A New Color Line
Ron Brownstein has an interesting piece about the gap in public opinion between whites and non-whites. But I think a lot of the analysis would benefit from additional demographic controls:
Only four in 10 whites say they support the health care reform legislation in Congress, compared with three-fourths of nonwhites. And just 30 percent of whites, compared with 45 percent of nonwhites, say that an Obama-like agenda of public investment in education and technology offers the nation its best chance at long-term prosperity. Far more whites than nonwhites would bet on a conservative approach of tax cuts and deregulation. The starkest finding of all is that three-fifths of nonwhites (including three-fourths of African-Americans) believe that Obama’s agenda will increase opportunities for people like them; but a plurality of whites — 38 percent — say his agenda will decrease their opportunities. College-educated white men believe, by 2-to-1, that Obama’s approach is reducing their prospects.
There are a lot of demographic differences between whites and non-whites. This raises a lot of interesting issues as to the extent to which non-racial issues are driving these differences. Are uninsured whites much less supportive of health insurance than uninsured non-whites? Do wealthy Latinos support tax cuts?
62 Responses to “A New Color Line”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 24th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Steve Sailer bait
Far more whites than nonwhites would bet on a conservative approach of tax cuts and deregulation.
Jesus. Fool me once, shame on… you can get fooled again!
In 20 years, everybody will know that Reagan was a great president, and that the government agency FreddieFannieMacNegro caused the Great Recession.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
This Heeb has always insisted that he’s not white: an Oriental Semite, thank you. Sweet vindication!
October 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Probably related to socio-economic conditions more than race.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
This also raises questions of partisanship (whites skew Republican, especially white men), and class (nonwhites skew poor).
October 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Note the “college educated men” numbers. People have this trailer-trash stereotype of racists and wingers, but a lot of them are educated and prosperous.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Healthcare remains one of the last bastions of tacit segregation in the US. Simple as that.
Are uninsured whites much less supportive of health insurance than uninsured non-whites?
What I do know is that those Blue Dogs representing districts with large numbers of uninsured white adults — and a lot of Blue Dogs fall into that category — seem unwilling to support anything that would help those people get affordable coverage.
As one blog commenter said, there are lots of Americans who’d gladly live under a bridge eating sparrows on sticks roasted on an open fire if it came with the promise that Those People under the bridge with them couldn’t have any ketchup.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
This also raises questions of partisanship (whites skew Republican, especially white men), and class (nonwhites skew poor).
Particularly southern whites. MattY is including among “whites” one of the most knee-jerk Republican-voting demographics in the country. Of course they’re going to — surprise! — support Republican policies.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Most non-whites probably see the public option, tax payer supported health care program is just another tax whitey and give the money to non-whites program that the Democrats have a long history of supporting and delivering.
Also, given the elimination of private sector jobs and a massive increase in the number of government workers will help non-whites more than whites since non-whites are massively over represented in government employment.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
It’s not that tough to figure out. Those who will see their taxes raised and benefits cut are not in favor of Health Care reform. While those who don’t pay taxes anyway but will see a boost in benefits are in favor.
Perhaps those two groups break down on racial lines. It’s not exactly rocket science that people like free stuff, but don’t like paying for free stuff for other people.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I think half the Steve Sailor posts are fake.
Matt, I think this is more a class and cultural difference as well as a race issue. Many working class whites see just about any type of social welfare as “handouts for the n^%&%&rs” while many minority people have genuinely benefited from such programs in a place of need. One group sees government driven programs or initiatives as losing something, other groups are apt to see it as a social benefit.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Why do white hipsters continue to insist it is working class whites who present the greatest opposition to the liberal agenda. Democrats in general and President Obama in particular receive much more support from whites earning under 50K (primarily women) than whites earning over 50K. Instead of posting ridiculous nonsense about trailer parks and racist laborers why not try to convince your parents that they should stop supporting the Republicans.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
“This raises a lot of interesting issues as to the extent to which non-racial issues are driving these differences.”
You don’t say.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
It’s not that tough to figure out. Those who will see their taxes raised and benefits cut are not in favor of Health Care reform.
Who, pray tell, are the people who “will see their taxes raised and benefits cut”?
