Audacious Epigone points to a Pew study that shows Hispanics are on the political Left over economic issues. This demonstrates the futility of Republican efforts to court them.
Pew just released the results of a survey on Hispanics in the US headlining with their reactions to an uptick in deportations carried out under the Obama administration as compared to the Bush administration. The report also contains other points of interest, including the emphasis placed on the question of immigration. Of the six issues participants were asked about, immigration came in dead last in the percentage of Hispanic voters who say they are "extremely concerned" about it. From most to least important: Jobs (50%), Education (49%), Health care (45%), Taxes (34%), Federal budget deficit (!) (34%), Immigration (33%).
Hispanics primarily favor Democrats because of the party's policies on health care and economics--policies that seek to transfer wealth from middle class whites to the (disproportionately Hispanic) poor. The GOP would have to move to the left of the Democratic party on both of these fronts to beat it at its own game and have a chance at winning over Hispanics, a move that would necessarily entail the Republican party ceasing to be conservative in any meaningful way.
I suspect the need for the Republican party to court lower class whites has already driven the party leftward of where it would otherwise be. Imagine a parallel history where there was no Hispanic influx. The elected Republicans at this point in time in this parallel history would probably be to the Right of where they are today and they'd hold many more legislatures and Congressional seats. California would still be a Republican state for example.
Since living standards are stagnating and poor Hispanics are a growing portion of the populace I expect the populace as a whole will shift Left. As Hispanics grow in number and the white Baby Boomers retire the lower labor market earning power of Hispanics will further lower average living standards. Add in the other pressures on living standards (e.g. Peak Oil, peak other stuff, and the "great stagnation" factors ) and it is hard to see how American living standards can even stay the same, let alone return to the post-WWII glory era when living standards rose every year. Look at a different Pew study on differences in household median wealth by ethnic group for a glimpse into America's poorer future.
From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households.
As a result of these declines, the typical black household had just $5,677 in wealth (assets minus debts) in 2009; the typical Hispanic household had $6,325 in wealth; and the typical white household had $113,149.
How will these poor people take care of themselves in old age? The demands for government support in old age will grow even as old age entitlements costs rise to unsustainable levels. People will have to work into their 70s. Higher earners will be taxed at higher rates and will get less in old age benefits. Save more. Work harder. Spend less.
It is a small world. FeministX, who if memory serves is south or east Asian lesbian (or bi? I forget), says James Crowley is not a racist.
Then I read an article about the issue. Holy Fucking Shit! I know James Crowley! He's helped me out before. And no joke- you probably won't be able to believe this- but he insisted on going the extra mile to help me fend off offensive behavior by man who happened to be a belligerent racist. How ironic that he is being accused of racism now. He's not a racist. That I know. I'm not white, and I can say for sure that he automatically regards any white person who expresses an aggressive racist sentiment as a potential problem.
I originally got this reading a comment on Roissy's site. Roissy thinks Henry Louis Gates Junior is that weirdo loner kid from seventh grade. Gates really seems desperate to get everyone treat him with enormous amounts of respect and deference. As near as I can tell (and I could be wrong - unlike Gates of course) he expects cops (being lower class than Harvard profs) to kneel down and bow to his superiority.
Being a Harvard prof gives you mind-reading capabilities? Or are mind-reading capabilities a job requirement for a Harvard prof?
Crowley asks Gates to prove he lives there.
Looking out his front door, Gates sees someone who should be asking, "Is everything all right, sir?" He sees someone who would not doubt that a 58-year-old, gray-haired Harvard professor lived in this home — if he were white.
Gates sees a racist.
If someone doesn't defer to Gates is that person automatically a racist?
My take: white people and Asian people should defer to police because police are busy people doing important and dangerous work who need our deference of the police are going to succeed in keeping us mostly safe. It would be helpful if black people saw this need the same way. Though with people like Henry Louis "Skip" Gates preaching a different view to them (with President Obama backing him up and pissing off most Americans in the process) I'm thinking the job of police just got harder and our safety will decline as a result.
"He was arrested after following me outside the house," Crowley said on the radio, "continuing the tirade even after being warned multiple times, probably a few more times than the average person would have gotten."
Read the police report. You will get the whole deal if you just read the police report.
