Christian conservatives who don't like religion and government to be intertwined.

Beyond that, there are plenty of issues which are not in the ideology but in the practice of politics. Plenty of blacks are very conservative Christians, but will not vote Republican as long as the GOP keeps playing nasty racial politics.

I beg to differ. There was a time when there were lots more blacks were republican because they shared the conservative ideals of doing for yourself and your community with or without the government (Booker T. Washington vs. Dubois is a testament to this endless argument). But as people began winning more rights through contesting government, that became the dominant way of dealing with issues. The problem now is that the government isn't actively holding black people back anymore, but the strategy hasn't changed. Democrats have actively cultivated an image of Republicans as racists while taking advantage of the black vote. And comments like yours just continue to play into that narrative.

For example, recently a GOP congressman called Michelle and Barack "uppity" and when asked to confirm if he meant that, said he did.

Some unknown GOP rep made a comment that other black people use against each other all the time, and my world is supposed to stop? I've heard all sorts of patronizing, racist BS from democrats as well. Sorry, that's just not a good reason for me to change my values and go to the Democratic party.

nayagan - I,m not working so I figure I can play around in blog comment sections if I want to. Thanks, though. That was very sweet.

southern stragey - so, who did you want in the VP role? Huckabee? Romney?

I beg to differ. There was a time when there were lots more blacks were republican because they shared the conservative ideals of doing for yourself and your community with or without the government (Booker T. Washington vs. Dubois is a testament to this endless argument).

the democrats were the party with the hardcore racists until the 1960s, that was why blacks stilled voted for ike in the 1950s after their FDR interregnum (i believe one of adlai stevenson's VP running mates was a southerner and stevenson was a proponent of not being aggressive about civil rights). when woodrow wilson came into power in 1912 a crap load of blacks with gov. jobs were fired in DC. it wasn't anything about conservative ideas of doing for yourself, especially when the progressive movement was powerful in *both* parties, it was about the fact that the democrats were the ones with the self-conscious white supremacist anti-black wing (the republicans didn't have to be anti-black because their strongholds had relatively few blacks, partly due to history, and partly due to laws which prevented black settlement and migration).

p.s. and obviously teddy roosevelt was racist by today's standards; he was just less racist than woodrow wilson. times change....

70 · NotADemocrat said

Some unknown GOP rep made a comment that other black people use against each other all the time, and my world is supposed to stop? I've heard all sorts of patronizing, racist BS from democrats as well. Sorry, that's just not a good reason for me to change my values and go to the Democratic party.

If Lynn Westmoreland had called Michelle, "high-saditty," then bob herbert would have dashed off a column immediately.

70 · NotADemocrat said

He said founded on Christian principles... which is about as innocuous and truthful as saying it was founded in Western traditions. I don't normally harp too much on the nuance of words, but "as a" Christian nation (with the implication to me that this country was founded specifically for Christians alone) has a completely different meaning that I'm sure McCain realizes is unconstitutional. And he didn't say the President should be Christian, he said that when HE votes, he votes for candidates who share his faith. That's not a mandate for other people to vote a certain way, its a personal conviction and decision.

N-A-D, I hope you use large doses of Pantene. I worry for all the hairs you split so finely.

Eh, Peggy's had a soft spot for Obama for ages.

How could she have a soft spot for a man from Nowhere (nowhere?), that's not even in America. Obama, Speeches,.. Nuermeberg rally. Hate to see what she writes when she gets over her crush.

They think the standard R pundits have gotten lazy and doctrinaire and stale.

I guess then, the base agrees with McCain's campaign manager who observed the election "is not about Issues, it's about personalities". link

On the other hand- if, as McCain campaign manager said, the "Election is not about Issues" but pernonality, why the campagin is not about issues- its about

so, who did you want in the VP role? Huckabee? Romney?

let's not pretend that palin was a naked play for two factions: the red meat right wing nutsos, and pumas, with no consideration for the supposed experience card which supposedly so damned obama. i can't think of a better admission by mccain that he was bullshitting the voting public.

Where does the "Jesus was a community organizer" thing come from? He had his merry band of twelve and gave a some good speeches. Fed a large crowd once with five loaves of bread. Prevented the stoning of a prostitute. Chased some moneylenders (capitalists) out of the temple. Etc. But the gospels don't talk of his organizing the masses to effect political change. Yes, he talked about it, but it doesn't seem that he did much of the organizing. Now Paul, who never met Jesus, was a great organizer and direct-mail campaigner . . .

preston, i think the idea is that jesus was leading a prolish revolution against the saduccee and pharisee elite among the jews.

let's not pretend that palin was a naked play for two factions]

let's not pretend that palin wasn't a naked play for two factions

mad props for posting with a chart with quantitative data btw. sure plan on making me a !stranger.

Bobby Jindal

So your first salvo is the abolution of slavery, how recent was that? (#21)

Within the context of this discussion? A point made before Razib made the point about parties changing. I was explaining why the refrain that the Democratic party has been a historic friend of black people is false. Nice try though.

it wasn't anything about conservative ideas of doing for yourself, especially when the progressive movement was powerful in *both* parties, it was about the fact that the democrats were the ones with the self-conscious white supremacist anti-black wing

True, but in keeping with your meme about how parties change, I think it would be remiss of you to ignore the Reagan Revolution and the impact it had on the ideology of the Republican party.

If Lynn Westmoreland had called Michelle, "high-saditty," then bob herbert would have dashed off a column immediately.

And I still wouldn't care.

They didn't need Jindal after all.

1) someone could be using "code" language, and the audience might not get it 2) someone could be using "code" language, and the audience might get it 3) someone could be using language which is misinterpreted as "code" by the audience (there was a few moments when guliani mistakenly seemed to trigger reactions at the convention that he didn't get because he wasn't consciously using code, he just stumbled into it) 4) someone could be using language in a way which totally is clear to the audience

If the audience doesn't get it, then, arguably, it's not code. But it is a commonplace that "elite" is code for "uppity" so that is working code.

Hey, everyone is tired of the Republicans, even the Republicans

But it is a commonplace that "elite" is code for "uppity" so that is working code.

i never knew that until this election. is there any way to substantiate this? I also never knew messiah complex = uppity was a well known southern slur until david gergen bought it up, and he's pretty bi-partisn. had i known, you know i would've used it against hillary when she mocked him with the "sky will open" spiel.

70 · NotADemocrat said

Democrats have actively cultivated an image of Republicans as racists while taking advantage of the black vote

Oh those poor republicans!! They can't even defend themselves against such false imposed images. And what can be said about those gullible black people.

86 · KarmaByte said

Oh those poor republicans!! They can't even defend themselves against such false imposed images. And what can be said about those gullible black people.

This is the 2nd time people have thrown out the "conservatives think black democrats are dumb and gullible" argument. I missed the 1st reference because so many people are responding to my comments...

Anyway, I don't think Republicans can't defend themselves, I think they simply choose not to. Partially because they've proven they can win without defending themselves to liberals, but also because the lack of civility among some on the left. Like I said, it's hard to have a political discussion with people who think calling the GOP racist off the bat is a way to attract attention from the party.

As far as gullibility, I've never said black dems were dumb. I do, however, think many black people are holding on to a strategy that worked in the 60s but has long since lost its potency. It isn't stupid to try strategies that have worked in the past. At the same time though, I don't pretend not to see the intensity of anger and hatred that is lobbed at black conservatives. This open disdain for blacks who do not identify as liberal creates an artificial barrier that Democrats are all too happy to maintain.

It isn't stupid to have really considered all perspectives and still choose a liberal one, but it IS stupid to try to revoke someone's black card because they don't fit your stereotype of what a black person should be. That nonsense limits debate and forces a community to put all its eggs in one basket. Again, a stupid strategy.

Anyway, I'm out for the night :-)

Ennis - the National Average Column on the right adds up to 106%. I suspect the white total is overstated. Perhaps this is based on opportunistic census surveys that "allow" Hispanics to call themselves white?

Good post.

small government: coming soon to a home near you.

wasn't she in Assembly of God churches since childhood? They tend to toe the "Catholic Church is the Great Whore" line. Which is a message that resonates very strongly with a Hagee-like congregation.

Ironically, I heard she's a lapsed catholic herself. Have to confirm

87 · NotADemocrat said

Anyway, I don't think Republicans can't defend themselves, I think they simply choose not to. Partially because they've proven they can win without defending themselves to liberals, but also because the lack of civility among some on the left.

Right! That makes a lot of sense.