October 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
When Laurie Longhorn looks at Washington, she sees a hand reaching into her wallet. Longhorn is 46, white, and an employee of a grocery store in Umatilla, Ore. To her, Obama’s agenda is defined by handouts — to poor people and big companies. “The millions and millions he’s bailing out, none of it is getting down to the people who need it,” she says. “He’s bailing out large corporations, and we’re footing the bill.
The quote provided does not mention ‘handouts to the poor’ at all. Pretty shoddy work by Brownstein.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Um, there’s nothing remotely close to news about this. White folks, as an aggregate, are ALWAYS against pretty much anything that would benefit black folks.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
First, they came for the universal single-payer, but nobody spoke up for it, so they killed it.
Then, they came for the robust Public Option, and even though two-thirds of American citizens spoke up for it, they still killed it, watered it down, neutered it.
And then they came for the 44,000 U.S. citizens who die each year because they lack any health insurance, private or public, and killed them, 44,000 dead, each and every year.
Adn then these murderers of U.S. citizens counted their profits and headed gleefully off to their bank to deposit their blood-stained lucre, laughing alongside all the politicians, these “public servants,” and their political operatives, that they’d bought, hired assassins out to kill any healthcare reform.
And out of these 44,000 American citizens who die each year, men, women and children, due to inadequate or nonextistent health insurance, how many are white, Republican, working-class stiffs?
October 24th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The quote provided does not mention ‘handouts to the poor’ at all. Pretty shoddy work by Brownstein.
More then shoddy, I call it a flat out lie
October 24th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I think it would be useful to break down further the non-whites to see what the differences are between Asians, blacks, and Latinos.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
One thought: a higher percentage of whites are of Medicare age and no longer have anything to gain from health care reform legislation.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Agree with Glaivester on breaking down the “minority” or “non-white” sample into black, Asian and Latino and also think it would be worth breaking down the white sample by income, age and region.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:19 am
#3 said:
I think you’ve missed the point. Race, socioeconomic and class issues are difficult so separate in the minds of many (most?) voters. That is to say that ethnicity distorts socioeconomic issues in the minds of the public. This is why, until recently, Europe has had an easier relationship with egalitarianism. During WWII, with it’s mass displacements, and after with the general sense of national (and ethnic) unity throughout (not to mention the very real competition from communism): social welfare was an easy proposition. As I’ve said here before a multicultural, multiethnic society seems to be in conflict with an egalitarian one. A synthesis is not impossible (I hope), but will be difficult; anything worth doing usually is.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:15 am
And while predictable, it’s still always lulz to see white folks’ immediate reaction: “Quick! Come up with some reason – ANY reason why it’s not racist!”
lololol!
October 25th, 2009 at 3:15 am
And while predictable, it’s still always lulz to see white folks’ immediate reaction: “Quick! Come up with some reason – ANY reason why it’s not racist!”
lololol!
October 25th, 2009 at 3:37 am
uh… maybe because that is exactly what it is?
American liberals interpreted Obama’s victory as meaning that white Americans were mostly down with forking their cash over to blacks and hispanics. Nothing could be further from the truth. It will ultimately be racial resentment that brings down Obama.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:30 am
@Otis the Sweaty #24,
Actually, it will ultimately be racial resentment that brings down America. As Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” That man was a prophet.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Racist swine, all of you.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Wow — this really lit a tinderbox.
But I’ve seen and heard just too many surveys based on questions not fairly posed, to take a controversial ’survey’ finding such as the subject, at face value.
Methinks this survey was designed to create dissent and division. Just what were the actual questions used in this survey?
October 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
@23 also entirely predictable, the privileged hipster who over compensates by being all down on the internets
October 25th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I echo Tyro’s concern that we’re not controlling for region. This is one set of topics on which it is crucial — empirically, at least — to determine the tendencies among Southern whites and nearly all other whites. The divergence of white Southerners strongly from political tendencies in other parts of the country is neither imaginary nor insignificant.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:14 am
another voice here calling for regional breakdown. I have a feeling that if you exclude the south these numbers would look a lot different for whites.