Writing for The New Republic before Sonia Sotomayor was chosen by the blessed prophet Barack Obama (peace be upon him) to become the next US Supreme Court nominee Jeffrey Rosen reports that Democrats who have worked as law clerks and judges with Sotomayor think she's not smart enough for the job. This just shows how little things change between Presidential Administrations - all partisan protests to the contrary. Sonia Sotomayor is Spanish for Harriet Miers.
But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."
The difference here is that Sotomayor will most likely make it onto the Court. Obama gets a loyalist to his side plus an affirmative action hire. Kinda like Clarence Thomas.
Sotomayor thinks female Latinas can reach better judicial decisions than white males. Really, I am not making this up. And she's President Obama's nominee for the US Supreme Court.
Taylor has also noted this from a Sotomayor speech to a Hispanic group: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Says Taylor, "Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' -- and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.' "
Washington Post writer Michael Gerson takes issue with Sotomayor's appeals court vote against the white firefighters of New Haven Connecticut who were discriminated against in the name of increased NAM promotion. Even Gerson can see the unfairness of the treatment of the top scoring firefighters.
The administration needs to understand that Ricci v. DeStefano is genuinely troubling. Normally when affirmative action goals are applied, people have little idea if they have been discriminated against or not. A few hundred law school rejections are put in the mail. A few may have been influenced by a desire for racial balance. But no one really knows. In the New Haven firefighters’ case, 20 people with identifiable names and faces were clearly denied benefits they had earned based on their race. I am not opposed to affirmative action in all cases. But the injustice here seems crude and obvious.
Liberal supporters of racial preferences want injustice that is more refined and harder to see.
Yes, in many cases individual whites can't prove they were personally victims of reverse discrimination. If one person is hired or promoted based on their non-white race and several (or hundreds of) people were competing for that position it is hard to tell who would have gotten the job of race was not a criterion for the position. Liberals prefer it when it is harder to identify exactly who missed out on getting a position.
In the case of firemen passed over for promotion because they are white it isn't just the firemen who pay the price. Our lives depend on emergency workers making split second correct decisions on matters of life and death. Less intellectually able decision makers mean more dead people in emergency situations.
Update: There's one advantage to putting her on the Supreme Court: she won't have to get overruled on appeal any more.
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
Always look on the bright side of life.
MIT researchers find that Barack Obama won election by appealing more to blacks and Hispanics.
Some political observers have declared that the election of the first black president signals a new era of post-racial politics in the United States -- but the data show otherwise, two MIT researchers say.
Through careful analysis of 2008 exit-poll data, the researchers found that Barack Obama won the election precisely because of his race, most significantly because of his appeal among black voters who turned out in record numbers.
"Ironically, the candidate whom commentators lionized for ending America's debilitating racial divisions won the election on the basis of increasingly distinct white and nonwhite voting patterns," wrote the two researchers -- Charles H. Stewart III, the Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor and head of the Department of Political Science at MIT; and Stephen Ansolabehere, professor of political science at MIT -- in the current issue of Boston Review. "Racial polarization in American voting patterns was the highest it has been since the 1984 election."
Despite many predictions, Obama did not "provoke a backlash among white voters," according to research compiled by Stewart and Ansolabehere. However, the percentage of blacks voting Democratic rose from 88 percent in 2004 to 95 percent in 2008. Hispanic voters -- who had been drifting into the Republican camp in recent years -- heavily favored Obama; Hispanics voting Democratic rose from 56 percent to 67 percent. "This additional support among nonwhites proved decisive," Stewart and Ansolabehere concluded.
Indeed, "had blacks and Hispanics voted Democratic in 2008 at the rates they had in 2004, McCain would have won," they wrote.
The Republican Party is becoming the white party.
This is not to say that Democrats lost ground among white voters; the Democrats did gain white votes but only a modest 3 million. "John McCain, on the other hand, received 2.3 million fewer votes than did George W. Bush in 2004. Most of this loss, 1.5 million votes, came from the net defection of blacks and Hispanics who voted Republican four years earlier; by comparison he lost 'only' 1.4 million white voters. Thus, Obama gained not only by bringing new minority voters into the electorate, but also by converting minority voters who had previously been in the GOP stable," the researchers wrote.
The Republican Party is pretty much political road kill. Demographic trends doom it. I'm expecting higher taxes on the most productive. I'm also expecting declining living standards. Texas will go Third World. Barack Obama will be helpless to stop this trend. He might even accelerate it.
