2005 March 16 Wednesday
Steve Sailer On The White Guy Gap And Identity Politics
Steve Sailer expands on this theory that NASCAR is a white ethnic pride festival and explains that Republicans win elections because white males are angry over decades of being beat up on by liberals.
In short, NASCAR is an ethnic pride festival for the one
of people who aren't supposed to hold ethnic pride festivals.
After that, I started to notice some other institutions were in the business of
providing covert identity politics for people who aren't to practice identity politics publicly. Indeed,
that perspective provided a novel answer to a couple of that a lot of people are asking:
"Why do Republicans win so much these days? But why do they then so seldom use their power to do anything conservative?"
Admittedly, this new theory is more subjective than my recent quantitative articles in
VDARE.com and The American Conservative explaining the 2004 red state - blue state gap: "The Baby Gap," "The Marriage Gap," "The Mortgage Gap," and, underneath it all, "The Dirt Gap."
I guess you can call this one the White Guy Gap.
I suspect that liberals are now paying the price for decades of insulting white men.
White males make up about one third of the population, but the problem with white guys, from a liberal perspective, is that they happen to be the people who get most of the big things done in this country. That's just unfair, no, that's downright evil of them.
Steve sees voting Republican as a covert exercise in identity politics for white men. But since it is covert and since liberals still set the mainstream rules for what demands and complaints are morally legitimate white men fail to effectively advance their own interests explicitly enough to get the Republican Party to translate those demands into policy.
There's nothing unnatural about the people who keep the country running wanting to have a large say in running the country. The problem, though, is that white male identity politics is the self-love that dares not speak its name.
So, many Republican white men studiously avoid endorsing policies that would actually help white male Republicans, such as immigration restrictions. They are too intimidated by fears of being accused of bias in favor of themselves. Of course, every other group in America is free to be flagrantly biased in favor of its own members' welfare, but white males aren't allowed that freedom.
As a tragic result white males have, by voting Republican inadvertently empowered the neoconservatives to pursue a foreign policy strategy that is harmful to US interests.
So, instead, Republican white men meekly accept their leaders' Invade-the-World-Invite-the-World policies to show how unprejudiced, how self-sacrificing they are. They send their sons to die in Iraq so that some medieval anti-American Ayatollah can win an election.
Some neocons, on their more honest moments, are open about their ideological approach to politics (really, read to the end of this article and again look for the mention of the word "ideological"). So the first generation neocons might have been ex-Trotskyites but while they changed to a different abstract model of politics too many kept an unempirical theoretical approach to reasoning about the human condition. Traditional conservatism is in a sense the antithesis of an ideology because conservatives have a distrust for highly systematized political philosophies and for the idea that humans can create utopias. I think the neocons, not being real conservatives, are motivated in foreign policy by a mixture of interest in Israel and their misguided desire to spread their own form of utopian democratic liberalism.
The Democrats probably can't adjust their message to once again attract white males because the Democratic Party is too intent on attracting lots of other identity groups such as blacks, Hispanics, career women, welfare recipients, gays, and others. The Dems are going to continue to be willing to discriminate against and transfer assets away from white males to serve these other groups - all the while labelling large numberes of white males violent, racist, and assorted other derogatory terms. As a consequence the battle over the Republican Party is going to remain the most important political battle in America for a while longer - at least until demographic patterns shift power more permanently to the Democrats and the US becomes more like Latin America. If white males become angry enough to reject left-liberal definitions of what is moral and what is acceptable then we could stop invading other countries and even implement a much more restrictive immigration policy. But don't expect any help to come from a serious attempt by the Democrats to compete for the white male vote. The Dems have too much invested in serving their main constituent groups and justifying their policies with their own list of lies about human nature.
Update: Steve answers points a reader makes in reaction to Steve's essay.
No, what I said was, "Now, white men are probably the most tolerant and forbearing of any American group—they've been raised to take it like a man—but they are also only human." In your Midwestern state, for example, whites likely pay over 90% of the taxes that support your university and your Ph.D. program. Yet, while ethnic groups who contribute far less to the upkeep of your university insist upon ethnic cheerleading for themselves in programs like "African-American Studies," whites are expected to pay to be derided in your program.
That's quite remarkable. The only way to explain it is that the liberal settlement that emerged from the civil rights era is based on the notion that whites are not an ethnic group with their own ethnic interests. Instead, they are just The Majority, and they can afford to subsidize Minorities, because the cost per individual member of The Majority is limited.
In the long run, the liberal arrangement is threatened by immigration, since The Majority, who is supposed to subsidize Minorities, won't be a majority forever, and the cost per individual member of the former majority will soar.
But, obviously, the liberal dispensation is also headed for big trouble if whites are considered no longer to be just The Majority but are instead considered to be just another ethnic group. Indeed, you should point out to your professors that they should be careful what they wish for. No recognized American ethnic group puts up with subsidizing being insulted, and if your department succeeds in getting whites to think of themselves as an ethnic group, then continued taxpayer funding for your department would be threatened.
On the other hand, your professors aren't quite that dim. Indeed, they sense that they can profit financially from raising white ethnic consciousness. See, the more white ethnic activism they elicit, the more they can claim that they must be subsidized by the state to squash it by indoctrinating in whites the belief that they are the Evil Ethnicity, and therefore must pay to be insulted. It's another political perpetual motion machine.
The liberal arrangement is also threatened by an aging population. The oldsters are going to take such a large portion of transfer payments and other government mandates that the economy just isn't going to have enough resources left over to pay for the tax that racial preferences for blacks and Hispanics exacts on whites. Also, those costs from "affirmative action" racial preferences make the economy function more poorly. People are put into jobs that they do poorly while other people who could do those jobs are prevented from doing so. As old people become a growing portion of the labor force we will need the most economically efficient allocation of all working age labor.
The liberal arrangement is also threatened by the march of biotechnology. The myths that serve as the justification for racial preferences that discriminate against whites are going to be crushed by cheap DNA sequencing and other technologies that will lead to the discovery of the causes of differences in ability between individuals and groups.
Whether the liberal arrangement will be threatened by rising anger of white males remains to be seen. White males elected George W. Bush and he turned around and had Alberto Gonzales gut the government case against University of Michigan on discrimination against whites for the benefit of blacks and Hispanics.
Would the Catholic church be different if the Pope was a gay, woman, abortion?
"Women are less likely to go into and remain in science and engineering when they lack mentors and role models," the survey said.
I thought women used did PhD's to prove they were as smart as men, and after a few years of hobby-work in their field, they disappear to have babies, wasting the resources used in educating them.
SOUTH AFRICANS THINK NEW ZEALAND RACIST TOO
We felt that we were no longer safe in Jo'burg. Crime had been out of hand for a few years but the final straw was when my cousin was murdered in a car-jacking. It's always difficult for a South African to talk about race because of the baggage we carry and it's very easy to accuse us of any number of sins. What I will say is that I did not approve of racial discrimination in South Africa. But it was my home, it was where I grew up, and it's just the way life was. I didn't leave because of the end of Apartheid. I left because I felt my family's life was in danger. And funnily enough I find myself again in a country whose racial policies I disagree with. The policies here are the opposite of South Africa though. Here it is the whites that are discriminated against - obviously not as badly as blacks in SA but it's there all the same. For example, last year we got a leaflet in the door offering free hepatitis vaccinations but only if you were Maori, PI, or Asian. I didn't like that. You can get into medical school here if you are a Maori with lower qualifications than if you are white. A Maori and a European might both live in a socially deprived area; go to the same school; get the same marks and then the Maori will get a scholarship to university and the European will not. Racial discrimination of any kind is unfair and I think that what goes on here is often unfair. A Maori women who lives in the same street as us, a very pleasant, friendly woman, I should add, has had all of her fees paid to go to business school because she is Maori. If she was European she would not have got a bean. The funny thing is, although I call this woman a Maori; she looks like a European. Her ancestors are obviously mainly European but because she can claim Maori blood she gets preferential treatment. I honestly do not think that this is the right policy. If you want to help socially deprived people, that's fine, but help them on the basis of their deprivation, not their ancestry.
You mention several times 'gays' being part of the group that does not constitute white men (along with women and ethnic minorities), but do to 'homophobia' in 'communities of color' most self-identified gays ARE white. Gays suffer disproportionately from policies that bring high-crime, high-welfare minorities into cities, since disproportionately many urban whites are gay (see Steve S.'s stuff about children = move to suburbs for reasons why) and since Hip-Hop, Islam, you name it in terms of non-Western culture or ideology is very unfriendly towards homosexuality.
I understand that some of the groups I listed on both sides of America's ideological divides have some overlaps. After all, one can be woman and black for example. But the Democrats appeal to homosexual white men as gays and do not try to appeal to them as white males. After all, to do so would undermine the tactics they use to appeal to other groups.
Homosexuals of both sexes ought to be against Islamic immigration. They also ought to be against immigration of high crime groups.
