129 thoughts on “The Desi Vote. 2006.”

1. won’t be surprised to see Daler Mehndi become a Guvnor some day Eh!

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

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

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

   HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA my stummy hurts!

4. p00p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   I concisely wrote, what I wrote above.

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

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

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

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

12. I’m only lurking if not outright skimming these days, but this:

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

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

    I mean that as a serious question and not in any snarky way …. don’t answer, do your report first 🙂

    that she is respectful even if she thinks she is “mean.” 😉 Glad the threatened hiatus is thus far only that. 🙂

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

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

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

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

14. wut about bleeding some brown? 🙂

    good comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Baaaarown……Baaaarown…..”

    😉

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

19. Top Counties of High Concentrations of South Asian Americans [link] Sutter, CA (sa pop=7,914 percent=10.03) Middlesex, NJ (sa pop=61,485 percent=8.2) Queens, NY (sa pop=164,636 percent=7.84) Fort Bend, TX (sa pop=16,941 percent=4.78) Santa Clara,CA (sa pop=73,840 percent=4.39)

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

20. Kush:

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

21. Saheli:

    First, apologies for my long commentÂ….

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Regards, Kumar

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

23. Saheli:

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

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

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

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

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

    Regards, Kumar

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

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

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

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

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

26. Saheli:

    “…What I also think would be wonderful if people like us–educated, privelaged, worldly…”

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

    “…show them we care in a way that’s not just about making our clans better off but about making America a better country.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Regards, Kumar

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

28. Saheli:

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

    Regards, Kumar

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

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