Hmm. This is interesting. As I’ve pointed out before, the GOP is doomed if they can’t make inroads with minorities. Frankly, this is indisputable. So what are we to make of this doozy of an article from a Harvard Professor in the Washington Post (LINK)?The article in question accepts the conventional wisdom that: (1) minorities will become the majority soon, and (2) minorities will keep voting for the Democrats in record numbers. It seems to assume that being a minority makes one prone to becoming a Democrat. It then notes that because of these fact, people believe this will result in the Democrats becoming the majority party in the US. However, the article warns, this is not necessarily true. Oh my! To the contrary, this professor frets that this may actually result in Republican majorities.
Uh.
Ok, first, I’ve debunked the idea that minorities will soon become the majority. As I’ve noted, this assumes a massive, steady influx of Mexicans and there ain’t no more Mexicans to ship north. Indeed, Mexico’s birthrate is so low that they are experiencing a people shortage, so there won’t be another wave of them as the “demography-is-destiny”ers assume. Moreover, the Hispanics who settle here have the same birth rate as whites. So they are about topped out already. . . nowhere near a majority. Also, the idea that minorities are inherently Democratic is false. This wrongly assumes the recent trend of an ever increasing gap means there is something inherently Democratic in these groups. That’s disproven by Texas, however, where the Texas GOP gets around 40% of Hispanic votes compared to the 20% national average. Basically, conservatives are at fault for turning these people off. . . there is not something that automatically makes these people Democrats. So the premise of the article is wrong. But that’s not what interests me. What interests me is what this guy is trying to achieve.
According to our professor, the reason the GOP will end up with majorities if more minorities come to the US is that whites become less liberal when they encounter minorities. Essentially, he claims that everyone is racist and will actively vote against the interests of people of other races. To prove this, the professor claims he ran various tests which showed that when people come face to face with other ethnic/racial groups, their voting patterns change and they become Republican.
This is an interesting theory, but I have to say that his studies reek of inadequate controls. He claims to have found evidence of racism in voting patterns after conducting “experiments” like sending two Spanish-speakers on a train and then watching voting patterns even though he has no way to even know if anyone witnessed the Spanish-speakers. Nor does it appear he could rule out other factors that are much more likely to influence voting patterns. So basically, I’m calling bullship on his studies. BUT, it is an interesting theory, and there may be proof in the population. If you look at our country, the most conservative areas are also the most mixed racially. States like Georgia and Texas with large mixed populations tend to be quite conservative. By comparison, places like Minnesota, which are awash in Euro-socialists like Norwegians and Germans vote overwhelming for the Democrats. So maybe there is something to this.
So why does this Harvtard raise this issue? What is he hoping to achieve? I think what this guy is worried about can be summed up best by realizing that the most socialist places are also the most homogenous. Thus, while it would seem to make sense to the Democrats to import minorities because they tend to vote for the Democrats, he may be right (though he doesn’t say this directly) that they are actually dooming their long term dream because diversity leads to competition rather than cooperation and that will kill any attempt to create a socialist country.
I’m not saying the theory is right, but it will be interesting to see if this leads to a rethink on the left about immigration. That would actually make sense since the left’s interest groups (blacks, poor, unions) are most hurt by immigration, and since liberal impulses tend to be racist. Studies like this could well form the core of a “new approach” (read: “ban”) by the left to immigration. I guess we’ll see.
Thoughts?
13 comments:
that is interesting, Andrew. I guess we will see. I do think that the big divide is socialism & big government vs. those who feel they can do better if given the freedom to succeed. In the near term, with an economy that is limping along, people will look for help wherever they can get it. And it seems to me right now, too many people are getting comfortable in trading their freedom for what they think as security.
I agree with your take on it, Andrew. And thanks for translating, his writing stinks.
I would note that the reason the US is the US - freedom, Bill of Rights and all that stuff - is that a bunch of very diverse people came to this country looking to get out from under being the oppressed minority someplace else.
Of course, the original 13 colonies didn't have the disadvantage of Marxist theorists trying to set oppressed minorities against each other so there's that.
Jed, I thought it was interesting as well because his position really goes against the flow of what the left has been preaching. That's what caught my eye and it got me wondering what he's trying to do.
Obviously, we have no way to know if he's just an outlier or if this idea will catch on (and catch on in the way I've interpreted it), but I would not at all be surprised to see the left flip their immigration position around completely -- especially if the gaps start to shrink.
I guess we'll see.
K, You're welcome! His writing is horrible. I had to read the article three times just to follow what he's saying.
I do think this is what he's ultimately saying, that to get socialism they need the country to be relatively homogenous (i.e. white). So we'll see if that idea catches on or not. I can see evidence to support his idea and I don't put it past the left at all to become quite anti-immigrant fast if they see a benefit in it. But it's hard to predict what will happen. At this point, I see this mainly as the first intellectual shot fired for a change of stance. Whether or not that finds an audience, that I do not know.
On your point about the US, it's interesting you say that because I've never thought of it that way, but it's true. The US has always been home to a wide variety of racial and ethnic groups. And if this guy is right, then that may have been a reason why socialism never caught on here like it did in the very homogenous countries around the world. Interesting idea.
"If you look at our country, the most conservative areas are also the most mixed racially."
I cannot look up the figures right now but are we sure this is generally the case? I assume Oklahoma or Wyoming are less mixed than California or New York. I don´t think it is conclusive.
I believe Conservatives who think immigration is the root of all problems would do well to remember that it was lillywhite left-wingers who had all the bad ideas in the first place, and they still do.
Of course, once white people are made to feel like they are a minority they may start to behave like one and vote as a block. It is not implausible. Of course the whites who feel victimized are unlikely to be privileged (like, say, Harvard professors) so it´s ok to hate on them. Then again, they may end up as Democrats like so many other competing victim groups. Bet the professor didn´t think of that.
El Gordo, I'm not sure if this theory is right or not, but I think there is some evidence for it.
Several weeks ago, I actually saw a map which made me wonder about this very idea. The map showed county by county how the country was mixed. As you look across states like Minnesota and Massachusetts, you find almost pure white except in some inner cities (less than 5% minorities). Then, the further south you get, the more the numbers become very mixed (10-30% was common). Even Oklahoma is quite mixed county by county by comparison to the Northeast. This was actually really striking and it visually suggested a strong correlation between overwhelmingly white states and liberalism.
Does that mean causation? I can't say that. I'm just noting the correlation and this guy's theory at this point. I think a lot more study would be needed before we could declare causation. But it appears to be a striking enough correlation to make me think there is something to this.
As for California and New York, those would appear to violate the theory, except that the counties in those states really aren't very mixed. In effect, those states are pure white in the countryside with minorities clustered in the cities. So if this guy is right about daily contact, then they would fit the pattern.
Also, keep in mind that California and New York are unique states in that they have influxes of liberals from all over the country. Basically, every liberal in a place like Kansas wants to flee to NYC or LA or SF to be somewhere "enlightened", so that likely warps the result as those cities are large enough to dominate the state.
On your other points, I agree. Minorities are not driving the left, idiot elitist whites are driving the left and they are the ones coming up with the anti-American ideas. And no, it's not at all implausible that whites would become a block.
El Gordo: I assume Oklahoma or Wyoming are less mixed than California or New York.
There is more than one dynamic at work here. Oklahoma and Wyoming people live in low population density areas where traditionally people were expected to be more or less self sufficient - that's conservative country regardless of race.
Andrew: As for California and New York, those would appear to violate the theory, except that the counties in those states really aren't very mixed. In effect, those states are pure white in the countryside with minorities clustered in the cities.
The cities are all that count in California. They dominate the state completely population wise. The minorities collect government vote buying goodies and the whites fill the government jobs to implement the handouts and go to the government funded universities that preach leftist dogma.
Andrew....No statistics to back uo my theory, yet here goes. Where did all the leftist, progressive claptrap hail from? White, Western elites. Why haven't we followed the teachings of Attila, Genghis, etc.? I postulate that the left is all about putting a white, western face on what has always been the case throughout history...man's domination over other men (and women!).
We wrap it up in pseudo b.s. babble like Marx (wasn't he an economist BTW?) as a way of telling ourselves that it is "progressive" and not barbaric like all the other despots throughout history, yet it all comes down to one man, or group, forcing other men, or groups, to toe the line and do what they are told to do by their betters.
Our ancestors came to these shores to escape that b.s., yet we will never escape it. Through religion, weapons, food, education, whatever, men will always attempt domination over other men (and women!......Yes Loretta, and women)
So, argue, fight, debate the fine points, we will never change human nature and one man's desire to lord it over another. Wrap it up in pretty phraseology and modern language, it all boils down to one man (Caesar, Genghis, Mohammed, Pope, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Obama, etc.) wanting to dictate how others should live their lives.
As for me and millions of other like-minded men (and...) you start that shit around here and we will aim to misbehave. And we don't miss that often.
K, That's my impression of California as well. It seems like the cities are all that matter in California elections, and those are packed with minorities and liberal whites from all over the country.
Patriot, The left is about power. That is their ideology, to gain power over others to shape the world in their image. That necessarily implies an elitism, which brings with it all the other isms. To them, race is something to be played, either pro or con to sway people to support them. I see no evidence that they actually oppose racism except when it suits them as a political tool to do so.
As for liberals, they are essentially the dupes of the left. They believe what they are told and right now they are told they are not racist, even though they are. It will be interesting to see if that changes.
Interesting article Andrew. In fact, this is a lot to think about. I hadn't noticed this before, but you are right that the most liberal states are also the most white. I always put that down to their having Nordic roots, but maybe the lack of diversity feeds that?
P.S. Sorry I haven't been commenting a lot lately, but life has kept me busy. I do read every day though. :)
Hi Terry. No problem. :)
Yeah, I think this is interesting. I'm not 100% sure yet if this is true or what it would mean, but it is interesting.
Post a Comment