Unfortunately, in this case, the joke is on the heterosexual White men.Basically since the Kenndy and Johnson eras, appeasing America's Blacks has been the leitmotif of American politics,"the tail that wags the dog", the fundamental issue around which all other considerations revolve.Of course the Democrats, who originated this school of politics, are inherently more expert at it than the Republicans, and will always but always beat the Republicans on this issue, but that little consideration doesn't stop the Republican leadership from "playing catch-up" on the issue.
Randall, some Republican politicians are for cheap labor and an amnesty for illegal aliens. However, Republican politicians are probably more likely to be opposed to affirmative action preferences for lesser qualified blacks and Hispanics than Democrat politicians. Probably a higher proportion of Democrat Congress members favors an amnesty for illegal aliens than Republican Congress members.
So far fewer than 2,000 US military personnel have lost their lives in Iraq since Gulf War 2 began (this loss of life is a tragedy for the survivors of those who lost their lives; also many US soldiers have been injured in Iraq). By comparison how many non-Hispanic whites will be negatively affected by affirmative action preferences for lesser qualified blacks and Hispanics this year? Thousands of whites are turned down annually by colleges and universities due to affirmative action preferences for blacks and Hispanics (see http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/color_of_meritocracy.htm for how affirmative action at Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley negatively affects non-Hispanic white applicants). Due to affirmative action whites have lower incomes. According to one source on average white workers have about a $1,900 lower income due to affirmative action (see http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/robinhood.htm).
Just as black voters would probably prefer political candidates who are for affirmative action and the immigration status quo over political candidates who favor an immigration time-out and no affirmative action preferences for blacks, most white voters would probably prefer candidates who advocate the continued occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the discontinuation of affirmative action preferences for blacks and Hispanics, and a reduction in legal and illegal immigration over political candidates who want a withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, continued affirmative action preferences for lesser qualified blacks and Hispanics, and increased immigration into the United States.
The Republican establishment has a pathological need for the approval of people and groups that despise them and will reliably screw over their own base in persuit of a nice review in the NYT.I once spent an evening trying to explain to a Reagan hating lefty friend why the Party Establishment despised Reagan and his paleo-populism almost as much as she did.And that Reagan wasn't nearly as "paleo" as she belived and his suppoters wanted to think.
I've written off the party,I won't be voting for them,no matter how scary the Dem ticket might be in 06 and 08,as the slogan seems to be "vote for us,we'll screw you,too,but we're marginally less destructive the the other side".
These patterns could all change. After all, who would have thought, fifteen years ago, that we would have millions in prison in 2005? They would have said it was impossible to lock up so many minorities in that it would inevitably be described as nothing but racism. It should be understood that when the left can be confidently predicted to cry racism over a policy change, this does not mean that they hold a high card, but that no rational arguments are available for their position.
If Americans enjoy watching guys with German names win car races, why don't they watch Formula 1? A guy with a German name wins that every time.
"In the long run, the liberal arrangement is threatened by immigration"
Sailer's correct,the arrangement will collapse because the groups are incompatible.
Do Dems stick with relatively stagnant black block or alienate that block by hispandering,the largest and fastest growing group(with 100 million more voters in Mexico alone).Despite the clear hostility to them form the left,asians have been willing to take an underclass postion in the coalition.If in the aftermath of the referendum banning preferences,Berkely imposes new,expilicitly anti-asian quotas,they accept this.
Blacks won't.Atlanta is chock full of full of black refugees who greatly resent being squeezed out of SoCal.
They are the most legally privileged and heavily subsidized group and won't quietly surrender any of that profit and privilege.
America already has too many fleas and not enough dog,when the boomers retire,our openly corrupt political class(the big ticks)will find they have run out of taxable peasants.
Those Republicans(yes,you Orrin Judd)who have convinced themselves that gay sex and abortion will pull "socially conservative" black and latino voters to the GOP make a fundemental error,they veiw these as "white" issues that have little or nothing to do with them.Watch a pro-choice rally or gay pride parade and you see a horde of upscale whites,few blacks,latinos or even asians.
Rubens,nascar has it's roots in the South,those guys might have German anmes,but they're seen as anglo-celts and Formula 1 is just too "euro",like soccer,it's seen as rather effete.
Temper Inversion, mixed raced persons of white and disadvantaged minority race descent have qualified for affirmative action preferences here in the USA. A person with one white parent and one black parent may be admitted to college or university under a special quota or quota system for blacks (see here).
Noone, in the future, if the University of California campuses implement Hispanic quotas that correspond or closely correspond to the Hispanic share of California’s population, Asian Americans would probably be subject to severe quotas. If that were to occur, more Asian Americans in California would probably start voting Republican.
Demographically I think that a majority of babies born in California are born to Hispanic women. Imagine what California will be like when and if Hispanics hold the majority or near majority of political power in California. My guess is there will be lots of affirmative action preferences for Hispanics.
Noone, if an American city has a population that is 80% Hispanic, 10% non-Hispanic white, and 10% black, a majority of Hispanics in the city might favor having no affirmative action for local hiring because jobs that would go to better qualified Hispanics would go to lesser qualified blacks. This assumes that the Hispanics of the city have better educational and other qualifications than the blacks of the city.
I know the only neurosurgeons and cardiothoracic surgeons I let my family go to are affirmative action hires and admittees. They may not be as qualified by training or natural talent, but they got where they are the old fashioned way--political thuggery.
"After all, who would have thought, fifteen years ago, that we would have millions in prison in 2005?"
An excellent point. What has the US prison population reached these days? > 2 million? I have trouble imagining the colossal costs that this imposes on society-- so many young people locked up, unable to contribute to the economy, prone to recidivism when they get out. What frustrates me about liberal Dems (with whom I agree on some issues) is how little many of them seem to care about actually doing things to improve the education and job prospects of the poor-- minority and otherwise-- in urban and rural communities wracked by poverty. AA does almost nothing for people in most of these places; it chiefly benefits members of selected ethnic groups (often with the most tenuous links to them) who've already reached middle/upper class. Descendants of wealthy European Spanish conquistador families from South America often get massive preferences in college scholarships, even if they rarely identify themselves as Hispanic outside of the application form; meanwhile, dirt-poor Puerto-Rican, African-American, Vietnamese and Polish kids from Chicago have little access to resources needed to even apply for such programs, and receive no benefit whatsoever. So, surprise surprise, a subset of these kids turn to gangs and crime. Sometimes so-called liberal policies are little more than feel-good pats on the back to those in power formulating them, which provide little benefit to those for whom the policies are ostensibly intended to help.
"If Americans enjoy watching guys with German names win car races, why don't they watch Formula 1? A guy with a German name wins that every time."
Yeah, Michael Schumacher. Probably one of the top 5 athletes in the world, yet little recognized in the States.
What has the US prison population reached these days? > 2 million? I have trouble imagining the colossal costs that this imposes on society-- so many young people locked up, unable to contribute to the economy, prone to recidivism when they get out.
Control the borders and turn the prisons into hard-labor camps based on a token economy. The prisons could provide much of the unskilled labor and at the same time alleviate some of the costs the prison system puts on society. In addition, the transforming power of physically excruciating work and a pseudo-economic system that rewards for it might be the best rehabilitation of all. Better than pumping iron, reading pornos, and playing PS2 anyway.
Proborders: "Demographically I think that a majority of babies born in California are born to Hispanic women."
If you think California has problems, how about tiny Ireland:
Introduction: McDowell discovers too many black babies.
The Irish Constitution has one progressive article. Article 2 states that:
“it is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation.”
It means that citizenship and the rights that go with it are bestowed on anyone who was born here. But Justice Minister Michael McDowell has discovered a problem. He claims it gives foreign mothers an incentive to give birth here, causing a crisis in the maternity hospitals. Like a tabloid editor he has coined a new phrase -‘citizenship tourism’.
The Geographical Process of Nigerian Migration to Dublin, Ireland
[Message from ParaPundit to justin/tim (who also posts under other names): I deleted this article from another post because it was off-topic for that post. Please do not just post any article to any post. Make it be on-topic. Also, do not post complete copyrighted articles. I've edited this one down. But if you keep doing it I will just start deleting your posts and banning your IP addresses.]
Some schools 'institutionally racist'
By Ben Fenton
Black pupils are still being expelled from schools at three times the rate of other children and some schools have become "institutionally racist", a Government funded report claimed yesterday.
Calling for teachers to co-operate with black parents to reduce expulsion rates, the researchers revealed that a "significant minority" of schools in England do not observe race-relations laws.
The and teachers' unions described the findings of a two-year study by academics at Canterbury Christ Church University College as "worrying".
In Ireland, ban on `citizenship tourism' mulled
NATIONALITY: Some take exception to pregnant women visiting Ireland for the sole purpose of giving birth and conferring EU citizenship on their kids
AP , DUBLIN
Friday, Apr 23, 2004,Page 7
Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said he is determined to deter pregnant women from traveling to Ireland specifically to give birth -- an act that gives the newborn automatic EU citizenship.