91 · KarmaByte said

Right! That makes a lot of sense.

come, come, don't be the angry left again - always interested in belligerence and swagger and picking a fight under false pretences.

Eh, Peggy's had a soft spot for Obama for ages. No one on the right (as in the base-y right) pays attention to her unless she accidentally says something complimentary about McCain.

She wasn't just a speechwriter for Reagan, she took time off from the WSJ to campaign for Bush in 2004.

Look, you all have to realize that there has been a rift between the base and the R 'elites' (for lack of a better word) for some time now. They do not like the direction of the party

Rove's strategy for 8 years was to govern for the base, not for the average American. It's funny that the base are complaining about Washington now. Read McClellan's bio, he talks about this in great depth, how Rove (and therefore Bush) were very careful to always put the needs of the base first, rather than governing from the middle.

...the unbearable whiteness of being...

;) sorry, i got completely sidetracked from the point of the post, but...highfive for that line, ennis!

Definitely, the RNC looks like the last stand of the old white wrinklies of both sexes. Amazing to see old women dressed up -- in their manner, whatever-- and shouting "Boo-oo--oo--oo!" Sarah Palin subscribes to the dress code, of course, with those little suits and teased and coiffed hairnest or basket. Also, it seems to have become at last the party of rednecks, what with Palin's youngest daughter Piper giving her brother the lickety-spittle treatment. Cindy McCain being the first in her family to go to college fits right in, and after all, the money comes ...

whoa! righteous much?!

78 · Preston said

Fed a large crowd once with five loaves of bread. Prevented the stoning of a prostitute. Chased some moneylenders out of the temple.

whoever this guy you are talking about is, he sounds like a commie who encourages welfare queens, and derides the free market to me. hope that the republicans denounce him and his ideology.

whoa! righteous much?!

Nah, venting after the spectacle of personal attacks on Obama coming from under beehives, can't help wonder how spit is generally used for grooming.

Razib:

if you substituted "Republican" for "Hillary's" you would be totally spot on. but the democratic primary can not be extrapolated to the general election.

This is ignorant to say the least. Apparently you have no clue that the "Hillary Democrats" were once known as "Reagan Democrats". Now they are also being called "Sam's Club Republican's". Blue collar whites, evangelical or catholic, with less than a college education are trending Republican. Perhaps the main reason Sarah Palin was picked was to appeal to that constituency. That she will also appeal to women including PUMAs is icing on the cake.

According to John McCain, America was founded as a Christian nation and the President should be a Christian

This widely believed notion is nothing but a big fat LIE.

America was founded as a secular nation. The constitution owes nothing to the Bible. The Founders were called "infidels" by the christians of their time, being mostly Deists and Unitarians. So was Abraham Lincoln the greatest President who belonged to no church and did not believe in the christian scheme of Salvation through blood sacrifice. None of them would have passed the test McCain and Obama were put through in the Saddleback Inquisition. The very idea that any political candidate should be grilled by a christian pastor to test his religious beliefs is contrary to the core principles on which America was founded: rejection of the authority of Church and Monarch.

Preston:

Where does the "Jesus was a community organizer" thing come from? He had his merry band of twelve and gave a some good speeches. Fed a large crowd once with five loaves of bread. Prevented the stoning of a prostitute. Chased some moneylenders (capitalists) out of the temple. Etc. But the gospels don't talk of his organizing the masses to effect political change. Yes, he talked about it, but it doesn't seem that he did much of the organizing.

Because his campaign was cruelly cut short. He was condemned to death by the religious fascists of his time. And the sentence was carried out by a governor, as another poster pointed out. This mocking of community service is going to backfire on the republicans.

Now Paul, who never met Jesus, was a great organizer and direct-mail campaigner . . .

If you think about it, christians are actually followers of Paul the community organizer, not of Jesus the preacher.

quick google pundit search parameters (lazy i know) produced:

1. Palin's church (with full text and audio of most sermons! Don't know how long she's belonged to this one)

2. Charming tidbit about a "praying the gay away" movement led by the pastor, Larry Kroon

3. Searching youtube will yield material considered taboo by some.

wasn't she in Assembly of God churches since childhood? They tend to toe the "Catholic Church is the Great Whore" line. Which is a message that resonates very strongly with a Hagee-like congregation.

The endorsement of this crackpot, Armageddon-obsessed, catholic-hating pastor Hagee was eagerly sought by McCain whose bosom buddy the orthodox jew Senator Lieberman anointed Hagee as the "New Moses"!

This is the same evangelical nutjob who announced to America that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to prevent a gay parade from taking place in New Orleans!

Make no mistake, the republicans are a dumb and dangerous lot.

perhaps you just aren't bright, so let me make it clear for you

state blue - 60% dem and 40% repub
state red - 60% repub and 40% dem

state blue - 25% college grad
state red - 15% college grad

just because the more dem state is more well educated does not entail that dems are more well educated. do you see why? if you don't, you do something like read a book, for example:
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do, which shows interesting patterns.

He actually thinks he has made a "clear" point here :)

Since you think you are so "bright" why dont you explain your point lucidly? How does the fact that the blue democrat states have significantly higher proportions of college grads than the red republican states prove that white republicans are smarter than white democrats?? I wanted data to confirm or deny my point that white democrats seem to be a more intelligent breed than white republicans. You have responded with nonsense.

Recent polls confirm my point indirectly:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=941

"August 12, 2008

Education: In many elections, those with only a high school education or less vote heavily Democratic; in this poll, McCain actually leads by four points. This is the group where Obama’s race is most likely to hurt him. Obama leads among those with some college (+16), college graduates (+14) and has his biggest lead among those with post-graduate education (+30). However because more educated people are more likely to vote these findings are not good news for McCain"

hold your godhas children -are we really worrying about the right things? It's not about the number of asians that showed up at the convention-it's about the number of asians that decided to watch these elaborate lovefests-dem or repub. why are we watching all this -are we actually expecting sapience from our leaders? Barack Julius Caesar elucidating "humbly" in his gladiator arena or Johnny "My friends" McCain who's shiftier than a category 2?

so what if 90% of the minnesota line-dance party was white? you invite people who like you to your party. you want 200 non-whites who want to drink beer with mccain? check the foodline at an indian function and poll the uncles piling as much samosas and chaat they can get on those plastic plates. they're out there -they just don;t have the patience to wear those pink Plaza Suite dress hats with America plastered on every square inch.

why r we watching again?
jk..humor needed..

The RNC had many elements of the NAZISM and FUNDAMENTAL ISLAM. It had similarities with Nazism the following ways: All-white, using terms like "country first" as opposed to "Fatherland". It had similarities with Islamic extremism because this woman, Palin, equates the War in Iraq as a Holy War (Jihad). She really does . Moreover, these Fundamentalist Christians are on a path to make the USA a theocracy.

Easy boston-mahesh. Republicans aren't "nazis." They aren't going to conduct a genocide any time soon. Nor are they interested in turning the US into a theocracy. I don't think there is enough evidence to question this party's committment to democracy however much you may disagree with them.

From Razib's data, assuming L+C = 100, a clear majority of people who have postgraduate education identify as liberal, and liberals are also the clear majority of those who score 8 or more on the vocabulary test. So its not at all unreasonable to claim that white liberals, are, on average, smarter than white conservatives. The remainder of the eductation distribution is about evenly divided--yes, many blue collar voters are liberal as well.

36 · Dhoni said

The reason you dont see too many blacks in rural areas is because they were cheated out of the promise of "40 acres and a mule" after the end of slavery. Instead, the anglo elite brought in immigrants from northern europe who they considered the closest to themselves in racial stock, germans and scandinavians, to cultivate the vast acreage of America. You dont see too many greeks, italians etc either in rural areas.

Blacker states such as Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and so forth all have many large black rural communities. The simple fact is that overall there are not that many blacks in the USA. They constitute just over 10% of the country's population. So even if every rural area had a statistically representative population, you would not see too many blacks in rural areas.

The Democrats literally have a "quota system" in place for delegates; they are required by their own party rules to have certain numbers of minorities. If you want to be a Republican, you have to join! No doubt the Republicans have to attract more minorities. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing minorities that they can't do things on their own. Yet, in truth, what have Democrats done for minorities? Those minorities in America who succeed today have done it on their own, without government hand-outs.

Blacker states such as Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and so forth all have many large black rural communities. The simple fact is that overall there are not that many blacks in the USA.