A commenter on the Ann Althouse blog named Revenant answers a question someone else raised.
Can Obama laugh at himself?
Of course not. That would be racist.
The prospect of an Obama presidency has brought us into a season where lots of claims are flying around that this or that statement by McCain supporters is racist. The claims of racism have reached parody level. This reminds me of the feminist hysterics during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing. One could not tell it at the time but it marked a peak in feminist influence in deciding what what constitutes unfair sexism. The more doctrinaire feminists so overreached that when they subsequently defended Clinton's behavior toward Monica Lewinsky and other women they seriously undermined their credibility.
We might be headed into a period where the liberal press will get into such a frenzy looking for imagined racial slights that people will become desensitized to claims of racism. Almost all American presidencies in recent decades have ended in great disappointment. When that disappointment gets strong enough in Obama's case the very technique he and his supporters have used to defend him against critics - label much criticism as racism - will undermine and discredit that technique.
Since an Obama presidency won't be able to substantially improve the economic and social standing of blacks versus whites, south Asians, and East Asians the bitterness at the end of the Obama presidency will be felt most severely among the blacks who support him 9 to 1.
As Stanley Kurtz points out race is central to Obama's thinking.
Any rounded treatment of Obama's early political career has got to give prominence to the issue of race. Obama has recently made efforts to preemptively blunt discussion of the race issue, warning that his critics will highlight the fact that he is African American. Yet the question of race plays so large a role in Obama's own thought and action that it is all but impossible to discuss his political trajectory without acknowledging the extent to which it engrosses him. Obama settled in Chicago with the declared intention of "organizing black folks." His first book is subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance," and his second book contains an important chapter on race. On his return to Chicago in 1991, Obama practiced civil rights law and for many years taught a seminar on racism and law at the University of Chicago. When he entered the Illinois senate, it was to represent the heavily (although not exclusively) minority 13th district on the South Side of Chicago. Indeed, race functions for Obama as a kind of master-category, pervading and organizing a wide array of issues that many Americans may not think of as racial at all. Understanding Obama's thinking on race, for example, is a prerequisite to grasping his views on spending and taxation. Thus, we have no alternative but to puzzle out the place of race in Obama's broader political outlook as well as in his legislative career.
When it comes to issues like affirmative action and set-asides, Obama is anything but the post-racial politician he's sometimes made out to be. Take set-asides. In 1998, Obama endorsed Democratic gubernatorial hopeful John Schmidt, stressing to the Defender Schmidt's past support for affirmative action and set-asides. Although Obama was generally pleased by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 acceptance of racial preferences at the University of Michigan, he underscored the danger that Republican-appointed justices might someday overturn the ruling. The day after the Michigan decision, Obama honored the passing of former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson Jr., eulogizing Jackson for creating model affirmative action and set-aside programs that spread across the nation.
In 2004, a U.S. District Court disallowed the ordinance under which Chicago required the use of at least 25 percent minority business enterprises and 5 percent women's business enterprises on city-funded projects. In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, Obama and Jesse Jackson were among the prominent voices calling for a black leadership summit to plot strategy for a restoration of Chicago's construction quotas. Obama and his allies succeeded in bringing back race-based contracting.
When you make Americans think about a topic a great deal then they will change their minds - and not always in ways that the promoters of the topic intended.
Update: Ross Douthat observes yet more manifestations of Obamamania and insanity in the liberal media.
And speaking of the rapture ... actually, no, I don't think I have much to say about this nonsense, except that the people who think Obama might be the Antichrist and the people who think the McCain campaign is cannily designing its campaign ads to exploit fears that Obama might be the Antichrist deserve each other. (The difference, of course, is that the former group consists of minor-league kooks, obscure bloggers and chain-email peddlers, whereas the latter consists of Democratic strategists and writers for Time Magazine - the same Time, one might note, that has not once but twice put Barack Obama on its cover with a halo around his head.)
A halo! Twice already. This illustrates a double standard of the liberal media. They'll promote Obama to an absurd degree and then overreact when fringe critics with very small platforms use opposing imagery that is also very unrealistic.