The south really is like a foreign country when it comes to these kinds of questions. And I don’t think it’s good for the entire country to be held hostage to the narrow provincial views of that one region trying to impose its own small mindedness on the rest of the country.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“El Cid”, resident liberal, has concerns about Brownstein’s racial science not being sophisticated enough to his taste. Likes the word “tendencies” – nice touch. What a comedy.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Agreeing with UG agreeing with El Cid agreeing with Tyro.
Though some are terrified by the scary, scary data, the fact remains that southern white Christians have political tendencies that make them extreme outliers, and skew the curve if they are lumped in with anyone else.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Abb1: ““El Cid”, resident liberal, has concerns about Brownstein’s racial science not being sophisticated enough to his taste.”
This misunderstanding on Abb1’s part has come up in past discussions of race on this blog, so let me break it down.
“Racial science” would be saying that a person’s race (WHICH YES WE KNOW IS A MEANINGLESS CONCEPT OKAY) could predict their behavior, their success in various endeavors, their political views, etc, independent of any other context (social, geographical, historical).
What we’re doing is not prescriptive, but descriptive: discussing how race, AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT NOT A REAL BIOLOGICAL THING, tends to predict a person’s behavior, success, political views, etc., *in its social/geographical/historical context.* What El Cid is calling for is not more precise “racial science”—on the contrary, he’s pointing out that race is probably less of a factor than geography and cultural divisions in this case.
There’s nothing categoristic or essentialistic at all about what we’re talking about, so it’s wrong to call it “racist.” Racism is believing in essential racial differences, whatever they are. What we believe is that, since race is a social construct, there are likely to be demographic differences between groups of people who share different social constructions, and that knowing about these differences (where they exist; there are many false positives) can help us eliminate them when they’re negative. The difference you’re talking about isn’t racism versus non-racism, it’s pragmatism versus utopianism, so please get off your high horse.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Tomemos, your descriptive racial science is still silly and tasteless. And if you don’t believe in essential racial differences, what’s the point of all this nonsense?
October 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
What about the most basic demographic control possible, namely age? I have to assume that even among conservative, white, college-educated men the under-30 crowd will overwhelmingly support some variant of Obama’s agenda, because it unequivocally increases their opportunities from the abyss they’re in now. Their preferred variant may be less drastic and/or less immediate, because (I think it’s a safe assumption) they’re disproportionately likely to still be gainfully employed, but the pressures on the young impact all of us regardless of socioeconomic status.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“And if you don’t believe in essential racial differences, what’s the point of all this nonsense?”
I think I covered that in my comment, but I’ll give it another go:
1) To make it possible to address cases of racial discrimination, which can’t be addressed unless we acknowledge that such discrimination takes place. Even if you don’t believe in considering race, racists surely do.
2) To find alternative explanations for racial disparities than that favored by scientistic racists like Steve Sailer—that is, that the races are genetically and essentially different.
3) To find out the truth about how are society is constructed, which is a good in itself.
Your statement that only essential differences, rather than socially constructed ones, matter is, as I said above, utopian. There’s nothing invalid about a pragmatic approach that looks at how our world is, rather than how we want it to be.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
abb1 gets hired as a bank examiner/equal opportunity officer.
She goes into a bank, and looks over the demographic data for its loan applicants.
She discovers that 90% of white applicants had their mortgages approved, and 90% of black applicants had theirs denied, despite the two groups having identical income and credit scores.
She writes up a report stating that the bank appears to be approving and denying mortgages in a completely inexplicable, random fashion, then goes home and pats herself on the back for not being a racist. No action is taken by the equal opportunity commission.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
on October 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, John Emerson wrote:
Right. Like Glenn Reynolds, and for that matter, a lot of his readers.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
What does this bank story has to do with the stupid race-based opinion poll on health care? Absolutely nothing. As if people check their skin color before forming the opinion on healthcare policies.
If people complain that the bank discriminates, these complaints need to be examined, and, sure, if race statistics on lending practices of this particular bank help establish a pattern, they may be relevant.
But what’s the point of the statistic in the post? None whatsoever. If, indeed, essential racial differences don’t exist, then, obviously, it’s something else behind the correlation. Income, wealth, age, education, occupation, population density – something, or several things, most likely. Wouldn’t you like to know what they are? Well, you will never find out, because to you it’s always about meaningless “white vs black”.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“If, indeed, essential racial differences don’t exist, then, obviously, it’s something else behind the correlation.”