Blacks were driven out of some areas and encouraged to stay in others. They were kept in places as share croppers but their land was stolen if they were free. This happened in the family of a good friend of mine. He has calculated the current value of the acreage that was stolen from his family, and it's mindboggling.

I wanted data to confirm or deny my point that white democrats seem to be a more intelligent breed than white republicans

Look at cumulative percentages of vocab scores Razib provided. 35.7% of democrats are in 0-5 range, 48% in 6-8 range, and 16.2% in 9-10 range. On the other hand, only 30.3% of republicans in 0-5 range, 53.9% in 6-8 range, and 15.5% in 9-10 range. To sum up:

1) significantly more democrats score 0-5
2) republicans are more clustered in 6-8 range
3) democrats have a slight edge in 9-10 range -- a smaller difference (less than 1 point) than I would have guessed

As rizible pointed out, the picture is different for conservative/liberals. Interestingly, 2) still holds true, but 1) does not. Conservatives are as much more clustered in 6-8 range than liberals as republicans were compared to democrats. But that is balanced by liberal over-representation in 9-10 range instead of 0-5 range, as was the case with republican/democrats.

dipanjan's analysis reveals that dems are like men (if we are to believe Larry Summers), their intelligence veering more toward the extemes; while we are like women, clusted around the mean. No wonder we are the feminist party.

building on razib's point, these culture war buzzwords/phrases seem to resonate more according to wealth and less according to education. Once white households make it to over $50K, McCain sounds like a good deal, under $50K, more like Obama. Non-college whites making over $100k are for McCain by whopping 62%-32%.

Several writers, building off the debate that Thomas Frank started with What's The Matter With Kansas, have pointed out the intersection of identity and class issues in the 90s (Lisa Duggan is a good one). But I think when you have economic conditions bad for poor people (like gas prices, food prices, etc.), the identity aspect will resonate less and then bread and butter issues will resonate more, even though they're intertwined. In other words, if someone will actually go to a working class person and say "yes, this is not fair to you" the identity politics are going to sliiiide sliiiide slippety slide.

That's why the union vs. church split in how you organize the base and other social factors behind politics are really important - probably at least as much so than the particular individual(s) in power. The same demographics who are union members tend to vote differently (e.g. Kerry would have won if unions had been allowed to and been more successful at organizing from 1980 to 2004).

111 · Ennis said

Blacks were driven out of some areas and encouraged to stay in others. They were kept in places as share croppers but their land was stolen if they were free. This happened in the family of a good friend of mine. He has calculated the current value of the acreage that was stolen from his family, and it's mindboggling.

I'm not sure I follow where you're going with that. Are you suggesting that land-ownership would have lead to higher fertility rates or just that rural areas in the South and neighboring regions would have been more African-American were it not for unjust reconstruction policies? Ironically, the African-American urban migration eventually lead to great political empowerment. I wonder how such solidarity and influence would have played out with a wealthier but more rural population.

building off the debate that Thomas Frank started with What's The Matter With Kansas

i think thomas frank is wrong. it seems that his thesis was accepted because

1) it appeals to leftish narratives about why they're losing

2) it appeals to rightist conceptions of themselves as non-elite

of course, it varies by region.

conservatives as smart as liberals.

I wanted data to confirm or deny my point that white democrats seem to be a more intelligent breed than white republicans.

i provided data and you provided nothing. you're obviously not bright enough to realize that people can "page up" and see exactly where i gave you data. if you want it to be simple: correlation is not necessarily transitive. google that.

building off the debate that Thomas Frank started with What's The Matter With Kansas

i think thomas frank is wrong. it seems that his thesis was accepted because

1) it appeals to leftish narratives about why they're losing

2) it appeals to rightist conceptions of themselves as non-elite

of course, it varies by region.

I've only skimmed parts of the general book, but I agree that the general thesis of the book is unnuanced - that the Democratic party failed because it put identity interests above class interests. That's why I referred to the debate that he started - because he deserves credit for that, as an initial work.

Lisa Duggan has a much more nuanced approach of the way that identity and class are thoroughly intertwined in rightwing politics - you can see it in crass form in Sarah Palin - woman, "hockey mom", balh blah blah - as well as corrupt, lobbying, authoritarian, and a number of other things. But you see it in more structural examples that duggan gives too - it's really a book well worth reading - Twilight of Equality.

But I do think that the failure of the Democratic Party to espouse stronger labor rights and pay attention to the ways in which working class people work (e.g. by promoting the policing of speech instead of promoting the interrogation of ideas and organizing around better ones) is important (Paul Rosenberg points to Nafta as the key decision that lost 'perot' voters and enabled the 94 Republican Congressional takeover that started the 2nd phase of the reaction). And there are a number of other really important factors as well.

They're winning now, I think, because they've found a successful reconfiguration, because they simply waited to inherit power until the market and broad masses of people saw the results of Republican and especially Bush administration policies, and because that's how American "democracy" works.

Blacks were driven out of some areas and encouraged to stay in others. They were kept in places as share croppers but their land was stolen if they were free.

Working class whites jealously guarding their white privilege have rioted and expelled not just blacks out of their own thriving black communities (example: Rosewood), but also desi punjabis (from Bellingham, Washington; Live Oak, California), Filipinos (from Yakima Valley, Washington), chinese (in Chico, California; Rock Springs, Wyoming; Tacoma, Seattle).

i provided data and you provided nothing. you're obviously not bright enough to realize that people can "page up" and see exactly where i gave you data.

I think your head is too swollen with pride from all the patting it has received from white conservatives who find it useful to have a colored guy fronting for their supremacist fantasies with fancy academic language :)

I provided data showing that college educated voters lean heavily towards Obama. "Page up" genius. Your own data contradicts your irrational claim that "conservatives are as smart as liberals":

white liberals
BACHELOR 17.9
GRADUATE 10.5

white conservatives
BACHELOR 18.0
GRADUATE 7.1

Also, it is absurd to equate college degrees from the likes of say Liberty College (which is 100% evangelical and conservative) or the University of Idaho (from which Sarah Palin received her Bachelors Degree in Journalism), to degrees from the top 20 colleges in America which have an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body. Considering the liberalism of the elite american colleges and the liberalism of americans with post-graduate degrees makes your claim look ridiculous.

I have also read that Nobel Laureates tend to be liberal politically. That probably is also true of members of the American Academy of Sciences, more than 90% of whom are non-believers in christianity. Scientists in general tend to be Democrats.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.thompson.html

"The growing--and dangerous--divide between scientists and the GOP."

"Most scientists today do lean Democratic, just as most of the uniformed military votes Republican"

"The split between the GOP and the scientific community began during the administration of Richard Nixon. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, protests against the Vietnam War captured the sympathy of the liberal academic community, including many scientists, whose opposition to the war turned them against Nixon. The president characteristically lashed back and, in 1973, abolished the entire White House science advisory team by executive order, fuming that they were all Democrats."

"The GOP further alienated scientists with its "Southern strategy," an effort to broaden the party's appeal to white conservative Southerners. Many scientists were turned off by the increasing evangelical slant of Republicans and what many saw as coded appeals to white racists."

"Scientists also tended to agree with Democrats' increasingly pro-environmental and consumer-protection stances, movements which both originated in academia."

"Ronald Reagan oversaw a widening gulf between the Republican Party and academic scientists. During the 1980 campaign, he refused to endorse evolution, a touchstone issue among scientists"

"By the mid 1990s, the GOP had firmly adopted a new paradigm for dismissing scientists as liberals. Gingrich believed, as Nixon did, that most scientists weren't going to support him politically. "Scientists tend to have an agenda, and it tends to be a liberal political agenda," explains Gingrich's close associate"

"Texas Republican Tom DeLay dismissed evolution as unproven, said that we shouldn't need an EPA because "God charges us to be good stewards of the Earth," and denigrated scientific Nobel Prize winners as "liberal and extremist."

"the White House seems to have pushed scientific concerns down toward the bottom of its list of priorities. Bush, for instance, has half as many Ph.D.s in his cabinet as Clinton had two years into his term."

"

20 years from now, the republicans will be the party of the minorities, because when you think about it, the conservative family values of the republicans fit family oriented asians and lationos best, and in states like Florida and California this shift has already started.

119 · Dr AmNonymous said

I've only skimmed parts of the general book, but I agree that the general thesis of the book is unnuanced - that the Democratic party failed because it put identity interests above class interests. That's why I referred to the debate that he started - because he deserves credit for that, as an initial work.

I think the problem was, that when the book was written (and the few years after in which it spread throughout required reading lists for polysci classes) there wasn't really an exhaustive empirical refutation of it's points. I remember sitting in a senior seminar in the fall of 2004 and watching nearly everyone nodding their heads as the prof summarized the book, while not noticing her raised eyebrows ( that were perhaps inviting one jot of criticism. it's not as easy to get passionate responses when you're not teaching middle-east and lobbing Said at Southern Baptist undergrads.)

I think your head is too swollen with pride from all the patting it has received from white conservatives who find it useful to have a colored guy fronting for their supremacist fantasies with fancy academic language :)

Dhoni/Vyasa/Prema, it would be nice if you didn't drag every thread into the gutter with racist abuses. If you do have a useful point to make, surely you don't need insults to get it across?

I am a democrat, and as one, I am extremely wary of these intelligence "theories" (as for Thomas Frank, his theory has been mostly eviscerated by that pesky thing called data). Thinking similar to this was used to justify denying the vote to black people and women, and more practically, is not valuable for much other than party circuit snark and haughtiness. Last I checked, the constitution did not have a college degree test for voting, nor should it. Also, if the means-extremes claim that somebody posted above is true, what does that imply for the direction of the democratic party? That "dumb" democrats' opinions should count for less (assuming that a smart-dumb taxonomy even makes sense)? This goes against the grain of every reason why I vote for the democratic party.

(Because, surely, not all democrats have exactly the same view on all matters. Unlike republicans where McCain is considered a maverick because he cast a couple of votes contrary to party line once upon a time, the thrice-married ex-mayor of NY city who is estranged from his children can rail against cosmopolitanism and extol small town values without irony, and Mitt Romney can begin his speech with a screed about eastern elites and the party will swallow it because that's what they've told to.)

120 · Dhoni said

Working class whites jealously guarding their white privilege have rioted and expelled not just blacks out of their own thriving black communities (example: Rosewood), but also desi punjabis (from Bellingham, Washington; Live Oak, California), Filipinos (from Yakima Valley, Washington), chinese (in Chico, California; Rock Springs, Wyoming; Tacoma, Seattle).

Yes, it is true that working class and elite whites in the US guarded their status very much like working class and elite men around the world. We all know how such oppression overtly persists in India today, for example.

Some of these incidents you mention are over 125 years old. It is remarkable how much progress had been made since then.

Dhoni: in 121, by detaching the upper end of academic achievement from the rest of razib's data, and in 122 by focusing only on scientists and members of elite universities; you're making the same mistake people who observe male dominance in the upper ends of the scientific community and conclude males posses more scientific aptitude than females, when in fact various studies demonstrate than on average, their aptitude is the same.

i was being facetious in 113, but that pretty much sums up the issue. the word is variance.

so as far as, "white democrats seem to be a more intelligent breed than white republicans", the data indicates you're wrong.

the left's dominance in elite universities is well known--though clearly receding since the end of the cold war--so much so that in some instances liberals are a minority, in comparison to more radical leftists, many whom even stand outside of democratic traditions.

thats what i thought the elite charge against obama was all about, a little red baiting and a remnant of old cold war politics when the intellectual class was even more detached from americas ruling political class than it is now. that was a time when the econ dept at harvard couldn't figure out what every cab driver in moscow knew. the opiate of the intellectuals, raymond aron called it.

before palin emerged, i thought obama was heading for a trent lott moment due to his ayers association, one he probably deserved due to his failure to denounce the man in strong moral language. there was a stench of this in wright, who besides the racial context, reminded america of the radial leftists. i'm sure a 20yr association with noam chomsky would've undone him even more. this sort of elitism, the sort that refuses to embrace and even mocks terms like "evil empire" or "islamofascism" b/c they are too unnuanced has long been derided effectively by conservatives. this is a more effective charge of elitism than wealth, which is generally respected in america.

this is part of what makes america great. american exceptionalism.

So everyone seems to concede at the "extreme", viz. the right tail of the IQ curve, the conservatives are vastly outnumbered by liberals. This seems likely. The Conservatives are so bereft of intellectual firepower that they have to rely on foreigners, including Canadian Jews (Brooks, Frum, etc.) to pick up the slack in the American ranks. Even more interestingly, much of American conservatism would be derided as extremist in Canada itself.

The "culture war" used to be about the anomie that set into American life after the Immigration Act of 1965, when new cultural perspectives gained critical mass, challenging the white and western mainstream; it's most nuanced proponents were classicists and elitists, e.g. Allan Bloom, who exhorted a return to the Greek classics, especially Plato, as the new scaffolding to rebuild the broken national culture. But since the intellectuals have left the movement, the new uniter in identity politics, and being "just like me," as exemplified by Bush the C-student, and now Palin. As the atheist Sam Harris pointed out yesterday, if you want your leader to be as mediocre as you, you certainly deserve everything you get.

113 · Manju said

while we are like women, clusted around the mean. No wonder we are the feminist party.

no, you are the party that mistakenly concludes that things/people/concepts are feminist to the degree in which they resemble a woman. palin has a vagina and wears skirts, so she must be a feminist. guiliani cross-dresses, so he must be pretty feminist too.

obama was heading for a trent lott moment due to his ayers association

I thought they overplayed the Ayers-Weather Underground angle which was never getting much traction. 60s radicalism, during which Obama was a kid, has receded from public memory and is no longer considered a serious threat. On the night of Michelle Obama's speech, Levine spent an hour on how the line "world as it is and the world as it should be" came from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", and there were zero takers. Alinsky, who? What this did was to de-focus the attack along madrasa-Hussain-Indonesia angle suggesting Obama's softness against the more recent and real threat of "Islamofascism", which was gaining some momentum.

124 · Nayagan said

I think the problem was, that when the book was written (and the few years after in which it spread throughout required reading lists for polysci classes) there wasn't really an exhaustive empirical refutation of it's points. I remember sitting in a senior seminar in the fall of 2004 and watching nearly everyone nodding their heads as the prof summarized the book, while not noticing her raised eyebrows ( that were perhaps inviting one jot of criticism. it's not as easy to get passionate responses when you're not teaching middle-east and lobbing Said at Southern Baptist undergrads.)

Well, I was well out of college when it was written, but the basic basic basic thesis - that class politics has been neglected by the Democratic Party - is apt - at minimum since Clinton, if not earlier. But this is a natural function of a ruling coalition that gets more and more powerful until it has to choose between the various agendas of its components (see: Republican party today). At some point it becomes irreconcilable and then the process is reconstruction of a new ruling coalition while the other one does a lot of $hit you don't like.

As for power in academia - well, it's real. No one who thinks there are no power relationships or that academia is part of a broader economy and social setting should be involved in studying social science - at least if they're not receptive to granting the critique. But Thomas Frank is a good cookie - even when he doesn't have a "mute" button His work in Commodify your Dissent and One Market Under God were more helpful, I think.

128 · Manju said

i'm sure a 20yr association with noam chomsky would've undone him even more. this sort of elitism, the sort that refuses to embrace and even mocks terms like "evil empire" or "islamofascism" b/c they are too unnuanced has long been derided effectively by conservatives. this is a more effective charge of elitism than wealth, which is generally respected in america.

this is part of what makes america great. american exceptionalism.

1. I don't think Chomsky refutes "evil empire" or "islamofascism" because they're unnuanced (I assume he does though I don't have proof) - I think he refutes them because they're part of a political project of imposing a particular worldview on people and mobilizing people towards a political project. That they're unnuanced is a prerequisite to that project. But maybe you're right and Chomsky doesn't understand the importance of pop ed; I'd doubt it though--and I'd note that his book on 9-11 after 9-11 was on the best seller list, so really, how much of an elitist is he? He's much more engaged than most scholars.

2. Speaking of nuance, do you have ANY proof that "wealth...is generally respected in america" as a general rule? I would say 'currently tolerated by the working / middle class with the promise of upward mobility and indoctrination into capitalist ideology.' How else to account for things like Shays rebellion, the Populist movement, William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, the FDR coalition, the underlying emotional appeal behind the "elitism" charge (which is actually on the identity components of class differences, among other things), Roger and Me, etc.? There's always been a current of resistance in the United States and at times it has assumed a lot of prominence (and it's already started to come back in full force).

3. Can you leave the nationalism at home please? It's not useful for having a conversation. If the U.S. is exceptional, so is every other place in the world, from an analytical vantage point.

29 · Ennis said

Frum

Frum is a neoconservatives. National review is a neoconservative magazine. National Review represented the conservative movement twenty years ago. It no longer speaks for conservatism. Neoconservatives have hijacked the conservative movement. Read Kevin MacDonald's blog to understand what happened to the conservative movement.

it would be nice if you didn't drag every thread into the gutter with racist abuses.

Wow, so much empathy for racists. It is seriously twisted of you to argue that criticizing racists is "racist abuse"! The very topic of this thread is race and the Republican Party. Dont pretend that you didnt know that.

I am pretty sure you are the same guy who follows me around accusing me of casteist abuse whenever I attack casteism. You obviously think this is a clever and effective way to silence criticism of your cherished beliefs. . Think again pal. Its clear to me where you are coming from; and that it is a contemptible place to be. Ditto for the person I directed that post at.

In my book racists and casteists absolutely deserve to criticized. You have the right to disagree. Make your case intelligently if you can instead of resorting to deceitful, childish tactics that do nothing to advance the discussion on these crucial issues.

Yes, it is true that working class and elite whites in the US guarded their status very much like working class and elite men around the world. We all know how such oppression overtly persists in India today, for example. Some of these incidents you mention are over 125 years old. It is remarkable how much progress had been made since then.

Thanks for reminding us of that Akut. You are of course right. India is a far more cruel, oppressive and unjust society than America, and we should never forget that. Yet, disgustingly, there are way too many indians who not just willfully ignore or deny that fact but even attack those who dare to point out India's glaring, indefensible violations of human dignity and human rights.

You are also right to point out the great advances America has made. But you neglected to mention that it is american liberals who deserve the lion's share of the credit for bringing about this change.

"Definitely, the RNC looks like the last stand of the old white wrinklies of both sexes."

This was perhaps the last convention of some of their grandparents, but the white Republicans are the breeders among those of the paler persuasion. Male commentary in my hearing tends to run to the opinion that Mrs. Palin and her 1/16 Eskimo "smokin' hot daughter", are quite fetching. Not to mention her self-proclaimed red-neck son-in-law-to-be who is part Mexican. If they were Democrats they would be hailed as the Future Faces of America. If nothing else, they brought down the average age for RNC attendees, so let's find some other insults than just ageist, racist and sexist and hairist. Like the issues.

[rest of paragraphs mostly disgust over physical appearance and apparent age and race of attendees]. Amrita explains her uncivil commentary in that she is "ah, venting after the spectacle of personal attacks on Obama coming from under beehives, can't help wonder how spit is generally used for grooming."

eew. You go girl. Those Repubs certainly need lessons in civility.

"Obama among his stryofoam pillars" struck a nerve, it seems. Nasty comments? Politics. Voters hate wishy washy. There's only two choices, so make the issues clear and make them concise and make them bite. Lincoln was called a baboon so many times, it could have been his middle name. The Democrats are just as bad or worse. Don't be so childish.

I wasn't offically involved in the campaign, just working with friends. Then two of Hillary's delegates got murdered in August, including superdelegate Gwatney of Arkansas (where else) who was going to insist on a roll call. Surely they were just coincidences, surely there were no Manchurian candidates out and about in this election. I mean it's not 1968. But whoever is really running this show (and it sure ain't Obama), I've decided I don't want to know and I am well and truly out of there. If it makes someone feel better to have a brown or black person in the White house, more power to them. To me it has to do with issues and the network the candidate brings. If color were the deciding factor for me, I'd go back to my ancestral land.

Nevertheless, Obama still gets white votes after the Rev. Wright business. After Michelle's opinions on white America? Yes--he does. Is that a sign of intelligence? I'm not sure what it's a sign of. Maybe it's, "let's elect the black guy and get it over with so they can't say america won't elect a black guy as president" His stirring rhetoric is, well, stirring rhetoric, which might be why they can dismiss his more controversal comments. Change "black guy" for "woman" and you've got the gist of this "race" for president. In the end, no individual really has that much power because they are dealing with a whole power structure behind the scenes we never see.

The two-party system may be at the end of the road, practically speaking. The Republicans do alienate a certain type of white, as well as most non-whites, except for Hispanics and some desis very secure in their fiscal and social status. However, I don't see the Democrats attracting whites in the future, or Republicans more blacks. The Dems will continue to attract "minorities" but they don't all have the same agenda or goals, unless you believe in white/not-white dichotomy, which is rather limiting and supposedly what we are all striving to overcome.

Finally, as regards the argument about the intelligence level among Republicans and Democrats. The American electorate has never been big on intellectuals. Adlai Stevenson, popular as he was, had no chance to win because he was an "egghead."
The DNC was sound and fury signifying--who knows what? The RNC at least had a roll call and made fun of styrofoam pillars. Damn. I wish Hillary had said that.

Not that she'd make much difference either.

110 goethe girl said

Yet, in truth, what have Democrats done for minorities? Those minorities in America who succeed today have done it on their own, without government hand-outs.

An related observation from the article - Challenges of a divided America

What Obama's candidacy has exposed is that there are two very different definitions of the idea in modern America, and that is becoming more pertinent as the election unfolds. The first definition is one in which pure talent and creativity will rise to the surface of society, no matter what the hurdles in its way. Obama's story fits this definition perfectly: Kenyan father, white mother from Kansas, brought up in the politically invisible state of Hawaii and in Indonesia, yet through his gifts of oratory and intelligence he rose through Harvard Law School to stand within grasp of a history-making presidency. This version of the Dream is beloved of young people, African Americans, north-eastern liberals and creative types.

by detaching the upper end of academic achievement from the rest of razib's data, and in 122 by focusing only on scientists and members of elite universities; you're making the same mistake people who observe male dominance in the upper ends of the scientific community and conclude males posses more scientific aptitude than females

Its not about aptitude or potential but about the current reality. For example currently desis on average test very low on IQ tests (well below the global average), but I am not one of those who believe that desis are therefore forever condemned to lag behind most other races. Nutrition, culture, education, previous experience in test taking etc are all variables that effect performance in intelligence tests. There is also the fact that these tests do not measure all forms of human intelligence.

There is no denying that the best educated, the most intelligent , the most intellectually accomplished americans (the Nobel Laureates, the PhDs, the scientists, the students and faculties at the very best american colleges and universities, jewish-americans etc) are overwhelmingly liberals socially and politically. You seem to think that looking at the lower end of academic achievement somehow balances that out and confirms Razib's claim that "conservatives are as smart as liberals". That is absurd. That shows that you and him are ignorant of the fact that those white democrats at the low end, the "Hillary Democrats" aka the "Reagan Democrats" tend to be racist and socially conservative. Reagan got their vote some time back and Mccain is likely to get their vote this time, possibly costing the Democrats this election.

135 · Dhoni said

Wow, so much empathy for racists.

What, razib is a racist just because he countered your point? And you function as an honest critic by calling him an uncle tom?

135 · Dhoni said

In my book racists and casteists absolutely deserve to criticized

Wow! I applaud you on your courage in taking such a controversial stance. What are you going to say next? Bad things are bad? Sugar is sweet? How do you find the moral fiber to make such insightful remarks?

Male commentary in my hearing tends to run to the opinion that Mrs. Palin and her 1/16 Eskimo "smokin' hot daughter", are quite fetching. Not to mention her self-proclaimed red-neck son-in-law-to-be who is part Mexican. If they were Democrats they would be hailed as the Future Faces of America

Interesting that you neglected to mention McCain's adopted daughter who is hundred per cent bangladeshi. Could it be because you don't find her "smokin' hot"?

From what I have read Todd Palin has an eskimo grandmother which makes him 1/4 eskimo and his daughter Bristol Palin 1/8 eskimo.

Can you point us to a link that mentions Levi Johnston's part mexican ancestry?

How does any of the above change the fact that the delegates to the Republican Convention were 93% white, 68% male and only 5% latino?

137 · last exit from the convention said

After Michelle's opinions on white America?

What were her opinions on white America?

Obama still gets white votes after the Rev. Wright business.

What about the Rev. Wright business is so problematic to you? Are you equally offended by Sarah Palin's pastor? Whom are you going to vote for then?

Maybe it's, "let's elect the black guy and get it over with so they can't say america won't elect a black guy as president"

I wonder why you think 2008 is the year when America decided to use affirmative action for its president. I am keen to hear your reasons.

137 · last exit from the convention said

"Obama among his stryofoam pillars" struck a nerve, it seems.

Still much better than McCain and his green screen, don't you think?

I do hope Sarah Palin has CPR training, I have to assume she must have some skills that McCain wants in a veep?

133 · Dr AmNonymous said

2. Speaking of nuance, do you have ANY proof that "wealth...is generally respected in america" as a general rule? I would say 'currently tolerated by the working / middle class with the promise of upward mobility and indoctrination into capitalist ideology.' How else to account for things like Shays rebellion, the Populist movement, William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, the FDR coalition, the underlying emotional appeal behind the "elitism" charge (which is actually on the identity components of class differences, among other things), Roger and Me, etc.? There's always been a current of resistance in the United States and at times it has assumed a lot of prominence (and it's already started to come back in full force).

People want to have their cake and eat it it too? Not news, human nature. That's the attitude that produces a Lou Dobbs and makes Honest Tea, arugula and science the hated accessories of 'elite' americans.

I always joke with my wife I can distinguish a politician to be a democrat or a republican. Next time, mark carefully those Republicans. They all seem to have
very nice hair cuts.

"Are you equally offended by Sarah Palin's pastor?"

Hey--I wasn't particularly offended by Rev. Wright's comments as I don't think he talked about evil desis, so I don't care that much. But I worked among a lot of whites from the Chicago machine, and Michelle Obama's opinions are well known. However, she's not running, so I guess that's not right to cite her.

You mistake the intent of my comments. I am not Republican but do have a tendency to play the devil's advocate. I'm weary of them all.

"I wonder why you think 2008 is the year when America decided to use affirmative action for its president. I am keen to hear your reasons."

Only one. This is the year a black person has a good chance of winning. Simple as that.

"Interesting that you neglected to mention McCain's adopted daughter who is hundred per cent bangladeshi. Could it be because you don't find her "smokin' hot"?"

I don't find Bristol smokin' hot, at least I hope not. I'm a heterosexual female repeating like a little parrot, stuff I've heard. But yes, you're right. I should have mentioned the beleagured Bridget. Still, if it were not for her dad, Bridget would not likely join the Replican party, don't you think? Whereas the Palin crowd are naturals for it.

oh yes, almost forgot to address this query:

"Can you point us to a link that mentions Levi Johnston's part mexican ancestry?"

The Myspace where I saw it was removed. He has a sister named Mercedes who talks about her big brother Levi and who claims they are "half Mexican half mut." Photos with Palin accompany the text. Levi also stated one of his goals in life was "no kids."

"How does any of the above change the fact that the delegates to the Republican Convention were 93% white, 68% male and only 5% latino?"

Doesn't change it at all. Unless you believe Superman can go around the world so fast he can go back in time and change the future.

"How does any of the above change the fact that the delegates to the Republican Convention were 93% white, 68% male and only 5% latino?"

147 · last exist from the convention said

Hey--I wasn't particularly offended by Rev. Wright's comments as I don't think he talked about evil desis, so I don't care that much. But I worked among a lot of whites from the Chicago machine, and Michelle Obama's opinions are well known.

I am repeating myself here, but can you provide examples of Michelle Obama's "opinions about whites" with some evidence?

Only one. This is the year a black person has a good chance of winning. Simple as that.

Why do you say that?

145 · Nayagan said

and makes Honest Tea, arugula and science the hated accessories of 'elite' americans.

From what I've been told on Sepia, I thought is was Dems who ran on the platform of "class envy"? :)

"America has never in its history been 93% White, except perhaps on TV. Instead, I think it reflects a certain self-conception within the party today - that real Americans are White Americans."

Is this really a surprise to anyone?

#138 An related observation from the article - Challenges of a divided America

From the same Op-Ed (written before Gov. Palin joined the "Country First" team): But the second definition is causing increasing problems for him. This interpretation says that any man or woman can have a decent life – with food on the table, petrol in the car, clothes for their children –if they work hard and keep their heads down. This version is not so much about creativity as toil. subscribers to Dream 2 are precisely those suffering most from the present economic downturn: the Michigan car workers under threat of their jobs...

So we have African Americans /Liberals/"creative types" favoring option 1, and "hard working" (?) Americans, who toil, favoring option 2? The author notes,that Joe Biden, who's also presumably toiled, (unlike his running mate)was chosen in part to assure this second group. I don't doubt that. But when did the true story of a person coming from a single parent family, (former food stamp recipient)entering and graduating from an Ivy league school, on merit, going on to serve in the state and US senate *not* have anything to do with hard work, or *not* represent the American Dream?

Welcome to the bizarro world of American Politics. FT.COM

To his supporters – and I include here the millions of disenfranchised Europeans who want to vote for Mr Obama – this is a quintessentially American story: the rise even from the humblest beginnings of those with talent and determination. Mr Obama’s African-American heritage merely serves to underline the power of opportunity. In the hands of Republicans, the strength becomes a weakness. Mr Kerry was a war hero, but could not be trusted to be tough on terrorism. Mr Obama’s “otherness” is somehow un-American, just as Mr Kerry’s knowledge of French was proof positive of his lack of patriotism....The Republican candidate may be so rich that he cannot recall how many properties he owns. But Mr McCain can lose himself in the crowd at a country-and-western show. The self-made African-American Mr Obama is the suited elitist.

But maybe toil/struggle/hard work actual ability has nothing to do with it--- because Nostradamus ,aka ,last exist from the convention has noted; 2008 is the year- a black guy was meant to become President.

153 · dilettante said

this is a quintessentially American story: the rise even from the humblest beginnings of those with talent and determination. Mr Obama’s African-American heritage merely serves to underline the power of opportunity.

"Only in America!". Heh heh.

IQ test says: "I am repeating myself here, but can you provide examples of Michelle Obama's "opinions about whites" with some evidence?"

One can infer from code, remember? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. I'm sure George Allen leaked a few clues about his biases before the Macca incident. Michelle was vocally not proud to be an "American." Well, that's ok. Most of us, even ABDs, aren't proud much of the time lately, but her husband is running for president of the place. Then "Americans" began voting for her husband. Then she became proud for the first time. Now who gave her her big surprise? I'm sure it was not the African-American contingent. But as I admitted, Michelle is not the candidate. I should not have picked on her.

"Only one. This is the year a black person has a good chance of winning. Simple as that."

IQ test asks: Why do you say that?

I don't know IQ test. I guess because it's true and I'm a smarty pants too.

155 · last exit from the convention said

One can infer from code, remember?

Do you have examples of the "code"?

I don't know IQ test.

Ok, do let me know when you do.

"But maybe toil/struggle/hard work actual ability has nothing to do with it--- because Nostradamus ,aka ,last exist from the convention has noted; 2008 is the year- a black guy was meant to become President."

"LEFTC aka Nostradamus." No--reincarnated actually.

Anyway, none of these politicians would get anywhere with the machinery doing most of the work. Black candidates have worked very hard in the past. This is the likeliest year one will win. Last year I would have said it was the year a (white) lady would win. However--it could be the old white guy. Nostra is not always right. I don't think Biden helps too much, nepotistic pol that he is. I don't care how much he toiled, he's not inspiring.
All these candidates have "toiled" and have their stories. Just don't judge a book by its' cover.

145 · Nayagan said

People want to have their cake and eat it it too? Not news, human nature. That's the attitude that produces a Lou Dobbs and makes Honest Tea, arugula and science the hated accessories of 'elite' americans.

It can produce a Lou Dobbs or it can produce an Emma Goldman. The point is go for the good ones and engage with what they say. Anyway, my point was just to challenge the [deleted] [deleted] [deleted] that gets spewed out in the name of nationalism - American and otherwise. Applies to understanding Gandhi, applies to understanding the American working class.

151 · IQ test said

145 · Nayagan said

and makes Honest Tea, arugula and science the hated accessories of 'elite' americans.

From what I've been told on Sepia, I thought is was Dems who ran on the platform of "class envy"? :)

I think he was talking about class in general. But, yeah, the ability of the Republicans to get away with class warfare for a few decades while pretending not to be engaging in it is, well, breathtaking. Thank god it's finally ending and we can return to corporate hegemony before people like Thomas Frank takeover ;)

I think he refutes them because they're part of a political project of imposing a particular worldview on people and mobilizing people towards a political project.

I agree. And notice the elitism. The people are mobilized rather than come to their conclusions out of their own free will. Those simpletons. How in the world could they think the cultural revolution or ukrainaian famine are on par with the holocaust? don't they know the cubans love their heathcare? freedom of religion and speech be damned.

But these simpletons could see what men like Sartre--who went to the USSR and proclaimed their was more freedom of speech there than america--could not. Conservatves have lonmg played this elitism charge effectively.