More blacks than whites admit to negative views of the other race and more blacks than whites see race relations in America as poor. (and Hispanics are invisible to the liberals at the Washington Post)
As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
I would love to see pollsters ask what indicators they use to measure the state of race relations. Are their views based on an assessment of how well blacks are doing, how much they think whites treat blacks unfairly, or their own experiences hearing views of others about race?
The gap in white versus black views of race relations has grown.
Overall, 51 percent call the current state of race relations "excellent" or "good," about the same as said so five years ago. That is a relative thaw from more negative ratings in the 1990s, but the gap between whites and blacks on the issue is now the widest it has been in polls dating to early 1992.
When blacks think about race relations one factor they consider is their relative status versus whites. Blacks make much less money and own much less than whites on average. As long as blacks drop out of high school and college at higher rates, study less valuable subjects in college (very few study engineering for example), get put in prison at much higher rates (and they commit crime at much higher rates), have kids out of wedlock at far higher rates, and otherwise perform at lower levels versus whites their status will remain lower. Why they behave and perform differently is another subject. Just focus on the difference. That difference makes many blacks resent whites and therefore more blacks view race relations as poor.
More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views.
A longitudinal view from 1984 to 2005 of median household net worth for 65+ year olds by race (click on indicator 10) shows how dramatically the white-black wealth gap is widening. A 2004 Pew study found that "the wealth of Latino and Black households is less than one-tenth the wealth of White households". So blacks aren't going to see themselves as doing well when comparing themselves to whites and hence many of them will see race relations as poor.
Many supporters of Barack Obama, both black and white, hope that having a black (okay, half black) US President will somehow improve black performance and black relative standing. Some think this will help by setting a positive example to emulate. Others think Obama will right various wrongs by cracking down on racists who they think hold back blacks.
African Americans are much more optimistic than whites on this score: Sixty percent said Obama's candidacy will do more to help race relations, compared with 38 percent of whites. Two-thirds of those supporting him for president think it will improve the situation.
I think the people who hold these hopes are deluding themselves with utopian dreaming. While Obama will likely turn the screws on corporations and force them to hand out more jobs based on racial preferences that'll do little to benefit most blacks. The marketplace can find many ways to adjust and reduce the cost of systems of racial preferences. For example, large corporations can (and will) outsource services to smaller companies that can fly under the radar of the government and also can outsource to India and China.
The already low black male labor market participation will not improve under an Obama presidency that supports large scale Hispanic immigration. The competition between Hispanics and blacks for a limited supply of less skilled jobs will continue to follow the pattern where Hispanics get more of those jobs than blacks. The median incomes of younger generations will decline as less skilled and academically lower performing blacks and Hispanics become larger percentages of 20, 25, 30 year olds. The already low black (and Hispanic) high school graduation rates will not improve under Obama. The kids won't all say "Hey, a black man is in the White House and so I won't drop out of school." Not gonna happen. I expect more of the same.
Obama decries the No Child Left Behind education legislation (which amounted to George W. Bush agreeing with the delusions of what liberal Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy wanted to do to improve education) as an unfunded mandate on schools to improve their performance. Obama would have us believe that black performance can catch up with white performance if more money is thrown at the problem (which is a very left-liberal position to take and has been tried before many times). Well, some states and the District of Columbia already spend large piles of cash per student with little to show for it.
New York State spent $14,119 per student — more than any other state in the nation — in the 2005 fiscal year, according to a national analysis of public school spending that the Census Bureau released today.
The analysis, Public Education Finances: 2005, placed New Jersey at No. 2 on the list, at $13,800, followed by the District of Columbia (which was treated as a state) at $12,979, Vermont at $11,835 and Connecticut at $11,572. Seven of the top 10 with the highest per-pupil expenditures were in the Northeast. Detailed tables [Excel] are available through the Census Bureau’s Web site. A graphic of the top five states (including the District of Columbia) is here.
Do I even need to mention that black scholastic performance in DC is terrible? Does Obama really believe he can do better? Utah spends a small fraction per student of what gets spent by NY, NJ, and DC and yet Utah's students do great on national tests. Obama has nothing new to offer here and so he's not going to score some new big success in education of blacks.
The overwhelming black vote for Obama is most likely driven by a belief that Obama will improve the economic standing of blacks.. Well, decades after the removal of legal and institutional obstacles to black advancement and with racial preferences in governments, universities, and corporations why should we expect more of the same to make a substantial difference? I do not see a reason to expect Obama can deliver on this hope. So at the end of an Obama presidency black views of race relations will probably be even worse than they are today.