That’s the worst logic I’ve ever seen you use. You’re slipping terribly. Just because race is socially constructed, doesn’t mean that that social construction can’t play a role in people’s real political preferences. For instance: black Americans tend to be Protestant, and yet they tend to vote Democratic in much greater proportion than other Protestants. Furthermore, their religion tends to influence their votes on social issues, like gay marriage. That’s independent of other factors like income and so forth; obviously it’s not universal, essential, or for all time, but it tends to be true right now. Just because that isn’t an essential genetic feature of black people, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a real cultural difference influenced by a number of historical factors.
Gender is socially constructed too, yet women tend to be more liberal than men. What on earth is wrong with acknowledging that and finding out what we can about it.
“Income, wealth, age, education, occupation, population density – something, or several things, most likely. Wouldn’t you like to know what they are? Well, you will never find out, because to you it’s always about meaningless “white vs black”.”
I’m sorry, but can you read? Matt’s point was precisely that we should be looking for other factors, rather than overestimating the degree to which race plays a part (if at all). El Cid, who you made fun of earlier, was going further. You’re so entrenched in your ideological furrow that you can’t even see when people are being skeptical of the notion that race is a factor here.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
It may all be imaginary, and racist of me to mention, but it has been of quite high interest to the last 40 years of Republican leadership to note the apparent differential voting tendencies of Southern whites versus Southern blacks (or more properly those people self-identifying in polls by those categories), the first group having formed the basic unit of the Republican reconquest of national politics, the latter group among the most consistent Democratic voters of any voting groups.
In this sense, a gross regional breakdown variable would be a categorical variable, as opposed to other ways of representing geographical position (i.e., “number of miles from Washington DC” or “altitude”, etc).
In this case, region was the variable I thought would have a heavier weight than ascribed ethnic identity. But only a non-empirical nitwit would demand that surveys of actual political behavior exclude important variables which successfully predict those behaviors.
These successfully predictive and statistically significant variables would not represent an individual causal explanation as one might intend to find in physics or biology, but rather an impetus to look for explanatory contextual information.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
They are not being skeptical, they are just trying to fine-tune their stupid race-mongering, when its failure is too obvious. Instead of the dreaded “whites” they now have the dreaded “southern whites”, that’s all.
They are still trying to find a way to link people’s politics to their skin color. That is their “truthiness”, they just feel that it has to be the main factor. Though not for them personally, of course not. I’m sure “El Cid” doesn’t base this politics on his skin color, he just assume that everybody else (”southern whites” especially) does. Yeah, down there in the South, when a pollster calls, they look in a mirror and say: “ah, I’m white, therefore the answer is C”
black Americans tend to be Protestant, and yet they tend to vote Democratic in much greater proportion than other Protestants
Who said that being Protestant is a relevant factor in this? I certainly didn’t. I always say in the end it’s all about economics.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
abb1: If you cannot coherently reply to what I actually wrote, then either be nice and admit that you can’t, or admit that you don’t understand the issues being discussed, or admit that you cannot comprehend the difference between correlation and causation, or just don’t say anything. More likely the statistics would indicate, however, that you will continue repeating the same statements over and over with slightly different wording.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
It may certainly be true that you say that, but we should probably somewhat respect the empirical world and examine such assertions for ourselves based on the evidence, despite the volume and frequency with which you repeat assertions. Because adults would want to know under what circumstances economics has an impact, and how, because other smart people in history like Karl Marx would never be stupid enough to make such a gross, anti-intellectual statement.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
differential voting tendencies of Southern whites versus Southern blacks
It’s not race, it’s something else. A lot of people quite convincingly argue that there’s far more racism in the North than South. What about Boston busing riots? Flight to the suburbs? And yet they all vote Democratic, black and white. Talk about non-empirical nitwit.
And how do you explain Bill Clinton, your typical dreaded southern white man, who was (probably still is) more popular among blacks than any other politician in history, including Obama.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“What about Boston busing riots? Flight to the suburbs? And yet they all vote Democratic, black and white.”
Yes, that’s right, we were saying that race is the only factor in determining someone’s vote, and also that racism has been unchanged in every region of the country for fifty years.
If that’s the level of reasoning and statistical precision you’re satisfied with, then it’s obvious you’re not interested in the truth, just in riding that ol’ hobby horse one more time, as I should have assumed.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Well, I hadn’t seen the poll that said that African Americans held Clinton in a higher regard than any other politician in history. Maybe it’s true.
But I don’t see what the question has to do with anything I wrote, nor how it is you even see it as a question.
What would it mean to “explain Bill Clinton”?
You’re just dumb. You make no points, you disagree with things people didn’t say, you think you’re making devastating points when it’s a nonsensical response to things which weren’t asserted, and all in defense of what you think is an anti-racist ideology but instead is just the most reflexive word play.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I’m interested in real cause-effect relations, and in the 2009 US of A race just isn’t one of them. I would say some combination of population density and income probably defines your vote, more or less. Population density is extremely important, because if you live in a small town or trailer park in the middle of nowhere the idea of the federal government being useful to you seems completely ridiculous (I imagine). But if you live in a city or a near-city suburb – that’s a different story. Republicans win small towns, remote suburbs, and the upper middle-class – the Democrats take the cities.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Well, El Cid, I think you’re dumb, so we are even. And I find your 47 to be a nonsensical response. What things weren’t asserted? What thing were? If this your defense, then go ahead and tell me what it is exactly you do assert, spell it out so that I don’t have to guess.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Who cares what ‘you would say’? You’re saying ‘fuck off racist’ to anyone who actually looks at any set of real world data including a range of variables on the X side of the equation, and then you draw back and announce a set of bullshit global rules you just pulled from your ass, because, you know, why the fuck not?
I would say that a combination of factors probably influences one’s vote. I is a skientist.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Being thought dumb by El Cid, and being thought dumb by abb1, is most certainly not “even.”
October 26th, 2009 at 12:43 am
As I’ve said before, abb1, there’s a reason why we like SLC more, even if the old boy is a bit of a lunatic when it comes to certain things.
It’s ’cause he’s not a completely idiotic asshole.
Didn’t we have a thread devolve into abb1 telling us nobody believes in race three weeks ago? Or was it last week? Or five?
I can’t remember, because it seems to happen all the time.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:01 am
So, once again, what is it exactly you assert, El Cid, so that you and your groupies here must look at your idiotic irrelevant racist “set of data” in which one being “white” or “non-white” somehow determines one’s opinion about healthcare?
I’m still waiting for your answer, my friend, but all I get is some silly insults. What’s wrong with this picture?
October 26th, 2009 at 3:03 am
no one thinks you are dumb joe, just a fraudulent ballwasher
who comments from Rahm’s lap.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:08 am
What are the similarities and differences between “predict” and “determine”? Why would you look for variables which tend to be strongly correlated with the behavior in which you are interested? Do you know? Do you not know? Have you ever thought about it? Do you want to know? Do you want to keep pulling grand piles of bullshit out of your ass and presenting it as coherent theories of human behavior based on nothing?
October 26th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Ah, this is a sorta like astrology, that kind of science. I see. Gosh, what a comedy.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am
It is not “sort of like astrology”, and that you cannot tell the difference between empirical sciences and mystical nonsense tells all. Just stop. This is really pathetic. You don’t know the slightest thing about anything, much less what science is or isn’t.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Bill Clinton, your typical dreaded southern white man
That’s a joke, right? Bill Clinton may be a southern white man, but he was very far from being a *typical* southern white man, especially when it came to his politics.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
but he was very far from being a *typical* southern white man, especially when it came to his politics.
Really? So, how did he manage to get himself elected Arkansas AG, and then governor of Arkansas a few times?
October 26th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I suppose it’s possible that there is someone who admires Abby so much that he leapt to her defense to insult me under a handle that has never been used before.
But I doubt it.
I need to correct my narrative about Abb1’s stint as an EEOC officer. I forgot to add the part where she accused the bank of being horribly racist – not for discriminating against mortgage applicants on the basis of race, but for collecting demographic information about their applicants in the first place.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Yawn.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Me and my friend were arguing about an issue similar to this! Now I know that I was right. lol! Thanks for the information you post. Please come visit my site Portland Business Services And Classifieds when you got time.