Much of chomsky is an attempt to undermne classic liberal freedoms, like freedom of speech, which have more or less solved the problem of indoctrination by offering the free marketplace of ideas. chomsky sees his ideas losing and creates a conspiracy theory to explain it away. in his world, citizens in a free country are rubes, b/c its not really free, its not really a democracy.

2. Speaking of nuance, do you have ANY proof that "wealth...is generally respected in america" as a general rule? I would say 'currently tolerated by the working / middle class with the promise of upward mobility and indoctrination into capitalist ideology

No. just my observation. But we're not too far apart as you concede atleast toleration. But why americans need to be indoctrinated to an ideology that has created one of the highest standard of livings in the world is beyond me. not that americans are capitalist ideologues, just that they can look at the failure of the alternatives, their own wealth relative to the rest of the world, and conclude america is a great place to be, in part b/c of its free market system. chomsky, however, appears gaobsmacked and treats the american people like cult memebers drinking poisend kool aid, dooing thigs obviously not in thier own self-interst.

How else to account for things like Shays rebellion, the Populist movement, William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, the FDR coalition, the underlying emotional appeal behind the "elitism" charge (which is actually on the identity components of class differences, among other things), Roger and Me, etc.? There's always been a current of resistance in the United States and at times it has assumed a lot of prominence (and it's already started to come back in full force).

yes, free countries always have dissent.

3. Can you leave the nationalism at home please? It's not useful for having a conversation. If the U.S. is exceptional, so is every other place in the world, from an analytical vantage point.

I'm not patrotic, really. american excetioniam is that it was born less from a culture, more from an ideology...the american project if you will. this is why we don't have the extreme left or right that other nations do. it is this excep[tionalim that allowed america to lead the world thru the defeat of fascism then communism. so my love of america is not like my fathers love of india, which is rooted in culture, tradition, religion; and pride in being born into that tradition...true conservatism.

There is no denying that the best educated, the most intelligent , the most intellectually accomplished americans (the Nobel Laureates, the PhDs, the scientists, the students and faculties at the very best american colleges and universities, jewish-americans etc) are overwhelmingly liberals socially and politically.

Which is why I didn't deny it.

You seem to think that looking at the lower end of academic achievement somehow balances that out and confirms Razib's claim that "conservatives are as smart as liberals".

How can I think that when I never even addressed Razib's claims. I addressed yours: "It seems obvious to me that white republicans on average are significantly dumber than white Democrats" or "I wanted data to confirm or deny my point that white democrats seem to be a more intelligent breed than white republicans."

Do you have examples of the "code"?

I don't know IQ test."
Ok, do let me know when you do.

It's a long, long thread, and it's easy to quote the wrong answers to the wrong questions which I believe you have done IQ test.. "I don't know" was not my answer to "code" cracking. It was my answer to "Why Obama has a good chance at winning" and oddly..

Our exchange went like this:

LEFTC said "...This is the year a black person has a good chance of winning. Simple as that."

IQ test asks: "Why do you say that?"

LEFTC says "I don't know IQ test. I guess because it's true and I'm a smarty pants too."

The "I don't know" comment was modesty, for LEFTC is not omniscient, just intuitive and watchful. LEFTC is not predicting a win, just stating the obvious--he has a good chance and this is the first time a non-white candidate has had a good chance. A crystal mirror is not even necessary for that.

160 · Manju said

But these simpletons could see what men like Sartre--who went to the USSR and proclaimed their was more freedom of speech there than america--could not.

These simpletons also think Barack Obama is a muslim. Let's not reflexively turn unexamined gut instinct into a virtue.

160 · Manju said

Much of chomsky is an attempt to undermne classic liberal freedoms, like freedom of speech, which have more or less solved the problem of indoctrination by offering the free marketplace of ideas. chomsky sees his ideas losing and creates a conspiracy theory to explain it away. in his world, citizens in a free country are rubes, b/c its not really free, its not really a democracy.

Well, it's not. Just saying that all ideas can be expressed does not mean that all ideas have equal ability to affect the course of events. Power and money matter. (And to be topical, presidential elections and swiftboating - which was in the purest sense an "idea" - are a clear example of that.)

162 · last exit from the convention said

nd it's easy to quote the wrong answers to the wrong questions which I believe you have done IQ test..

I was indeed referring to your claims of Michelle Obama's views on whites.

The "I don't know" comment was modesty

Well, making an overarching claim that Obama is going to become prez because he's black and then being unable to offer a justification for it is hardly modesty.

160 · Manju said

I agree. And notice the elitism. The people are mobilized rather than come to their conclusions out of their own free will. Those simpletons. How in the world could they think the cultural revolution or ukrainaian famine are on par with the holocaust? don't they know the cubans love their heathcare? freedom of religion and speech be damned.

Hey, lets toss around wild accusations! Acknowledging the existence of hegemony (real) doesn't mean that people are deprived of their agency; in fact, it wouldn't work without it. It's not that working class people are stupid, it's that their information sources and time is limited, and there are few people actually advocating for their interests (Democrats included). If you want to call it elitist to point this out, that's fine with me - but I think it's just accurate.

No. just my observation. But we're not too far apart as you concede atleast toleration. But why americans need to be indoctrinated to an ideology that has created one of the highest standard of livings in the world is beyond me. not that americans are capitalist ideologues, just that they can look at the failure of the alternatives, their own wealth relative to the rest of the world, and conclude america is a great place to be, in part b/c of its free market system. chomsky, however, appears gaobsmacked and treats the american people like cult memebers drinking poisend kool aid, dooing thigs obviously not in thier own self-interst.

There are three ways to main political stability, and all are employed in the U.S.: coercion; economic buyoffs; and ideology. It's in the latter that the media, the public discourse (esp. of postmodernists like the Republicans), and tools like deportations of radicals have been used (not to mention occasional killings). And the latter points to the interplay of the different forces - 'America is the best! We'll support imperialism that pays for our social security!' (not that anyone will actually say that out loud, but that's what's going on) When the system doesn't deliver it need to be reconfigured and allows for 'progress.'

yes, free countries always have dissent.

By free, I take you to mean hegemonically controlled by an elite today. And yes, they have some dissent, but within very specific bounds. Outside those bounds, dissent is not allowed. All hail freedom!!!!!!!!!

I'm not patrotic, really. american excetioniam is that it was born less from a culture, more from an ideology...the american project if you will. this is why we don't have the extreme left or right that other nations do. it is this excep[tionalim that allowed america to lead the world thru the defeat of fascism then communism. so my love of america is not like my fathers love of india, which is rooted in culture, tradition, religion; and pride in being born into that tradition...true conservatism.

You don't have to be patriotic to argue in nationalist frames. America doesn't have an extreme left (it definitely has an extreme right right now on the margins of the mainstream) in the mainstream because it is socially, economically, and politically buillt to deliver this result. It's called "liberal capitalist 'democracy'" btw, you're not patriotic, but you 'love...america'? How are we supposed to make sense of that? Or rather, it seems to be the point not to be able to ;)

But don't you worry, every attempt to confuse, ellide, conflate, and otherwise mask will be returned with a specific and hopefully but not always nuanced critique of what you say. And on that level, we will fight a discursive battle, and one that I will win.

166 · Dr AmNonymous said

it definitely has an extreme right right now on the margins of the mainstream

In fact, opinion makers on the extreme right such as Ponnuru and D'Souza have made an argument which essentially concludes that the way for America to make common cause with radical Islamists such as Wahhabis and the Taliban is to emphasize their shared moral rigidity, which stands in stark opposition to their common enemy: the licentious liberal left.

I was indeed referring to your claims of Michelle Obama's views on whites.

The "I don't know" comment was modesty
Well, making an overarching claim that Obama is going to become prez because he's black and then being unable to offer a justification for it is hardly modesty.

IQ test, do you know the meaning of context and citing peoples quotes outside it? Yes? I thought you did.
You have the makings of a good politician.
If Obama were saying the same things and was a white guy from Kansas, no, he wouldn't be making the splash he's making. Then again, if he were a white guy he wouldn't be saying exactly the same things. Why is that so hard for someone of your high calibre to grasp? And indeed, why is that necessarily even a bad thing?

168 · Last exit from the convention said

IQ test, do you know the meaning of context and citing peoples quotes outside it? Yes? I thought you did.
You have the makings of a good politician.

Ok, next time I will quote your entire comment and the entire comment of mine to which you were responding, instead of just providing a link to the comment directly above.