Richard Kahlenberg observes that it would be politically savvy of Barack Obama to embrace a shift toward class-based affirmative action and that the logic of several things his said over the years seems to point in this direction. I tend to think so as well, and have been hopeful that this might happen at some point, but then I read this Noam Scheiber article focused on another topic and saw this graf:The run-up to South Carolina was rife with talk that post-racial Obama was morphing into a decidedly pre-post-racial candidate. To reverse the slide, blogger Mickey Kaus suggested he give a speech embracing class- rather than race-based affirmative action, something Obama had flirted with in the past. Kaus had a point: The atmospherics would have been irresistible to ambivalent whites. I pushed a milder form of the idea on my own blog. Not long after, I got a response from an Obama adviser: Never gonna happen. Urging Sister Souljah politicking on him was the surest way to provoke a scowl.
Why in the world is "Never gonna happen" surprising?
"Never gonna happen" was obvious from Obama's 1995 autobiography. It's his story of "race and inheritance."
He's devoted what part of his career that he has spared from self-promotion to using political power to take from whites and give to blacks: becoming a black organizer, running a black voter registration drive, joining an anti-discrimination law firm, and running in mostly black districts on black concerns.
American white people are going to elect a black man to govern them who thinks his own race deserves the fruits of their labor.
Let's also be clear that anybody who thinks a class-based system of affirmative action will lead to anything like the current level of representation of blacks in elite institutions is living in a dreamland. The bottom ten percent of white students in socio-economic status score as high or higher on the SAT than the top 10 percent of blacks in socioeconomic status.
The huge little secret of affirmative action is that the African-Americans who benefit from it tend to come the upper levels of American society. Dumping a race-based system for a class-based system would benefit whites overwhelmingly.
Heck, as Lani Guinier and Henry Louis Gates have been complaining for years, a majority of blacks at Harvard are only pseudo-African Americans, of recent white or immigrant background -- like Obama. Or Guinier, for that matter (she's half Jamaican-half Jewish and looks like Gilda Radner), but she's honest about it). The descendants of American slaves are mostly out of luck at getting into Harvard already. Under a class-based system, affirmative action beneficiaries like Michelle Obama would be totally swamped by smarter, harder working white and Asian kids from the same lower-middle class background as her.
Obama's wife has been in the affirmative action racket for years, running various well-paid "diversity" programs at the U. of Chicago medical center. So, Sen. Obama knows exactly how little affirmative action does for poor blacks; he knows how it's a payoff for affluent blacks like, say, the Obamas.
The idea that Obama would divert this gravytrain is ridiculous. The only reason he ever feints in the direction of non-racial quotas is because he knows how ridiculous affirmative action for the rich sounds to the naive public.
When Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate this greatly increased Michelle's worth in the racial preferences shakedown market. Her salary shortly went from $122k to $317k. In spite of this (or because of this) Michelle Obama has resentment toward white folks.
We are going to have an interesting next 4 years.
SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia, May 4 -- Bolivia's wealthiest region voted Sunday to distance itself from the central government, directly defying President Evo Morales with a measure that aims to give local authorities more power over resources.
Morales had urged his supporters to ignore the referendum, but turnout was unofficially reported at 61 percent. Multiple exit polls suggested Sunday about 85 percent of Santa Cruz voters voted in favor of the proposal, but final results were not expected before Monday.
The measure directs Santa Cruz authorities -- mainly business leaders who detest Morales's socialist initiatives -- to take more control of locally produced tax revenue, police forces and property ownership administration.
The Santa Cruz voters would be better off if Bolivia split into two pieces.
On the second page of the article the Washington Post reporter mentions the racial split that is at the heart of this political conflict.
Like Morales, many of those protesters were born in the country's western highlands and claim Aymara or Quechua Indian ancestry. Many autonomy leaders, however, are of European descent.
The more economically productive Euroes do not want to get shafted by the Amerinds. Bummer for the Euro Bolivians. Being members of a more successful group can set you up for persecution unless you are the overwhelming majority.
But 62% of Bolivia's population are Amerinds and the whites are best understood as a market dominant minority as explained in Amy Chua's World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability.