Watching the Republican National Convention was a little like being lost in an Alaskan snowstorm: I was blinded by the unbearable whiteness of being a Republican delegate. It was surprising, therefore, to find out that the delegates were even whiter than they appeared on TV. It seems the camera not only adds ten pounds, it also increases the amount of melanin in the room.
<
p>
| cite: 1, 2, 3 | Democrats | Republicans | National Average |
| White | 57% | 93% | 74% |
| Black | 25% | 2% | 13% |
| Latino | 12% | 5% | 15% |
| Asian | 5% | ~0% ? | 4% |
| Male | 50% | 68% | ~50% |
While 44% of all delegates at the DNC were minorities, this was true for only 7% of RNC delegates. In fact, this was one of the whitest RNC conventions in decades, pretty much since Black Americans effectively regained the franchise:
Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago [Link]
This was a big shift from 2000 and 2004, when the Bush campaign successfully reached out strongly to Black and Latino voters. The absence of Latino voters was particularly striking, probably because Latino activists have been driven out of the party grassroots that constitute the delegates by the rancor over immigration.
The party has also made a concerted effort to court Hispanics, but its electoral gains have been diminished by the hard-line stance many Republicans have taken on immigration… 5 percent of delegates are Hispanic, the lowest percentage at a Republican convention since 1996 [Link]
McCain’s own campaign manager said:
“We have to make a better case to the Hispanic voter that the Republican Party has something to offer other than a deportation slip,” [Link]
And while I was unable to find any figures on Asians at the Republican convention, the numbers leave little room for Asian delegates unless in very small number.
<
p>
Note that neither party does a good job of representing the American people as they are today. Democrats over represent Blacks and under represent Whites, the Republicans do the opposite. It’s only with Latino delegates that the Democrats come close to parity and the Republicans are far off. These differences may represent differences in party membership overall.
However, when you look ahead, the Democrats do a far better job of representing America of the future:
The Census Bureau reported last month that racial and ethnic minorities will make up a majority of the country’s population by 2042 — almost a decade earlier than what the bureau predicted just four years ago. [Link]
The difference in minority representation in part emerges from a deliberate difference in approach – the Democrats set diversity goals and the Republics let local parties choose whoever the wish:
Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant, pointed out that Democratic Party rules called for race- and gender-based numerical goals for state delegations, a factor that most likely contributed to the greater minority presence at the Denver event. “The Republicans,” Mr. Warfield said, “trust delegates to represent the interests of all people more than Democrats do with their quotas.” [Link]
However, these differences are not just a product of ideology. Compare the 2008 convention to the more diverse 2000 and 2004 conventions held under the same rules with the same ideology. This year the core of the party is experiencing a nativist reaction and the convention reflects that. Related is the fact that there are few minority Republican elected officials, so the automatic delegates were also very white this year as well.
I’d like to say that the RNC delegates reflect America of yesterday, but that wouldn’t be true – 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. And if that’s the message that they’re sending, it’s one I’m receiving, loud and clear.
quick google pundit search parameters (lazy i know) produced:
Palin’s church (with full text and audio of most sermons! Don’t know how long she’s belonged to this one)
Charming tidbit about a “praying the gay away” movement led by the pastor, Larry Kroon
Searching youtube will yield material considered taboo by some.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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 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.)
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
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
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.
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
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 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.
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).
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 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.
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.
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
An related observation from the article – Challenges of a divided America
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
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
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?
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
What were her opinions on white America?
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?
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
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
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
I am repeating myself here, but can you provide examples of Michelle Obama’s “opinions about whites” with some evidence?
Why do you say that?