If Obama were saying the same things and was a white guy from Kansas, no, he wouldn't be making the splash he's making. Then again, if he were a white guy he wouldn't be saying exactly the same things.

So, what would a white guy from Kansas be saying? And, refresh my memory, how have white guys generally done with that entire running for president thing again?

"So, what would a white guy from Kansas be saying? And, refresh my memory, how have white guys generally done with that entire running for president thing again?"

You'll have to figure that one out yourself. Having once seen you misquote me, means I don't play in your sandbox anymore.
I am leaving politics to spend more time with my family.

170 · Last exit from the convention said

Having once seen you misquote me

Wow, pulling a McCain I see.

The reason, why minorities weren't there at the GOP convention was that minorities don't participate in Republican Agenda. Minorities have a mind set that Ds will take care of them. Rs have done more for the minorities than Ds but Rs have failed to communicate the same to the minorities.

Desis don't participate at all irrespective of the party, other that for picture ops.

Lawyers tend to be Dems as liberals favor a litigious society. Lawyers contribute very little to the GDP. Both of Dems candidates are lawyers.

College professors in liberal arts discipline are almost always dems. They live off research grants and teat of the government. Frivolous research dollars are hard to come by from Republicans if the candidate is truly fiscal conservative. So by being Dems they are looking for their own self interest.

Welfare recipients tend to be democrats for obvious reasons. They have a lot of common with the above two groups. These groups tend to be parasitic.

Small Businessmen always tend to be Republicans. These entrepreneurs take risk and the health of the nation depends upon success of these entrepreneurs. Its the small business that become big business ensures a future tax paying base. Dems policies of higher taxation hurt the small business and choke the economy.

You can have all the high IQ you want, but if you do not produce innovative goods and services that has demand...country is going into the toilet...a la CCCP

Dems policies of higher taxation hurt the small business and choke the economy.

Have you ever run a small business? I have. It was a sole proprietorship. Let me tell you what choked my business. It was not having health care. And then, because i was fortunate enough to live in a state with decent politics, I could have health care because I wasn't making enough money to survive. In addition to that, I had to pay 7.65% extra payroll taxes because I was the owner and employee of my business (I paid 15.3% while most people pay 7.65% in social security and medicare). In addition to that, I was responsible for paying taxes ahead of time unless it was a Thursday and the Jets had won in week four by more than 9 points and I had a red balloon lying in front of me with the wind blowing east. All of which served as an incentive to keep my income down (and before i quit my job to start said small business, to not quit my job and start a small business).

Okay? These are the things that people - or at least me - have to deal with in running a small business - not eliminating the inheritance tax. So if you want to give me some good small business support that doesn't involve destroying entrepreunership how about national health care regardless of income and reducing payroll taxes for sole proprietorship without destroying social security and medicare (which, since I've paid double for, I would like to see the fruits of). And pay people good wages so they can actually leave their jobs and engage in the entrepreunership that Republicans LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLURVE talking about but do little to support - unless it's a multibillion dollar corporation engaging in war profiteering.

And stop using me as a political talking point in arguments to help the rich at my expense - it makes me furious.

btw, i'm sorry to hear that the "health of the nation" depended on my sole proprietorship ;)
grrrrr....it makes me soooo mad!!!!!!!!!

Lawyers tend to be Dems as liberals favor a litigious society. Lawyers contribute very little to the GDP.

That's going a bit too far--something like tort law, which says, "do what you want, but you're responsible for non-cost-justified injuries" is probably preferable (from a right-wing perspective) to Euro-weenie immense regulation of what you can and can't make.

Having once seen you misquote me, means I don't play in your sandbox anymore.

You are not the only one he has deceitfully misquoted. IQ test = HMF, a stalker with character issues who is notorious for whining ad nauseam about american born desi women not giving him the time of day. Cant really blame them :)

It does not matter whether the intellectual dishonesty is coming from liberals or conservatives. It has to be called out.

College professors in liberal arts discipline are almost always dems.

College professors in all disciplines, including the faculty of the top science and technology colleges in America such as MIT, Caltech, Stanford etc, tend to be liberal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

"College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says. By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative. "What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats"

"The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent)."

Dems policies of higher taxation hurt the small business and choke the economy.

Actually, the Republican policies of tax breaks for the wealthy and excessive deregulation of the economic system have a record that compares unfavorably with the democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

"Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut."

"Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all."

"The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?"

177 · Dhoni said

You are not the only one he has deceitfully misquoted.

Give me an example where I misquoted either of you.

177 · Dhoni said

IQ test = HMF

Dhoni, misidentifying me as HMF hurts worse than calling a high caste brahmin like me a sudra.

Keep it clean, please. Things are busy in the bunker these days. If things look too ugly, I'll have to shut down the thread. Just disagree with the argument, not with the person, and stay polite. That's all.

Welfare recipients tend to be democrats for obvious reasons. They have a lot of common with the above two groups. These groups tend to be parasitic.

Here 's reality check for you: its the mostly conservative red states which are effectively subsidized by the taxes of the mostly liberal blue states. And the overwhelmingly white rural areas are dependent on the charity of the multicultural metropolitan areas. So who are the real "parasites"?

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0507-03.htm

"True Blue Americans by Paul Krugman"

"Remember how hard New York's elected representatives had to fight to get $20 billion in aid for the stricken city — aid that had already been promised? Well, recently Congress agreed to give farmers $180 billion in subsidies over the next decade. By the way, the population of New York City is about twice as large as America's total farm population."

"You've heard the story many times: the denizens of the heartland, we're told, are rugged, self-reliant, committed to family; the inhabitants of the coast are whining yuppies......I've done some statistical comparisons using one popular definition of the heartland: the "red states" that — in an election that pitted both coasts against the middle — voted for Mr. Bush. How do they compare with the "blue states" that voted for Al Gore?"

"Certainly the heartland has no claim to superiority when it comes to family values. If anything, the red states do a bit worse than the blue states when you look at indicators of individual responsibility and commitment to family. Children in red states are more likely to be born to teenagers or unmarried mothers......per capita there were 60 percent more divorces in Montana than in New Jersey" [no surprise then that Sarah Palin's unmarried teenage preganant daughter is not an issue with these "family values" bible thumpers]

"But what's really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it's the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite. Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America's rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

There's no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it's a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations — mainly, though not entirely, red states — disproportionate representation in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the Senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.

But while this raw political clout is a fact of life, at least we can demand an end to the hypocrisy. The heartland has no special claim to represent the "real America." And the blue states have a right to ask why, at a time when the federal government has plunged back into deficit, when essential domestic programs are under assault, a small minority of heavily subsidized Americans should feel that they are entitled to even more aid.",/b>

Manju says"Much of chomsky is an attempt to undermne classic liberal freedoms, like freedom of speech, which have more or less solved the problem of indoctrination by offering the free marketplace of ideas. chomsky sees his ideas losing and creates a conspiracy theory to explain it away. in his world, citizens in a free country are rubes, b/c its not really free, its not really a democracy."

As promised, I did just leave politics to spend more time with my family, but they went out...
and I love to chomp on Chomsky.

One thing very fishy about Chomsky is that he has NEVER wanted to know who is behind certain conspiracies of the 20th century, the most recent being 9/11. He ridicules "conspiracies" except those that government approved. He said, and I quote, that he "doesn't care who killed JFK" Or about any other controverasal political assassination. This from someone who proposes to be investigating language and culture at its deepest levels.
Sooooo---anyone who communicates with him should feel free to call Chomsky on any conspiracy he concocts and tell him you don't care. The way we the highly intelligent democrats kiss up to him, no wonder he considers we the citizens to be rubes.

Sooooo---anyone who communicates with him should feel free to call Chomsky on any conspiracy he concocts and tell him you don't care. The way we the highly intelligent democrats kiss up to him, no wonder he considers we the citizens to be rubes.

Yeah the only problem with yoru argument is that he offers a coherent analysis that gibes with some empirical evidence that many others have pointed to (like corporate control of the media). So while you might not agree wtih him or his style or even the tenets on which he bases his worldview, calling him a conspiracy theorist is a mischaracterization.

Keep in mind, BEFORE the internet, he read tons and tons of newspapers and other materials from around the world. So while you can always disagree with him, calling him a 'kook' is just another form of redbaiting, and we don't like that.

Meet a Republican: informed and open-minded. I am glad the marketplace of ideas is alive and well.

You are not the only one he has deceitfully misquoted. IQ test = HMF

Really?

Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, equal rights, civil liberties, church-state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive privacy, health care, labor issues including child labor, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness.